Talk:Plantation of Ulster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Nine-Years War[edit]

Domer I have found out how to see who's changed stuff and I see you added a link to the Nine-Years War. Unfortunately you linked it to the Nine-Years War of the later 17th century (Williamite War) rather than the war in question which occured at the end of the 16th century and beginning of the 17th. If you want to fix it to the correct war please work away, I'm not sure how to do the links yet, if I work them out I'll fix it myself.

I see you were also looking for more citations in various places which I've added. Cyril Falls did indeed state that there were few towns in Ulster before the Plantation but, as it's an undisputable fact, many other authors have said the same. I've added another reference (P. Robinson) and removed the "according to Cyril Falls" bit, if more references are needed I'll find them!--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


I've edited large sections of the Plantation in Operation, Wars of the Three Kingdoms and Legacy sections.

Detailed references have been provided, mostly books including page numbers. If there are any disputes about these I'll happily provide quotes from the relevant pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talkcontribs) 15:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Copyright infringement?[edit]

Just passing through and noticed some familiar sentences.

For example, compare "Because of political uncertainty in Ireland, and the risk of attack by the dispossessed Irish, the undertakers had difficulty attracting settlers (especially from England). This meant that they were forced to keep Irish tenants, destroying the original plan of segregation between settlers and natives. " (Paragraph 2 of 'The Plantation in Operation')

with the first part of paragraph 4 of

and "In the 1630s many Scots went home after King Charles I of England forced the Prayer Book of the Church of England on the Church of Ireland, thus compelling the Presbyterian Scots to change their form of worship. In 1638, an oath was imposed on the Scots in Ulster, 'The Black Oath', binding them on no account to take up arms against the King." (Paragraph 2 of 'The Wars of the Three Kingdoms and Ulster Plantation')

with some of paragraph 6 of the same page.

I have no idea who came first and since each page has additional information that the other doesn't, it seems likely that one author of one page did a poor job of paraphrasing some content from the other page. Anyone have an opinion or feel like re-writing the identical sections so that Wikipedia ensures it is taking the high road? Tre1234 08:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


Actually Gerry Adams might not be of Planter origin, considering a huge number of Irish Gaelic names were Anglicised due to British laws designed to stamp out Irish culture, and to the fact thatpeople who became English speakers would often change their surnames. Adams may originally have been "McAdam".

I have undone the hatchet job of an edit on the legacy section preformed last November 2008. I am not a regular Wikipedia editor, so i would appreciate if a regular editor could have another look and make sure all is ok. I would regard the Plantation of Ulster as having a stricking bearing on the history of this island, and therefore as having an important and far reaching legacy with should be covered properly in this article. The previous edit simply stated that there was no legacy. None at all. Period!?!?! Itsmjlynch (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't remove sourced and referenced text just because you don't like it. --Domer48'fenian' 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I have again undid this hatchet job of an edit. Sourced and referenced it may be, but hardly NPOV, and as such is not to unwikipedia standards. Could you or someother editor provide a blanced and informative section on the legacy of the plantation, rather then the previous "there is no legacy" edit? What's the point in having this section then? Itsmjlynch (talk) 12:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Jdorney and Parkwell for the input. I think that this section now has a viable starting point. The rest of the article reads quite well, but this section still needs to be improved (I note lack of references). As stated before, I am not a regular wikipedia editor, but i can give it a go if no-one else wants to? Itsmjlynch (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourced and referenced it is, and as per WP:V and WP:RS. --Domer48'fenian' 16:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney, if I may, there a editors here on wiki who go to some trouble to reference the information which appears on articles. I don’t think I need to go to the trouble of explaining the ins and outs of WP:V and WP:RS. Suffice to say they are there for a reason. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. Now the information I removed was tagged in November 08, more than a reasonable amount of time you’ll agree. You reverted, without discussion, and suggested that “its generally known” as if that was some form of mitigation. Its not! I suggest you now reference the information, or self revert. --Domer48'fenian' 19:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Well lets go get some good references then, even if it is just to state the obvious, and leave the hatchet back under the bed :). the article is reading a hell of alot better now after Jdorney, Parkwell and Dormer48 revisions. My own 2c worth is that some parts still need to be reworked, in particular the "It is his contention that four out of the six counties planted were never part of “Orange” Ulster until the Partition of Ireland" line. This line doesen't make real sence. Should the word "planted" be replaced with "of Northern Ireland?" Also, I not sure the part about surnames is adding anything to the article; I wouldn't cry if it was removed. Otherwise, I think the section could be expanded slightly to feed into the wider subsequent political and social history. Comments/ Suggestions please? Itsmjlynch (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "planted" is correct, as in the title of the article "Plantation of Ulster." Northern Ireland however doesen't make real sense in this context because it did not exist. I agree that editors should get some good references, because it must be attributed to a reliable, published source.--Domer48'fenian' 22:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah Domer, we meet again. I fully agree that some facts need refs. However, what you've done is find a single author Who I confess I've never heard of) who disputes the generally held consensus and then deleted the latter. This is hardly in the spirit of sourcing material. You appear (for what reason I don't know) to be pushing a particular pov - ie that the plantation has nothing to do with the partition of Ireland rather than presenting facts to the reader. I cannot understand why you are arguing this, do you care to explain? But what the hell, lets reference it, if you insist.Jdorney (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jdorney, could I just point out that we don't agree that "some facts need refs." It is my view that all facts need refs. In that I'm supported by the community in the policies we have adopted and for very good reasons. Your view is that "its generally known" or “common knowledge” should be good enough for an encyclopaedia and I don't. That you have never heard of Thomas A. Jackson is regrettable, that you suggest he disputes the generally held consensus should make referencing much easier. I deleted unreferenced text, tagged since November 08, how long do you suggest it be left for? But then you think “it’s generally known" is good enough?
I have no intension of answering your personal comments on me and respectfully ask that you comment on content, not on the contributor. That’s not to suggest I’m not approachable, because I am, I just know from experience that commenting on a users motivation can get out of hand and undermine collaborative efforts. That two editors have different views creates a positive collaborative effort on an article in my opinion. All I request is that we support our views using referenced sources, so comments like “who disputes the generally held consensus” can not form the bases of a discussion. Because the standards applied to me on sources have in the past been very exacting, I expect the same from other editors. Exacting standards, has I believe made me a much better editor, benefits Wiki and therefore I don’t enter into articles I not familiar unless I’ve spent some time looking it up. That the internet forms such a small part of my sourcing, most of my sources are published based, I also expand reading lists on articles very quickly. I hope that my openness will have a positive effect, and that you will reciprocate in any collaborative efforts. --Domer48'fenian' 19:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You know your WP manual of style Domer, I'll give you that.

Look, all I'm asking is that you explain yourself. Citing one author ( I looked him up btw, very interesting, but hardly neutral or modern) with one, lets say unusual, pov, and deleting the existing text is no help to anyone.

On the subject of refs, it's impossible to reference every single line of text and anyway it would make articles unreadable. For example, if we were writing about Ireland, would we have to say, Ireland is a an island [citation needed], whose capital is Dublin [citation needed], located in western Europe [citation needed]? Where facts are not disputed, or rare, or controversial, there's no need for detailed citations. So in this case, ok we can ref it, it should be easy enough, but what I'm asking is why you want to delete this section? Do you not agree it? If not, why not? Then we can start talking about refs to explain the various positions.

At the moment you're just saying, 'its not referenced therefore it's not true' and refusing to talk about the issues. Jdorney (talk) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Like I said above, your view was that it is "generally known" yet you did not know Thomas A. Jackson. Having never read any of his work, or know anything about him till now, you can still tell me he is hardly neutral or modern with an unusual, pov. Ireland Her Own, was first published in 1946. It has been re-printed right up until 1991, not many history book you can say that about, and I know books. Now having looked up Jackson, how about providing sources for the text. You say he has an unusual, pov? What would that be? You say he is hardly neutral? Provide an author who is? You say he is not modern? Name a history author, who you think will still have a book being published 62 years at least from now? In short provide a source for the text. I’m not going to indulge you by addressing any more of your opinions.
“Where facts are not disputed, or rare, or controversial, there's no need for detailed citations.” Like I have said before any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source. You never heard of Jackson, yet his book has been around and published a lot longer than any modern history book. You never heard of Jackson, “who disputes the generally held consensus” you say, yet have not provided any source to challenge him? Provide a source which supports your opinion which says that Jackson disputes the generally held consensus. Provide a source that says that the unreferenced information I removed is the generally held consensus. I’ll now use this discussion as a reference to support my argument against responding to you when you continue to prevaricate when asked to provide a source. It is also an example of how editors can contrive an argument based on nothing other than their own opinion. Your detailed and varied views on an author you never heard of is a good example. --Domer48'fenian' 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Is there a point in there somewhere? Good faith sure aint what it used to be. Jdorney (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Jdorney blind reverts are no substitute for not providing references. Your edit summary is not accatable and uncivil. Inability to reference information, should not degenerate into unacceptable behaviour. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which you have now done twice. Our policies are there for a reason, and one of Wikipedia's core content policies. These policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles.--Domer48'fenian' 00:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Since you refuse to discuss the issues but prefer to engage in edits wars, Domer, (that was hardly a blind revert btw) here is the relevant directive from NPOV policy, I quote,

" In attributing competing views, it is necessary to ensure that the attribution adequately reflects the relative levels of support for those views, and that it does not give a false impression of parity. For example, to state that "according to Simon Wiesenthal, the Holocaust was a program of extermination of the Jewish people in Germany, but David Irving disputes this analysis" would be to give apparent parity between the supermajority view and a tiny minority view by assigning each to a single activist in the field."

Th article should acknowledge that you're citing a minority view - therefore the burden of proof is on you Domer. So I'm reverting. As for civil, I suggest you practice what you preach my friend 14:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Attributing competing views, is not unsourced commentary or opinions. You appear now to simply want to make a point and as I have pointed out above, been reduced to personal attacks and incilility. You have been afforded the oppertunity to provide sources, and the issues has been flagged since 2007. You have ignored the last two sections and discussions and blindly reverted. Stop now, --Domer48'fenian' 15:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy clearly is stated above. Supermajority view and a tiny minority view, priority goes to supermajority view over a tiny minority view. You are the one disrupting the article. You stop. Jdorney (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

plantation of Ulster[edit]

It is interesting that while the figure of 4000 planters killed in the rising of 1641 is often quoted it is rarely mentioned that the plantation exercise involved the calculated slaughter of an estimated 30000 plus native irish ,men women and children, and subsequently under the Cromwellian " Hell or to Connaught "campaign thousands more were murdered and up to 60000 native Irish hunteddown by "Man catchers" to provide white slaves to be sold for thye sugar plantations and brothels of the Barbados not to mention the thousands others transported as indentured servants. The political mindset of Ulster Protestants is still that they civilised the inferior native Irish. Little wonder the native Irish continue to rise in rebellion on a regular basis in the province of Ulster. 06:13, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you follow some of the links to historical articles, you will find that the atrocitires of all sides in the 1640s are well covered. See Irish Rebellion of 1641, Irish Confederate Wars and Cromwellian conquest of Ireland.

However, there was no "calculated slaughter" before the plantion. It is true that the province was heavily de-populated by the Nine Years War (Ireland), where the English used scorched earth tactics, but no planned massacre. Cromwell's actions, as I have said are covered in the relevant articles. Don't know where you're getting your figures from though, apparently you know better than the specialist historicans working in the area? Jdorney 16:18, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It was just like north America, they murdered to get the land. Over a number of years thousand's of native Irish were killed, that's the plain and simple fact of the matter. (but they didn't kill us all, that was their biggest mistake) Culnacreann 21:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The Ulster Plantation was very different from the settlement of North America. In general the native Irish population were not driven from their lands and they were certainly not massacred! In America the natives were also decimated by European diseases, something that (for obvious reasons) never occured in Ulster.
  • Historians from A.T.Q. Stewart to Jonathan Bardon have all stressed the fact that the Irish remained in possession (but not ownership) of their land and the natives and the settlers actually lived in close proximity to eachother.
  • All in all I think this Wikipedia article is very fair and balanced.

Protestant Scottish Highlanders in Ulster[edit]

Did any Protestant Scottish Highlanders settle in Ulster? Where has it been stated that Protestant Scottish Highlanders settled in Ulster? I thought Ulster was planted exclusively by English and Lowland Scot settlers.

In the initial plantation in 1610 it was specified that the settlers had to be English speaking and Protestant, but in the decades that followed, many thousands more immigrants arrived from Scotland, many of whom were Gaelic speaking Highlanders. Not all of the Scots were Protestants either, the MacDonnell or MacDonald clan were Catholics and settled extensively in the north of county Antrim.

Jdorney 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response. Thank you very much for typing up this answer for me. It is very informative, enlightening and interesting.

This topic is quite interesting, I wonder how the native Irish responded to the Catholic highlanders moving to Ulster as opposed to the Protestant lowland Scots and English. -CM —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

"...the MacDonnell or MacDonald clan were Catholics and settled extensively in the north of county Antrim...". This is totally incorrect. The McDonnels had gained a foothold in north Antrim long before the plantation, they did not come as part of the plantation, they shared a common Gaelic culture with the native Irish, unlike their lowland Scottish neighbours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talkcontribs) 18:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Most Scottish "Lowlanders" shared arguibly more of a Gaelic past with the Gaels of Ulster than the Highlanders did , even the ones who by this point were no longer Gaelic speakers. Counties like Ayrshire, Renfrewshire and Stirlingshire were Gaelic in the Medieval period and George Buchannan from Stirlingshire, was a native Gaelic speaker (albeit one who shared the Stuart prejudice of the Rennaisance period against Gaelic Scottish culture). its possible that some Gaels went over due to prejudice at home and the chance of improving their circumstances. this was the reason after all, why so many Gaels and non Gaelic Scots and Irish travelled around the British empire and took part in many of the brutalities it inflicted on various indigenous communities. Ethnic minorities/majorities have traditionally played a key role in their own subjugation on the frontiers of new powers, whether in be Finnish peoples in the Swedish empire, or Bedouin in the IDF shooting BBC journalists filming their actions in Gaza. Its not worth the while for the inhabitants at the centre of these empires to move to dangerous new areas and be the frontiersmen. Easier by far to indoctrinate the aboriginals into seeing themselves and their interests as being in line with the new big player. Seamusalba (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Surely the Irish,who were defending their land against an English invasion,can't be called rebels,they were defending not rebelling.If there is no objection I'll delete the words rebels.--Jack forbes (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Women In American colonies[edit]

Actually there were a large number of white English females in the English North American settlements as evidenced by the small amount of Native American DNA found in modern white Americans unlike the Mexicans and other Latin Americans whose maternal DNA shows a significant Indian admixture. jeanne (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the early VA colony had more men in the beginning, but in contrast New England was characterized by being settled by families and young couples. VA did start to attract more women, but the colony had a higher mortality rate for years for both sexes than was the case in New England.--Parkwells (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Highland Clearances[edit]

Did any Protestant emigrants from the Scottish Highlands move to Northern Ireland as a result of the Highland Clearances and eventually become part of Ulster's Protestant community? Please let me know.

Scottish Gaelic Planters[edit]

I am going to amend the section entitled "Ulster Plantation and the Scottish Border Problem". In particular there are several problems with the following assertion - "Not all of the Scottish planters were Lowlanders, however, and there is also evidence of Scots from the southwest Highlands settling in Ulster. Many of these would have been Gaelic speakers like the native Ulster Catholics, continuing a centuries-old exchange".

Saying that evidence exists of highland Gaelic Scots being planted in Ulster is not the same as providing the evidence. Moreover, if there were Gaelic speaking highlanders planted in Ulster they did not come on the basis of the centuries old tradition of highlanders serving Irish chieftains and being rewarded with their own land and cattle. They, if they were planted, would have been part of a system which brought the previous Gaelic political, economic and social system to a complete end, whereas previously they fitted seamlessly into that system. The plantation put an end to the "centuries old exchange" between Gaelic Ulster and Gaelic Scotland, but it began a new era of exchange between Anglo Ulster and Anglo Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talkcontribs) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" -- Not[edit]

"The present-day partition of Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is largely as a result of the settlement patterns of the Plantations of the 17th century." That is not a fact requiring citation, being too freakin' obvious. Do we need a citation for the notion that the black population of America is largely originated by the importation of slaves? No -- innumerable sources take that for granted. Ditto the obvious foundation of Northern Ireland in the confessional differences established by the 17th-century plantations. ----Andersonblog (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that Andersonblog, however it dose need a citation, and I will be challanging the information based with a source which is both WP:RS and WP:V. Therefore I need the information sourced so I can attribute it to an author. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

On the same note, the article has had an inprove tag since September 07. Either the information is referenced or its removed. I'll leave it for a bit longer, since you are now intrested. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 14:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed some of the unreferenced text. I'll look at referencing some of the other sections. --Domer48'fenian' 23:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
The logical comparison with the black population would be to say that the Protestant population of Northern Ireland is largely originated by the Plantation, and not to go beyond that and say that partition was largely caused by the Plantation.
Firstly, the existence of a large Protestant population in Ulster does not result exclusively from the Plantation. Thousands of settlers came independently of the Plantation (possibly moreso than took part in the Plantation). And, by 1921, the majority of Protestants lived in Antrim and Down - counties that were outside the "settlement patterns of the Plantation".
Secondly, it does not follow automatically that either the Plantation or the existence of a Protestant population inevitably led to partition.
Now, I personally agree that the Plantation was a significant contributory factor in creating the circumstances which - 300 years later - led to partition. But that is simplistic and the making of such an assertion - especially one that says partition was largely a result of the Plantation - certainly requires a reference.
My personal view is that it would be accurate to say something like the existence of a large Protestant population in Ulster, distinct from the Catholic Irish population, and resulting in part from the Plantation, contributed to the creation of two irreconcilable ethnic groups in Ireland and ultimately to the circumstances leading to the creation of Northern Ireland in 1921.
But that is a personal view and I doubt such an assertion would be acceptable without references. Mooretwin (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you Mooretwin for your positive contribution. So at least we can all agree on the need for referencing. Another interesting aspect which you might consider, and is not currently in the article, is that the vast majority who took part in the 1798 rebellion were from the Protestant churches, and the founding leaders of Irish Republicanism were from the same background? --Domer48'fenian' 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the assertion that "the vast majority who took part in the 1798 rebellion" were Protestants needs a reference! In Antrim and Down, yes - not sure about elsewhere. Mooretwin (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Yes I can reference it, Catholics the laws against Catholics? Do you think we should add it in the Legacy section? --Domer48'fenian' 23:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Mooretwin (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In the Legacy section should we mention 1798? After all it was Planter decendants who formed the backbone of the Rebellion. So the question is, how did we get from the plantation, to 1798, to partition. --Domer48'fenian' 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Notes and references[edit]

It would be better to have just one form of notes or citations, rather than two.--Parkwells (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a go at the references, and removed the ref's not in use. Two will need page numbers.--Domer48'fenian' 17:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Could Editors please cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. Thanks, --Domer48'fenian' 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Good reading[edit]

Hi all

I have been reading this as I came across it in a random article search, lots of information I didn't know before !!

It has got me thinking a lot about the history of Ireland and how we English took advantage of those peoples closest to us. Anyway, keep up the good works. I did make some small changes to punctuation etc, but hopefully these are not too serious !

Cheers--Chaosdruid (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding text to referenced text[edit]

I've removed text which was tacked onto referenced material. Such as "The Plantation of Ulster is often considered the origin of sectarian strife in the northern Irish province. The Planters of the 17th century are often considered the ancestors of todays primarily Protestant Unionist community, who dsire to maintain the link with Britain." Compleatly unreferenced. As is "Conversely, the mostly Catholic Irish nationalist community is often thought of as being the descendant of the natives dispossessed by the Plantation." Likewise "It is also commonly held that Catholics tend to have Irish surnames while Protestants tend can be identified by English or Scottish ones." This also is incorrect "However, historian of 17th century Ulster John McCavitt has warned..." McCavitt has not warned anyone.

This was also added "The Plantation, as the origin of ethno-religious division in Ulster, is sometimes cited as being the long term cause of the Partition of Ireland in 1921." Who has cited it? This was just added without any attempt at referencing. The exact same thing was done here with this "However it has also been argued that the politics of modern Ulster unionists can be traced back no further than the late 19th century. And that, for example in the late 18th century, many Ulster Protestants subscribed to the seperatist nationalism of the Society of the United Irishmen. " Just simply adding text without any referencing.

I have requested references recently, which have still not been provided, and have asked again but to no avail. I can only ask yet again, could Editors please cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books. Thanks,--Domer48'fenian' 23:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yet again, this unreferenced opinion has been re-added to the article without any discussion. Edit warring is no substitute for referenced text. --Domer48'fenian' 13:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have again addressed the text as outlined above. While I now consider it disruptive to keep adding opinions dressed as fact, I have no alternative to cite policy. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is that this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable if they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered 'best practice' under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to cite sources. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article.[1] The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.--Domer48'fenian' 08:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Per WP Original Research, Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis; it is good editing. The best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking information from different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims on an article page in our own words, yet true to the original intent — with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.

I am not prsenting my opinions but summarising those expressed in the sources. The existing citations fully support the text. Thank you. Jdorney (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


I am going to clarify the final sentences of the "legacy" section:

"For example, it is often stated that Ken Maginnis surname is closer to original Irish than Martin McGuinness."

It should be noted that the pronunciation of both "Maginnis" and "McGuinness" is exactly the same and neither version is closer than the other to the original Irish orthography, which is "Mag Aonghusa".

"Another good example is Terence O'Neill former Prime Minister of NI, who is descended from the famous O'Neill clan in Ulster."

It should be noted that despite bearing the name of O'Neill, this line of the family in fact assumed the surname by Royal license in lieu of their original name Chichester. In turn, the Chichesters could trace the O'Neill part of their lineage through Mary Chichester, wife of the Reverend Arthur Chichester, rector of Randalstown, and daughter of Henry O'Neill of Shane's Castle. —Preceding unsigned

Provide references, you've been told often enough. --Domer48'fenian' 14:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

On the Maginnis point how can information on the comparision of the pronunciation and vocabulary of different languages be referenced? For example how would I reference the fact that the French word for "one" is "un" and is not pronounced as it would be in English? Would you want a reference to a French language course, so you can learn the difference yourself? That is pedantism gone mad. Anyway there a plethora of good reference books on Irish surnames, for example Edward McLysaght's Surnames of Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic Press, 1958, or the book of Ulster Surnames by Robert Bell. In order to correctly pronounce the surnames in Irish you would need to undertake an Irish language course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenreagh (talkcontribs) 15:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.--Domer48'fenian' 19:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Plantation in operation[edit]

In the above titled section the opening line says: “Throughout the 1500’s Ulster was severely underpopulated and underdeveloped.”[2] [3]

The question I have is what dose it mean Ulster was underpopulated and underdeveloped? Compared to where? When we say underdeveloped, do we mean that the feudal system had not been introduced? Is that the development that is being suggested? Unless there is some context added, it is meaningless.

The J. Bardon reference states unequivocally, "In 1558 Elizabeth had no plan to conquer Ulster, but ... Ulster with a sparse population and an underdeveloped economy, attracted the English...". The Perceval-Maxwell quote states that in Antrim in 1586, "the local Irish chieftain had insufficient people to inhabit the territory". There are plenty more refs that could be provided to back up this statement. Ulster was underdeveloped and underpopulated compared to the rest of Ireland and Britain, a population estimate has in fact been given later in the paragraph. There were no roads, very few towns, little tillage and a lot of the country was thickly wooded with substantial areas of bogland. The section goes on to discuss these issues and various references have been provided.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

“The inter-Gaelic and Anglo-Gaelic wars that occurred throughout the century undoubtedly contributed to depopulation.” Apart from being unreferenced, could we not be told what wars occurred, by whom and when?

References to Jonathan Bardon's A History of Ulster have been added. These discuss Shane O'Neill's scorched earth policies against his fellow Gaels from 1561 on, e.g. from page 78 "Rapidly and violently Shane reasserted his power across Ulster. In two devastating raids some thirty thousand O'Donnell cattle were seized, leaving the people of Tir Conaill starving on the highways. ... Shane ravaged the country ... destroying the harvest and cutting down over three hundred men, women and children." There is more like that on the referenced pages 76-79. From page 80 on Bardon discusses the pre-Nine-Years War English campaigns, "Sidney concentrated on destruction...corn was burned; cattle were rounded up and slaughtered." Again there are a lot more quotes like that on the referenced pages. I believe a mention of the wars (as background to Ulster's depopulation in the Plantation period) and a reference is all that's needed here as the section is discussing the Plantation in operation, not the 16th century wars.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The section begins with the 1500’s and then jump to the 1600’s leaving the reader not knowing which centaury were talking about. It needs to be clarified.

Dates can be added, I will work on this but I think it's pretty obvious what is being discussed and the time-frame.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

“During the plantation period Scots settlers tended to be the most determined” is again meaningless. The most determined in what.

The Scots settlers tended to be the most determined in clearing the land, planting crops and building houses. Referenced to Cyril Falls pages 196-197, "A few indeed, especially the enterprising Scots, were ready to start at once. The energetic Ridgeway had ... twelve labourers and their families, and at once began cutting stone, preparing boards, and setting up a water-mill...The Scots had an air of greater assurance and had brought more adherents with them ... they were already bargaining with the natives to supply their wants and promising in return to obtain licence from the King to keep them on their land as tenants" In contrast, "The English ... were for the most part plain country gentlemen, who did not give the impression that they had sufficient enterprise or resources for their task." Plenty more from Perceval-Maxwell for one would support the claim that the Scots were the most determined settlers.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Likewise “British Protestant immigrants arrived in Ulster through direct importation by undertakers to their estates and also by a more natural colonial spread to unpopulated areas, through ports such as Londonderry and Carrickfergus.”[4]. This sentence is all over the place with both “immigrants” and “colonial” could we have a direct quote to try untangle this web.

This sentence is not all over the place at all, it makes perfect sense, "immigrants" and "colonial" are not mutually exclusive words by any stretch of the imagination. I've added to the page references slightly (P.Robinson The Plantation of Ulster.) as the previous reference was to a diagram showing the processes of colonisation that cannot be easily quoted. Robinson discusses this extensively in in chapter 5, his brief summary on pages 118-119 states, "There are then, three basic processes by which an individual colonist in Ulster may be expeced to have arrived at any observed location...the colonist may have been introduced a plantation estate by a landowner or an agent acting on his behalf (direct plantation). Secondly the colonist may have moved to Ulster via any of the points of entry as a free agent, that is seeking the best and nearest land to his entry point and not being bound to settle on any particular estate (colonial spread). Thirdly, the colonist...could have originally arrived and settled elsewhere in Ulster, only later moving to the observed location...(internal migration)."--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

“Once in Ulster the incoming Protestants faced many difficulties.”[5] Difficulties, such as? Did they face the same “difficulties” as say the Presbyterians or additional ones?

Perceval-Maxwell discusses the difficulties of Ulster's countryside and inhabitants faced by the settlers in depth on pages 150-152. Forgive me if I don't write more out- the landscape and wood-kerne are discussed later in the section.
Presbyterians are Protestant- so they did indeed face the same difficulties, they were often known as dissenters (dissenting Protestants) but for the purposes of Plantation they were described as Protestants. It is a nothing argument to debate this point.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In short this section is all over the place. A bit of information is being thrown in here and there with neither context nor clarity. I’ll add some information which should provide some context and a little clarity over the coming days. --Domer48'fenian' 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree, I think it is well written and well referenced (even if I do say so myself). It gives a good overview of the Plantation in operation.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody (perhaps Domer? I forget how to check) has edited the section again. However they got the references messed up slightly, referencing the wrong pages in some cases and putting incorrect references beside statements in others. I've tidied the section up again, if a need is felt to edit it please get the references correct.

In my opinion there is no need to go into the detail of the 16th century Irish wars in a section entitled "Plantation in Operation". A bit of background to the situation (properly referenced) is all that's needed- this has been given. I've accordingly removed the details of the wars- maybe they could be added to the relevant pages about the wars themselves?

I've also removed detail about the determination of the Scottish settlers. I have however added another reference to Bardon who uses almost the same wording, "The English had more capital but the Scots were the most determined planters..."- not a meaningless statement at all as has been claimed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix 1958 (talkcontribs) 15:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I've altered a bit of the wording in the concluding section, moving Hamilton and Mongomery links to the top of the section where they are first mentioned. The nature of the Antrim and Down settlement has been mentioned several times so a brief (referenced- as usual more can be provided if needs be) mention of it's success is more apt here.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 17:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I used your references and page numbers, outlined in your post above.
You didn't, for statements regarding the inter-Gaelic wars you referenced the wrong pages in Bardon's book (80-83 instead of 76-79) and you put the D.A. Chart reference in the wrong place.

There is a need for detail on the 16th century Irish wars as it was introduced into the section, some detail is needed. A bit of background to the situation (properly referenced) is all that's needed- this has not been given. Again what does the Scots were the most determined planters actually mean? You yourself above had to explain what it meant above, so how is the reader of the article to know? I'll start to add alternative views first chance I get, well referenced and correctly sourced as is the norm with me. --Domer48'fenian' 17:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

"...most determined in clearing and developing the land" is how I've left it. Bardon seems to believe, "the Scots were the most determined Planters" is an easily understood form of words in a book described as the fullest and fairest history of Ulster. Adding stuff is fine but try not to change the existing references around so that they're innaccurate.
The 16th century Irish wars were the background to the plantation. They were not the plantation itself. They have accordingly been mentioned and referenced- there is no need for more info on them here- why not add it to the Nine-Years War page or other related pages?--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


Somebody has edited the entire section and removed a lot of references. Why? I have changed it back.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Somebody has edited the entire section? Just click on the history tab! No references were removed! --Domer48'fenian' 18:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well it's back to the previous references now anyway. The majority of the references had been removed. I'm sure that goes against wikipedia guidelines unless there is a good reason.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please provide one reference which was removed? Telling pork pies goes against wikipedia guidelines and there is never a good reason for it. Saying you can't find the article history but are able to find the undo tab says so much to editors. --Domer48'fenian' 19:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I know nothing about the undo tab. I have a copy of the previous version saved as a microsoft word document. Numerous references have been removed. As of now the page is missing many references that were in before- too many to list here. I'm going to change it back to the fully referenced version once more. If they are removed again, I'll be reporting it.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have been asked to support an accusation and have refused! Now again, no reference has been removed and I have tidied the unsightly mess you've made. Now report away, or do you need to be pointed in that direction also. --Domer48'fenian' 20:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I see what has been done, the references have been condensed into a single link for numerous texts. There is no need for this and it is not generally done on Wikipedia pages from those I have read. It obscures the picture suggesting there is only one reference for each statement.
In addition mistakes have been made where references have been moved around. For instance I provided one reference for the land settled by Planters as being described as "overgrown"(Bardon), three references for the land settled being described as "wilderness" (Bardon Perceval-Maxwell, Hanna, )and two for it being described as "virgin"(Perceval-Maxwell, Falls). These have been moved and instead there is only one reference left for the entire sentence(Falls). Similar mistakes(?) have been made throughout. I am thus changing the section back to the previous version.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR, and again, no references have been removed. --Domer48'fenian' 20:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps none were removed but they were moved, as I have outlined above, obscuring the details provided. As I have also stated it makes no sense to condense the many references I have provided into single links. I have an idea what is being done here and even more so now that I have been seemingly caught out by the three revert rule.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to elaborate here to indicate how I feel the references are being misrepresented.
In my version a sentence read, "Most settled on uninhabited, unexploited land,[6][7] often building up their farms and homes out of overgrown terrain[8] variously described as, “wilderness”[9] [10] [11] and, “virgin” ground.[12][13]"
The above gave two references for the land being uninhabited and unexploited(Gillespie and Stewart), one for it being overgrown(Bardon), three for it being wilderness(Bardon, Perceval-Maxwell, Hanna) and two for it being virgin(Perceval-Maxwell, Falls). In the latest version all but one of these assorted references have been moved to the end of another sentence entirely, to which they bear no relation. We are left with only one reference (Falls) covering the various statements made in this sentence. This of course leaves this sentence open to twisting by adding something like, "In Fall's opinion..." when it would be nothing of the sort. The version with separate links to each reference was much more accurate and easily understood and avoided these sorts of errors.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You have on three occasions on this tread said that the references were removed, they were not, only now do you accept this! Condensing the multiple references is nothing new and in no way obscures details so stop talking nonsense. I don’t give a rats ass what you think is being done, and I won’t bother reminding you of WP:AGF. Now I provided you enough links on your talk page to prevent your ignorance of our policies from being used as mitigation. You have not been caught out by the 3 revert rule, only made aware of it. Now I’ll also make you aware of WP:SYN, and suggest you read it, as your current style of referencing could be construed in the wrong way, however as my condensing suggest, I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt. --Domer48'fenian' 22:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I realise the references have not been entirely removed. The references have been moved to a different sentence to which they bear no relation! Try reading my explanation above. Condensing the references in this case makes no sense at all as each of the references relate to different parts of each sentence- this obscures meaning.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Your condensing may be giving me the benefit of the doubt but it is also innacurate (see above)! I have not been commiting synthesis of published sources at all. In the above sentence regarding the terrain that the planters settled for example (which you have misreferenced) each of the references supports a certain part of the sentence but each of the referenced pages also support the overall picture given in the sentence. Forgive me if I don't write out the entire pages. I can only reiterate the opinion that uncondensed references are much clearer and less open to being twisted.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Any chance of you fixing the references for the above sentence Domer or am I allowed to?--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 22:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
I've corrected the references for the above sentence.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
One question Domer, may I ask why you have felt the need to condense the references when in most other wikipedia pages (even in other sections of the same page) they are uncondensed?--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Domer you advised me to read the bit on synthesising refs, which I did. It states...

"Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." This is what I have attempted to do throughout the section through the use of uncondensed references. Condensing the references confuses the situation about what is referenced to where.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

None of the references have been moved to a different sentence to which they bear no relation! Like your previous accusation of them being removed, which you begrudgingly accept now to be untrue so to with this latest one. Please explain how my condensing of the references on this obscures the meaning of the sentence?
I made a mistake about the references being entirely removed. If you had have informed me that you'd condensed the references I might not have made this mistake. However some references were moved to the next sentence to which they bore no relation. This was perhaps an honest mistake. I have moved them back to the end of the correct sentence.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Most settled on uninhabited, unexploited land,[14][15] often building up their farms and homes out of overgrown terrain[16] variously described as, “wilderness”[17] [18] [19] and, “virgin” ground.[20][21]
  • Most settled on uninhabited, unexploited land, often building up their farms and homes out of overgrown terrain that has been variously described as, “wilderness” and, “virgin” ground.[22]
My condensing is giving you the benefit of the doubt, and there is no may about it. However I may be innacurate if for example all the sources did not agree that most of the land settled was uninhabited or unexploited? If they don't I'm wrong, but you put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by all of the sources and that is WP:SYN. So the question is now have you been commiting synthesis of published sources, like you say yourself, "each of the references supports a certain part of the sentence but each of the referenced pages also support the overall picture given in the sentence." --Domer48'fenian' 08:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not look at examples I have provided above in the Plantation in Operation discussion and see if they constitutue synthesis of published sources? Of course they do not.
The wikipedia guidelines, that you provided state that, "Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim." This is what I have done throughout the section. Uncondensed sources make this clear and therefore better relate to wikipedia guidelines than condensed sources.
An example, "The inter-Gaelic[23] and Anglo-Gaelic,[24] wars that occurred throughout the century undoubtedly contributed to depopulation.[25]" In this sentence each claim made is attributable to a source that directly makes the claim. Bardon on pages 76-79 discusses the inter-Gaelic wars(see above), on pages 80-83 he discusses the anglo-Gaelic wars (in both cases the sources show how the wars would have contributed to depopluation)and finally Canny provides more evidence that the wars contributed to depopulation which is the direct claim made at the end of the sentence. In your condensed version the sources would all be grouped at the end of the sentence and would not be directly attributable to each separate claim made.
Another example, "Most settled on uninhabited, unexploited land,[26][27] often building up their farms and homes out of overgrown terrain[28] variously described as, “wilderness”[29][30] [31] and, “virgin” ground.[32][33]" This is a sentence with three separate claims although the last two are closely related. The claims are namely that the land settled was uninhabited and unexploited, that the settlers often built up their homes and farms from overgrown land and that the land they built their farms up from was described as wilderness or virgin ground. The claim at the beginning, (Most settled on uninhabited, unexploited land) is directly attributable to the sources beside it, Gillespie (see link) and Stewart pg.40-41 "The Scots and to some extent the Irish themselves, operated within the strong framework of the plantation, taking over the unexploited land and seeking a livelihood by making it productive." We then move on to different claims. That the settlers settled on overgrown land is directly attributable to Bardon pg 179 "Protestants who had built their farms up from overgrown, unfenced land...". That the settlers built up their homes and farms from wilderness is directly attributable again to Bardon pg 314, "their undertaker forebears had been granted the uncultivated wastes during the plantation and it had been the tenants and their descendants ... who had carved out fertile farms from the wilderness"; Perceval-Maxwell pg 29, "develop the wilderness in Ulster" and Hanna pg 182, "The sturdy Scots, who in five generations had reclaimed Antrim from the wilderness, saw the farms which they and their fathers had made valuable...". The claim that the land was virgin is directly attributable to Perceval-Maxwell pg.132 "While a few planters enjoyed the advantage of having ruins on their land around which they could build ... this was unusual. Thus generally proportions were in a virgin-state at the beginning." and Falls pg. 201 who describes a settler arriving on the land to develop it and describes it as "virgin fields".

It is clear from these examples that I have not been synthesising sources. I have never used sources to say that A + B = C. I have provided references directly attributable to the claims made as is recommended under wikipedia guidelines. I repeat that the condensed references will confuse this situation. Uncondensed references better adhere to wikipedia guidelines.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to waste any more time on you. You have said yourself "each of the references supports a certain part of the sentence but each of the referenced pages also support the overall picture given in the sentence." Now either they also support the overall picture given in the sentence or they don't. If in a sentence you put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by all of the sources then that is WP:SYN. It's as simple as that! --Domer48'fenian' 15:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Try reading my explanation above. I have never, "put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion". All conclusions I have have reached have been directly supported by references, and usually more than one. Most references do broadly support the full sentence but there is often more than one claim in any one sentence and this is why uncondensed sources are better, as each reference relates explicitly to each claim.
I repeat the wiki guidelines you provided once more, "Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. My uncondensed sources mean that each claim is directly attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim.
I have requested help on this matter from other editors.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Canvassing, because it appears from this, this and this you are forum shopping. Now I have provided you all the links you need on your talk page on how to edit and I have tried to keep you out of trouble. I've used the talk page, here and here but one only has to look at your last comment of "I would like to see the section returned to my version" to see what the problem is.--Domer48'fenian' 15:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I was attempting to get help editing which is one of the methods advised in settling disputes. I did not realise that this was also termed canvassing. Hopefully some other editors can help. I realise that "to my version" was a bad choice of words, what I would like to see is uncondensed referencing (which at the moment amounts to the same thing!) because it clearly best adheres to the wikipedia guidelines which you provided. You cannot seriously think that the condensed references are more accurate? I have provided various examples above, read through them and see what you think.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Per my comments above. --Domer48'fenian' 21:01, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I repeat that the uncondensed references better adhere to wikipedia guidelines. I would be glad if an independent editor could read through the examples I have provided above. I am confident they will realise that I have not been synthesising sources and that uncondensed references better make, "each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. Re. Ownership: I fully realise that I do not have ownership of this page and that changes are inevitable. I would however like to make sure that work that I have submitted is properly referenced.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Who said you've been synthesising sources? Yeh that's righ no one the opposit in fact! One would now have to question your honesty or ability to read. "Domer then suggested I might be synthesising sources" is very very dishonest! Likewise saying I removed sources was, but we now know that was not true either. --Domer48'fenian' 23:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Domer I've admitted that you didn't delete references entirely but you did condense them needlessly and not explain what you had done. I hope someone will check the history and see how you also moved sources around so that they were no longer beside the correct claims- perhaps this was unintentional but it was done. You also suggested that I had committed synthesis of published sources, your suggestions are in the text above. You've accused me of being dishonest at least twice now- I have never knowingly been dishonest in any of my editing activities.
I now see exactly why you've condensed sources- so you can add text referenced to only a single source, thus suggesting that it has parity to the text referenced to multiple sources. In addition the text you have added does not at all relate to the Plantation in Operation.
Nevertheless I would like to make an attempt at reconciliation. If we work together we can perhaps make the page better. I would suggest moving the text regarding the 16th century Irish wars to it's own section, "Background to the Plantation" might be a good title. I can provide more referenced details to this regarding the both the Anglo-Gaelic wars wars and the inter-Gaelic wars. I would also suggest that uncondensed sources better reflect the balance of historical opinion on the matter as well as better adhering to wikipedia guidelines on referencing.--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You've "admitted that I didn't delete references" well that’s grand. I did not condense them needlessly and I did explain what I had done. I moved multiple sources to the end of each sentence, you yourself said "each of the references supports a certain part of the sentence but each of the referenced pages also support the overall picture given in the sentence" so your argument is nonsensical. Now your claiming that I have suggested that you have “committed synthesis of published sources” which is very dishonest because I say quite clearly “my condensing is giving you the benefit of the doubt, and there is no may about it. I have accepted you saying that "each of the references supports a certain part of the sentence but each of the referenced pages also support the overall picture given in the sentence." What I’m doing is called assuming good faith. So stop trying to twist things around, it raises a question as to your honesty.

Which brings us to your latest accusation, of why I condensed sources, and yet another of your assumption of bad faith. Lets first illustrate how stupid and idiotic your suggestion is! If an editor clicks on the reference on the end of a sentence, the page drops to the references and shows you who it is referenced too. So the reader can see straight away either a single source or multiple sources. So your petty small minded accusation is utterly ridiculous. Now the text I’ve added challenges directly some of the information you’ve added, in particular on the population. It goes some way to explain why the population was reduced which you ignore. In addition, it was Elizabeth who first introduced the penal laws, which were in addition to putting penalties on Catholics were designed to inhibit Irish trade. So that will be getting added to address the issue of underdevelopment. Now I’ll be adding a lot more referenced text, so you reference away add as much information as you can. --Domer48'fenian' 11:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello again Domer. I don't see how your text challenges directly what I've added. I did not ignore why the population was reduced- I said that the wars undoubtedly contributed to depopulation, however the fact remains that the population was low even before the wars you describe. Indeed the information you have added has nothing to do with the Plantation in Operation. You are talking about the Anglo-Gaelic wars that should have their own pages or perhaps their own section on this page. There is a lot more information that could be added about both the inter-Gaelic and Anglo-Gaelic wars in Ireland during the 1500s but this section is not the correct place for it. I might consider creating a new section on this page entitled Background to the Plantation including most of this info. How would you feel about that? I'm also considering changing the references back to uncondensed for the relevant section. Would you have a problem with this and can you explain why?--Corvus cornix 1958 (talk) 21:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please address the points I raised above. --Domer48'fenian' 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My recent edits[edit]

I recently made a number of edits to the article, most of which were simply grammatical (see the differences here). However, User:Domer48 reverted those edits with no other explanation than "per sources".


If you have any objections please explain them here in detail.

This is the old introduction:

The Plantation of Ulster (Irish: Plandáil Uladh) was planned in 1598 with the process of colonisation taking place in 1609. All the estates of the O'Neills, the Earls of Tyrone, the O'Donnells of Tyrconnell and their chief supporters were confiscated. The estates comprised an estimated half a million acres (4,000 km²) of land (waste, woodland and bog were uncounted) in the counties of Donegal, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan, Coleraine (Londonderry) and Armagh in the northern Irish province of Ulster.[34] 'British’ tenants',[35] a term applied to the Protestant English and Scottish planters,[36] were settled on land confiscated from Irish landowners. The Plantation of Ulster was the biggest and most successful of the Plantations of Ireland. Ulster was settled so to prevent further rebellion, as over the preceding century, it had proven to be the most resistant of Ireland's provinces to English invasion. The Scottish tenants were usually Presbyterian[37] and the English were "persecuted" Dissenters.[38]

This is my proposed introduction:

The Plantation of Ulster (Irish: Plandáil Uladh) was the organised colonisation (or plantation) of Ulster by British people. Private plantation by wealthy landowners began in 1606,[39] while official plantation controlled by the monarchy began in 1609. All land owned by Irish chieftains the Ó Neills and Ó Donnells (along with those of their supporters) were confiscated. This land comprised an estimated half a million acres (4,000 km²) in the counties Tyrconnell, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Cavan, Coleraine and Armagh (wasteland, woodland and bogland were uncounted).[40] Most of the counties Antrim and Down were privately colonised.[41] The "British tenants",[42] a term applied to the colonists,[43] were mostly from Scotland and England. All were required to be English-speaking and Protestant.[44] The Scottish tenants were mostly Presbyterian[45] and the English mostly Dissenters.[46] The Plantation of Ulster was the biggest and most successful of the Plantations of Ireland. Ulster was settled so as to prevent further rebellion, as over the preceding century, it had proven to be the region most resistant to English control.

~Asarlaí 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced: Line 1, by British people. Line 2, Private plantation by wealthy landowners began in 1606, while official plantation controlled by the monarchy began in 1609. Line 4, Most of the counties Antrim and Down were privately colonised. Line 5, The official plantations. Line 6-7, were mostly from Scotland and England. All were required to be English-speaking and Protestant. Removed the phrase "persecuted." Stop adding unsourced text to referenced text, and removing sourced quotes. --Domer48'fenian' 07:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Line 1: all colonists came from the island of Britain, thus they were British. Line 2: supported here. Line 4/5: supported here. Line 6/7: supported here, here and here. Line 8: I'll re-add "persecuted". ~Asarlaí 16:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Please read WP:SYN, it's not in the source. Now explain you edits and why they should be used. This section has been stable, so why change it. --Domer48'fenian' 17:14, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
In case you didn't notice, I just gave you the links to the sources. ~Asarlaí 17:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Main body[edit]

If you have any objections please take things point-by-point and explain your objections in detail.

  1. Nine Years War > Nine Years War (aka Tyrone's Rebellion)
  2. Gaelic > Gaelic – (this article covers the culture and language)
  3. Its complete ascendency however he suggests only dates only from the great wars of Elizabeth > However, he suggests its complete authority was only established after the Second Desmond Rebellion (1579-1583) and the aforementioned Tyrone Rebellion (1694-1603) – (simply making things specific, these were the only wars fought by Elizabeth in Ireland)
  4. efficacious > effective – (a more common word meaning the exact same thing)
  5. The inter-Gaelic and Anglo-Gaelic wars > The battles fought between Gaelic clans and between the Gaelic and English – (a simpler sentence meaning the exact same thing)
  6. At least half the settlers would be Scots > At least half the settlers would be English-speaking Scots – (some Scots were Gaelic speakers)
  7. land confiscated from convicted northern confederates > land confiscated from convicted Irish rebels – (the confederates didn't exist until the 1640s)
  8. Scottish settlers had been migrating naturally to Ulster for many centuries > (removed as it's unsourced)
  9. the native population were usually monoglot monoglot Gaelic speakers > the native population were usually monoglot Irish (Gaeilge) speakers – (removed repeated word)

~Asarlaí 21:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

  1. (aka Tyrone's Rebellion)-Unsourced
  2. The culture not the Language
  3. Unsourced
  4. Per the source
  5. Unsourced addition
  6. That one is obvious
  7. It is sourced
  8. That's sound
  9. Left out wars > period

--Domer48'fenian' 22:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have mis-numbered some of your responses, so I'm unable to provide counter-arguments. I'll remove "Tyrone's Rebellion" as it does appear to be unsourced after all. I'll also re-add point 8 since I found a source for it further down the page. As for points 7 and 9, I can't see how anyone can argue against those edits. ~Asarlaí 01:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
No, correctly numbered. --Domer48'fenian' 07:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well your only argument seems to be that everything should follow the wording of the sources exactly. I disagree and Wikipedia disagrees. WP:NOR states: Summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking material from different reliable sources on the topic and putting those claims on the page in your own words, with each claim attributable to a source that explicitly makes that claim. ~Asarlaí 16:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
What your adding is not in the source at all, so WP:NOR.--Domer48'fenian' 17:11, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure that exact wording isn't used by the source. But according to Wikipedia, that's a good thing. ~Asarlaí 17:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll address your additional WP:SYN later. --Domer48'fenian' 19:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


It seems to me like this section is rather disorganized and should be re-arranged. I also don't think the large use of direct quotes here are that helpful. The Squicks (talk) 02:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking protestants[edit]

Are there any Irish Gaelic or Scottish Gaelic speaking protestants (native speakers) in Ireland or Northern Ireland (UK)? --- (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In Northern Ireland you'd be hard pressed to find one due to the cultural and political polarisation over the 19th-20th centuries. In the Republic of Ireland you might quite possibly find some. Indeed 150 years ago there where a few Protestants who spoke Gaelic, maybe not as a native speaker but learned it none the less, some where even instrumental in the revival of Gaelic culture, most notable of them all - Douglas Hyde, the first President of the Republic of Ireland. His Conradh na Gaedhilge (The Gaelic League) would spawn Eamon de Velera, Michael Collins, and Patrick Pearse to name a few.

Scots-Gaelic is another matter. The Highland Scots-Gaelic would retain their Roman Catholism, with only a few island of the Outer Hebrides converting to Protestantism. However most Scottish settlers during the Plantation came from the Scottish Lowlands which in Scots-Gaelic, a' Ghalldachd, roughly means 'non-Gaelic region', and they by on large spoke Scots - a language that started out as the Northumbrian Old English dialect. Having said that Galloway maintained Scots-Gaelic for longer than any other part of the Scottish Lowlands, but by the time of the Plantation it had virtually been replaced by Scots. Mabuska (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just the opposite of the above paragraph is in fact true. The vast majority of the Highland and Islands of Scotland WERE converted to the Presbyterian Faith, during the Scottish Reformation in 1560, under John Knox. The southern most of the Hebrides, Barra and Islay were the only ones that the Reformation did not reach. Nonetheless, this had the opposite effect, as the Highland Gaels were encouraged and readily prepared to bring Gaelic into their Presbyterian worship, in place of the previous Church Latin of Catholicism. Indeed, Gaelic Psalm singing originates from the Highlands & Islands, and long predates the use of Gaelic in formal Christian worship in Ireland. (see Prof. Willie Ruff of Yale University for further discussion of Gaelic Psalm singing, or "Lining out" as the basis of American Gospel music Ref: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Campbell is a Scottish name commonly found in Northern Ireland and a Gaelic name. its possible that by the time of Culloden, the Campbells had given up Gaelic under the influences of lowland prejudices regarding "Highland savagery" (ie subtext cultural incompatibility with Central control from the Stuart period) but if Scots from the Western isles ended up in Ulster in the plantation period, its likely that they spoke a Scottish dialect of common Gaelic. Seamusalba (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not just due to 'prejudices' but also the gradual conversion of Scots away from the Scots-Gaelic culture due to the ever increasing social influences of south-eastern Scotland most notably from the settled Normans who would become part of the fabric of Scottish royalty and thus even more influence away from Scots-Gaelic - Robert & Edward de Brus, the Stuarts, etc. all of paternal Norman ancestry. Mabuska (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert the Bruce spoke Gaelic and French (The Normans tended to take up the local language and in Scotland, that would be Gaelic/Scottish, not English except for in Lothian until the late 14th and early 15th centuries) and was from a Gaelic part of Scotland. Scottish meant Gaelic up until the late Middle Ages (at least up until Bannockburn) and there were "ethnic English" within the Kingdom of Scotland (ie English speakers from Lothian). the Normans in Scotland had less to do with the the process that led to the statutes of Iona, than the move of the capital to Edinburgh in the "Galldachd " did. The prejudice grew as a result of the shift in self perception amongst the elite, as they gradually spoke less and less Gaelic, and began to refer to the language as a foreign one. Bruce's Gaelic perception of what Scottish meant is exemplified by his letter to the Irish speaking of them being "united in language". the language and culture he was speaking of was a Scottish/Gaelic one. Seamusalba (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also maternal linguistic influence should not be underestimated. Many a Norman learned Gaelic,Italian or English from a mother of that language community, and Robert the Bruce was a Gael in language and self perception despite his Norman heritage. Seamusalba (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to ignore, deny or argue against any of that, i'm just stating what related Wikipedia articles also state on the matter - the introduction of the Normans amongst other influences led to the gradual de-Gaelicisation of the Scottish Lowlands in terms of both language and social matters that by the time of the Plantation of Ulster (well before Culloden), many Lowland Scots spoke Scots not Scots-Gaelic and didn't retain the same Gaelic-style culture as the Highlanders did. Most of the Scottish Planters to Ulster will have Scots-Gaelic surnames, such as the Campbells, but by then many no longer spoke Scots-Gaelic. Mabuska (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If they spoke any language other than Gaelic, it would be called "Inglis" and not Scots. Scots referred to Gaelic until the 15th century. I dont think the Normans can be blamed for the Anglification of "Lowland" areas that were still speaking Gaelic in the period when they were ruling (dont forget that Robert the Bruce was a Scot/Gael in blood through his mother as much as any ruler in Ulster or elsewhere in Gaeldom and that there were Irish Gaels fighting at Bannockburn along with Lowland Scots Gaels and Inglis and possibly some Britons although thats not certain under Gaelic speaking Norman leadership.). Its unfair on them because the forces driving Anglification were as much to do with the influx of non French speakers from England and the Low countries (why else the choice of English over French?) Seamusalba (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, there had been Norman influence in the North or "Highlands" (ie area outside the direct control of the Stuarts) and the Anglification of the South was taking place whilst the Scots under Norman influence of the North mocked their whisky drinking habits (they preferred French wine apparently, at least according to a series called "Castle" on the History channel) Seamusalba (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Lords of the Isles were not that different in their cultural impact on the areas that remained distant to Stuart centralist Anglifying control and they were around for ages before the Normans (with whom they shared a certain ethno-cultural heritage of how to rule, coming from Norse roots as they did) so that the impact of the Normans on Gaelic areas of Scotland should at least be up for debate (and is amongst historians Im sure). Seamusalba (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly i did say the Normans amongst other influences, which makes itself clear enough to the fact i'm not saying it's all down to the Normans. Secondly i said it was gradual, which means changes didn't have to be immediate or very obvious, but small steps that add up. Having said that the Davidian Revolution brought in many changes that helped take lowland Scotland away from its Gaelic culture. Here as well Normanization, the last line points out the fact the Normans did come with their cultural influences which obviously had an effect. The second paragraph in this article to also states the French/Norman effect: [1]. The introduced Norman culture may have meshed with Scots-Gaelic culture but that doesn't matter as ultimately it was also the start of the de-Gaelicisation of Lowland culture. Also read [2] of the ignorance towards Scots-Gaelic culture by the French cultured kings of Scotland before the Gaelicified Robert de Brus. It also points out the power struggle between the Scots-Gaelic and Scoto-Normans. You could even argue that Robert de Brus may have been sucking up to his Gaelic side in an effort to unite the competing cultures of Scotland against the English as inter-warring wasn't doing Scotland any favours...
Next i said that by the time of the Plantation of Ulster (early 17th century) the Lowlanders by on large spoke Scots which by then didn't refer to Scots-Gaelic (which as you said it did up until the 15th century) but a different language altogether. Even after immediate plantation most Scottish lowlanders who came to Ulster spoke Scots and not Scots-Gaelic [3]. [4]. Second paragraph into article here [5] also states the fact the Scots language (not Scots-Gaelic) had become the language of the Lowland Scots. Mabuska (talk) 19:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ayrshire was partly still Gaelic speaking at the time of the plantations (it was also a centre for Protestant rebellion against the Stuarts in the covenanter period) the last village to be Gaelic speaking in Ayrshire turned to Lowland Scots in the 18th century. Ayrshire is a lot nearer to Ulster than Lothian is and a lot nearer in language history. (ps, after rereading what I wrote about Inglis and Scots and the timescale and then your response, it took me a while to figure out the misunderstanding. I was referring to the language perceptions under the Normans, as they are being held responsible, in part as you added as a caviat, for the Anglification of Scotland. I was emphasising that in the days of David the 1st, the name "Scottis" referred to the Gaelic majority language of the kingdom and not to English. I take your point on the nomenclature of the 17th century. hope that clears up that seeming disparity?)Seamusalba (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I found the following in a google search on Protestant Gaelic history:

"There is much circumstantial evidence of Protestants who were native speakers of Gaelic, and other Protestants who became very fluent through everyday interaction with other native speakers. Many of these Protestant Gaelic speakers came from Scotland. During the plantations of Ulster in the early 1600s only ‘inland Scots’ were supposed to be settlers; this policy was intended to exclude Gaelic-speaking Highlanders, but failed to do so. When the Marquis of Argyll brought his troops to Antrim during the 1640s uprisings, most of them would have been Gaelic speakers, and many settled in Ireland when they had finished their military service. Overpopulation and the commercialisation of estates in Scotland also pushed people from Argyll to Antrim in the 1690s; sometimes the dispossessed were recruited for military campaigns in Ireland. During the time of the Plantations of Ulster there was little difference between the Gaelic of many Scottish settlers and the Irish of the natives. The Irish of Antrim shared many features with Scottish Gaelic, and the Gaelic of Kintyre and Argyll was very similar to Antrim Irish."

Ive heard before how Ulster Irish (or Ulster Gaelic) was the most similair to Scottish Gaelic of the Irish dialects and its logical if you look on a map where in Scotland the nearest Gaelic dialects to Ulster Gaelic would be. Seamusalba (talk)

Well the Normans would have Frenchified Gaeldom if they were the cause of its demise. David the First solidified the changes that were under way due to the East coast focus of trade with the low countries and the incoming of multi lingual non Gaels who found "Inglis" easier as a lingua Franca (or lingua Anglica). whether or not any king was "sucking up to their own language group is a matter of personal interpretation surely? Bruce came from a Gaelic speaking area of what today would be seen as the Lowlands (because of language and not location like in "the Netherlands" sense of lowlands.) and there is a lack of evidence as far as Im aware that he could speak a word of English. He could speak French and Gaelic (his mother tongue). Seamusalba (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The main argument for the innocence of the Normans in taking the blame for the Anglification of Scotland is the timeframe for the definition switchover though. If the Normans were so Anglocentric and anti Gaelic, why does "Scottis" continue to refer to Gaelic for centuries after David's revoloution? and Inglis continue to be used to refer to the Germanic language shared with Northumbria? The change only takes place about a century after the wars of independance (when Blin Harry was writing his "Wallace" epic), when the tensions of the past (that were as much to do with English speakers dominating the towns as Normans, otherwise how do we explain Norman Gaels like the Frasers with their Gaelic motto and Highland location). if were going to take the gradual approach to explaining how "Scots" came to mean English and Gaelic lost its association with the nation it created the name of, then why stop at the Normans? why not go back to the addition of ethnic English into Scotland with the addition of Lothian? Seamusalba (talk) 23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

what about clans like Fraser, of Norman origine and Gaelic language? Norman didnt mean non Gaelic or Inglis, living in a burgh was far more important to the change in self perception. If Campbells from Gaeldom were convinced that they should leave their country due to Jacobitism and ended up in Ulster, it is quite possible that they hadnt read the script, and for a generation or two at least, continued seeing Gaelic as "Scottish" in Ulster

Ill have to read the wiki pages youve cited and consider the rest of your points as Ive been out all day trying to explain Lowland Scots to a Saudi Arabian student in "Auld Reekie" and as you can imagine, I need a wee rest before continuing. Seamusalba (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On a different note regarding this section, there was an interview a few years ago on a tv show called Eorpa (Europe in Scottish Gaelic) with a unionist guy from Northern Ireland who spoke Irish Gaelic. I dont know whether there were any Gaelic speaking Protestant Campbells at the time of the covenanters or the plantations, but it shouldnt be discounted from a modern assumption that Gaelic = Catholic (if you grow up only hearing Gaelic, no matter what your religious or political views, without tv and radio or wikipedia, you might find it hard to learn a new language just to fit in with the historical analysis ,p) Also, it might be an irony of cultural history, that the Gaelic system of service to the clan chief, was behind the loyalty that Campbells felt to the views and interests of the anti Jacobite Campbell leadership at the time of the plantations (well in the 17th century anyway, the point being that some Gaels may have ended up in Ulster from Scotland due to the loyalty they felt to their clan and the interests of their leadership being influenced by anti Catholic ideas due to the power struggle between competing dynasties). Seamusalba (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is the possibility but you'd be hard pressed to find a Protestant native-Gaelic speaker in Northern Ireland - primarily as there is no need for anyone here to have it as a native first choice tongue as there are no true Gaeltacht regions in Northern Ireland where it'd be required. Also on the religious assumption, as far as i know Irish Gaelic is only taught in Roman Catholic schools here. Protestants here attend grammer or state schools which don't offer Irish Gaelic as a language choice. All Irish Gaelic nusery and primary schools here are also found in Roman Catholic predominant areas, which enforces the polarised image. Mabuska (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

yes its a pity when language get used as a weapon against another community. Its possible to speak any language and disagree with the other speakers (it just makes you less popular in the group) I think that if Protestants and Catholics could see through the claims of modern political culture spokespeople and see that Gaelic and Scots have influenced each other (for instance "the noo" in Scots might be influenced by the construction in Gaelic, despite being a Germanic language and even in music there are Celtic roots in both Loyalist and Republican tunes and rythims...or at least shared Ulsterian roots that predate the language and perceptual shift. I say that after listening to "a dander wae Drennan") Afrikaans should no more be viewed as a language of aparteid, than any language in Northern Ireland should be seen as Protestant/Loyalist/Republican or Catholic... otherwise atheists would have to speak something else.: D Seamusalba (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

as to the existance of a Gaeltacht in Northern Ireland question, surely a family kitchen or a cafe frequented by locals is a Gaeltacht? A headset or broadband link to TG4 could be a Northern Ireland Gaeltacht. Technology changes the paradigm of how a Gaeltacht is to be defined after all! many a family will be a Gaeltacht within UK borders as a matter of personal choice and technology helps them maintain a Gaelic linguistic identity I mean to say. Seamusalba (talk) 14:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm talking about actual proper Gaeltacht regions where more than one family, say a whole village, town or region speak it natively - your splitting hairs on it. On your comment of the similarities between Ulster Gaelic and Scots Gaelic, as far as i understand from my Irish history studies, its not that Scots Gaelic influenced Ulster Gaelic which is why its different but that Scots Gaelic is directly descended from Ulster Gaelic (thanks to Dal Riata) which was always different from other Gaelic dialects in Ireland, even in certain pronunciations of the same spelt words or names. Other than that i know not much else on the differences so no need to argue about it.

Well, individual families make up villages dont they? often for instance in Skye, families will speak Gaelic at home and English with the tourists in Portree. I wasnt inferring that Ulster gaelic descends from Scottish gaelic (although there is a possibility that elements of Ulster Gaelic grammar, such as the negative verb construction were influenced by Scottish gaelic, or vice versa, probably a little of both actually. My understanding is that there was a continuation of dialects from Munster to Aberdeenshire (where the Book of Deer was written in the Middle Ages) and that as Ayrshire and Galloway were the nearest regions of Alba (or Britain) to Ulster, that the dialects of Gaelic there were nearer than the dialects of the Southern extremes of Ireland to Ulster dialects. The confusion comes from the creation of modern orthographies and seperate languages (along with the use of "Middle Irish" and "Old Irish" for "Gaelic" the name that the speakers would have used for their language until the modern period and the reaction to anti Gaelic policies in Ireland). Ulster Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic share a close relationship and as far as I can see, we agree on that point. the social reality of a language community and the impact of technology on allowing it to be "real" is a valid point I would have thought. Seamusalba (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If you read my very first comment on this topic i never denied that Scots-Gaelic speakers came over, i said most spoke Scots, that leaves it open for other languages. I know Scots-Gaelic speakers came over as did Gaelic speaking ministers in the plantations but they where a minority and you won't find a single Scots-Gaelic speaker in Northern Ireland today or in the past century.
On the Irish Unionist Gaelic speaker you where on about, was it by any chance Conor Cruise O'Brien?? Mabuska (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it was a few years ago now, but it was a report on cross cultural language groups in Northern Ireland ( a bit like the efforts made in French Alsace to encourage teenagers to learn each others language) and the guy was in his twenties or thirties. Seamusalba (talk) 02:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that at the time of the plantations, there was only "Gaelic" in a variety of forms ( a bit like Modern Arabic, you write standard Arabic but speak "Lebanese" or "Egyptian" and really they can function like seperate languages, but share a written form. If they speak Ulster Gaelic, then there speaking the equivelant of their Scottish ancestors, especially if they hailed from Ayrshire. Seamusalba (talk) 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Scottish" really means a Gaelic speaker, and therefor refers to Gaelic speakers in Ireland as well as Scotland. thats the logical assumption from the original meaning anyway. Thats why there were "Schottenkloster" full of Irish born Gaelic speakers all over early medieval Europe. Seamusalba (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What im getting at is that the development of and continuation of a language by a community is important even if the name of the language changed. Afrikaans speakers in South Africa no longer technically speak Dutch, but didnt give up their language. The same should be said for Gaelic speakers of Scots descent in Northern Ireland. there the equivelant of Afrikaaners continuing their language from Europe. Seamusalba (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"and most successful..."[edit]

I'm really impressed with how this article has come along since I last took a look, but a statement in the lead concerns me:

"The Plantation of Ulster was the biggest and most successful of the Plantations of Ireland."

Successful for who? I presume we don't mean the indigenous Catholic Gaels? And how is biggest being defined- by amount of financial investment, by length it took, by amount of settlers?

Not deleting or probing for citation, it just needs a bit more thought. :) --Jza84 |  Talk  20:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree as i would say the Plantation of Ulster was a failure, and i have a verifiable source which even states that it was a failure thanks to the 1641 Rebellion and the fact the landowners didn't evict many of the Irish Catholic natives as Protestant tenants were hard to find - and a lot of those that did were massacred or fled in 1641. All the counties that were planted in the Plantation of Ulster now have a Roman Catholic majority, no matter how narrow it is - whilst the remaining Protestant majority counties remain Counties Antrim and Down which were both privately settled BEFORE the Plantation of Ulster. Yeah really sounds like a success - if it had been there would probably be today Protestant majoritys in the counties involved in the Plantation. Mabuska (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

- Hugh O'Neill was made Earl of Tyrone in 1568, and returned to lead his people in the ways of English Protestantism. Irish chieftains did not use the term 'Earl', and any such titles, and indeed all heraldic symbols, were foreign to Irish culture.

- The government was outraged when he adopted the illegal - under English law - Gaelic title of 'The O'Neill' in 1593, which he had assumed to earn the respect of his own people, and he was proclaimed a traitor. In 1594 there began the Nine Years War, in which he defeated Bagenal in 1598, but was himself defeated by Mountjoy at the Battle of Kinsale, when he went to meet up with Spanish reinforcements in 1601.

- The war ended in the Treaty of Mellifont a few days after the death of Elizabeth, in 1603.

- O'Neill travelled to England to make his peace with James I, and had to be protected from the mobs of people in Wales and Cheshire, who pelted him with rocks and mud, because of the loss of so many menfolk from those regions as a result of his war.

- This indicates a source of many of the soldiers who served in Ireland.

- O'Neill was dissatisfied with the constant encroachments on his ancient kingdom, with the erection of forts, and the imposition of sheriffs, and when he complained to the king, he was invited to present his case at court.

- He was secretly warned that he would never see Ireland again, and so, with the O'Donnells and others, he went to Spain to seek help in 1607, in the famous Flight of the Earls. Unfortunately, Spain now wished to make peace with England, and he was unable to raise an army to resume the war. On his travels across Europe, he met with his nephew, Owen Roe O'Neill, who would become a prominent leader in the rebellion of 1641.

- Hugh O'Neill died in 1616, in Rome.

- His lands were declared forfeit, and disposed of by the crown to planters and servitors, in 1609. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

And the point of reposting this here is? It was removed from the main article as it was irrelevant to a section about the planning of the Platation of Ulster. This information is written and more appropraite for the actual Hugh O'Neill article however i believe it already covers this and in a far more accurate, elaborated and sourced manner. So the point of trying to push it is pointless. Mabuska (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


"The Ulster plantation is the beginning of the on going segregation of ireland, with many unionist followers believing to have links to England, and 'Britain'. The harsh reality is regardless of loyalty, habitants of Ireland will always be seen as Irish by the English, making unionist loyalty somewhat pointless in terms of returned loyalty."

I feel this part is rather biased. Trying to be rigueriously impartial = there are two main traditions now on the Island or Ireland, a majority Nationalist Irish (North and South) and a minority (though majority in N.Ireland [though the island was partitioned to ensure this]) Unionist (specifically only) Northern Irish based one. "segregation", "The harsh reality is regardless of loyalty, habitants of Ireland will always be seen as Irish" and "making unionist loyalty somewhat pointless in terms of returned loyalty" are value judgements (I am guessing from a particular spectrum).

Catholic and Gaelic-speaking planters?[edit]

User:Mabuska has recently added this to the lede: In reality however some colonists and most determined planters were Catholics,[1] with "many Catholic Scots settling in County Tyrone".[1] A significant number of the Scots that came over also spoke Gaelic.[2]

While I'm not against mentioning Catholic and Gaelic-speaking migrants in the lede, I think we need to be clear about the circumstances in which they arrived and avoid giving undue weight. Firstly (and most importantly) were these folk planted as part of the official Crown-sponsored plantation, or were they ordinary migrants who arrived later? If they weren't part of the official plantation we should say so. If they were part of the official plantation, what proportion of the planters did they make up? Secondly, the line "most determined planters were Catholics" is vague and seems to be an opinion given as truth. What does the source actually say? ~Asarlaí 23:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I would agree. Need a good solid reference for this, as most references cite the planned Protestant character of the Plantation. I believe in writing an article factually in accordance with "wherever the chips fall", rather than finding an obscure reference for "history as you wish it to be". One or two references do not trump the multitude that cite a planned Protestant settlement. Where a few sources disagree with the majority of sources, well, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". I think I might have one of the reference around, Bardon's "The Plantation of Ulster". I'll see if I can dig it out. Eastcote (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
First of all the Plantation took place over a couple of decades not a couple of years and trying to determine "official" is moot as it was up to individual undertakers to plant settlers; there was an official set of conditions however few were ever met even by the mid 1620s with the king complaining about the poor progress of the plantation in many areas. Official figures too are hard to come by, only general estimates of the overall planted population. The same is also hard to come by for language statistics Asarlai as you no doubt fully know, though the source used for that statement puts forward a strong case that a significant number did speak Gaelic. If needs be I will serialise the whole swath of stuff spread over several pages into a paragraph.
Eastcote, a good solid reference has been given, and if you have it then you can verify the following quotes from it for me (pages 214-219). However it is hardly an obscure reference and the point of including the snippet Asarali quotes in the article is to counter the commonly held myth that it was a plantation of Protestant English speakers and nothing else. Also Eastcote no-one is trying to say that the plantation wasn't planned to be a Protestant one - no-one is.
Maybe the word "many" can be substituted with something better such as "a number of", (nope it is sourced so the word many is fine) and we could be more specific by stating the barony of Strabane rather than the county it took place in (though it occupied a third of that county), however with the above quotes you can hardly say the line "In reality however some colonists and most determined planters were Catholics" is undue and refers to people who were not part of the "official" plantation. Mabuska (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I've made a few tweaks. Mabuska (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
If we are to be overly concerned about things in the lede and their sources I suggest that the following line "the goal being to anglicise the Irish" either be reworded to suit the source or a better source found. According to the source which quotes: "According to the Lord Deputy Chichester, the plantation would 'separate the Irish by themselves...[so they would], in heart in tongue and every way else become English'". Chichester was not the architect of the plantation, though he was one of the biggest undertakers and planters in it. Yet he was anti-Irish anti-Catholic so obviously that would be his aim and such a source can be considered biased with undue weight if we are to be pedantic. In fact the first quote above I state from the Plantation of Ulster source I think would be better paraphrased for the whole sentence I am referring too. Mabuska (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
In fact I had a whack at reworking the lede to be more factual and specific, including expanding the bits I had added in recently. I think it reads better than what was there originally, and would hope that you also think so. Mabuska (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
In general good edits have been made by Mabuska, but there are some problems. Regarding Anglicization, this was such a commonplace among 16th and 17th century English administrators in Ireland that it is misleading to say it was just an idea of Chichester's. It was central goal not just of the Ulster plantation but of the plantation policy generally in early modern Ireland (and the west and isles of Scotland for James VI for that matter)
Two, regarding Catholics and Gaelic speakers as planters in Ulster; two things, while there were indeed some, they were very much the exception, for obvious reasons (state security primarily). Two, some of those cited above as Catholic beneficiaries of the Ulster plantation were not in fact colonists in Ulster. In particular Randal McDonnell was an existing landowner, whose McDonnell clan spanned both western Scotland and north eastern Ireland since the 15th century. Yes he got some land in the plantation but he can't be said to have been a 'colonist' in any meaningful way. Castlehaven, unless I'm very much mistaken, was indeed a Catholic planter but had his lands in Munster rather than Ulster. (English Catholic planters were much more common in the south than in the north of Ireland) Jdorney (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Mabuska you've done a good job making the info you added more accurate, but I think there's now too much space given to this minority of Catholic and Gaelic-speaking settlers. I suggest we shorten it to this: "However, a small number of the planters were Catholic and it has been suggested that a significant number of the Scots spoke Gaelic". The rest of the info you added can be moved into the main body of the article.
Also, if we're mentioning the Flight of the Earls I think we should mention the Nine Years' War too. ~Asarlaí 16:33, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
@ Jdorney - the Chichester line is simply a rewording of the sentence already in the article to match what the source quote states. The source attributes it to Chichester. Though it only states "Lord Chichester saw it", that does not not equate to him coming up with it. I'm fine enough with the James I quote.
In regards to the Catholics: did you read the quotes I supplied above? Randal MacDonnell was a major undertaker/planter in the Plantation, it doesn't matter if he already had lands, he still settled quite a lot of Scottish Presbyterians. Castlehaven/Audley however if you read one of the above quotes received the barony of Omagh (accounting for a third of County Tyrone), which he had many members of his family given plantation proportions of, thus making them minor undertakers of it. The barony of Strabane was as stated basically a haven for Scottish Catholics. The fact over half of Ulsters second biggest county (the baronies of Strabane and Omagh in County Tyrone), possibly around a sixth of the confiscated territory, would be in the hands of Catholic undertakers, is quite something that should be mentioned. As another of the above quotes states: King James I was partial to those Catholics who had done him great service.
I doubt the fact many of the Scots spoke Gaelic was a security concern, though an inconvenience to the general aims of the plantation, but then again Catholic Irish from County Tyrone where settled in the barony of Loughinsholin, County Londonderry, as workers where needed. The fact it was in the years just prior to the end of the 9 Years War that English and Scots started to make a headway into the Gaelic speaking parts of Scotland, means that many of the Scots from those areas would still be speaking Gaelic. Add in the fact there was a demand for Gaelic speaking Presbyterian ministers from Scotland during the plantation to tend to the Gaelic speaking settlers. All this can of course be added into the body of the article to beef it up and help destroy the myth. The Ulster-Scots Agency needs to learn and accept these facts too.
@ Asarlai - The Nine Year's War is relevant for the background section due to the complications of it, however it was not why the confiscation of land occurred - it was because of the rebellion that was being planned leading to those Gaelic chiefs to flee in the Flight of the Earls, which going by their surrender and regrant contract meant their lands were forfeit and thus confiscated which led to the Crown having a hell of a lot of land which needed something done with - the Plantation.
As the lede is suppossed to summarise the article, I can cut the stuff down and expand upon it in the article itself. Though I would suggest something more along the lines of: "Some of the undertakers and colonists however were Catholic and it has been suggested that a significant number of the Scots spoke Gaelic" - that way we avoid the unsourced suggestion of stating "small number", and also make it clear that some of the undertakers themselves where Catholic which was the case - details of whom can be put into the article body and expanded upon to give the matter more beef. Further expansion on the language situation too can be added.
Main reason for the additions is to counter the common myth that it was a Protestant English speaking only Plantation that consisted only of them which is factually wrong and misleading. Mabuska (talk) 22:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
I even have an old school history book somewhere which I still remember stating over 15 years ago that said some Catholic priests where even settled as part of the Plantation. Shocking I know. Mabuska (talk) 22:26, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Re McDonnell, again, the point is, he was not a colonist. He and his militarised lordship was there already (and too difficult to get rid of). The fact that he settled Presbyterians there under the terms of the plantation is not at all the same thing as saying that he was a Scottish Catholic planted in Ulster. More broadly I'm a bit concerned at the idea that we're exploding 'myths' here. Original Research etc. While it is interesting to explore ambiguities like Scottish Catholics being settled in Tyrone, the fact remains that the plantation was primarily a transfer of land-ownership from Gaelic Irish landowners to English and Scottish Protestants. Again the exceptions are interesting but they remain exceptions. Re the security concern, I was referring more to religion than to language but it is also true that the Elizabethan administrators and then James VI/I looked on the Gaelic links across the Irish sea as a potential security problem (James first plantation was actually in the Western Isles of Scotland). Jdorney (talk) 23:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Where are you getting this Randal being a Scot who was planted in Ireland from? Anyways a planter doesn't specifically have to mean someone who was planted in a place but someone who planted people. As already stated I'm happy enough to cut the whole thing in the lede down to the following amendment of Asarlai's sugestion: "Some of the undertakers and colonists however were Catholic and it has been suggested that a significant number of the Scots spoke Gaelic" a statement that can be fully sourced. Seeing as everything is sourceable you can hardly say there is a whif of OR. Mabuska (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Mabuska, I'd be happy enough with that summary. I'd only suggest that we shift the "however" to the beginning of the sentence. ~Asarlaí 12:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
Asarlaí's suggestion seems fine to me. Jdorney (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was always taught at school, though it isn't a proper rule, never to start a sentence with however. Despite the fact you can, due to being taught that at school it looks bad to me. Mabuska (talk) 15:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Parliament not King[edit]

It was actually the Parliament of Scotland that was responsible for carrying out the Plantation of Ulster, not King James I of England and VI of Scotland. Great Britain did not exist until the 1707 Act of Union, so there was no such thing as the "British Crown" in 1603. England and Scotland remained separate countries with their own parliaments after the Union of the Crowns. ( (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC))

Well King James I styled himself as king of Great Britain and promoted the usage of the term British to refer to his subjects in the three kingdoms. The line in the article made no mention of parliaments, and the crown of King James I was in every essence the "British crown" by the fact he was king of the three kingdoms. Many historians and sources make use of the term British during the 1600s especially in regards to Ireland and in most cases the population statistics given in regards to the plantation are given as British and Irish.
Regardless of that there is no need to explicitly state in this instance who exactly was behind it and we can simply remove it and leave it as "while the official plantation began in 1609." Mabuska (talk) 22:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ When there is dispute about whether the article text is fully supported by the given source, direct quotes from the source and any other details requested should be provided as a courtesy to substantiate the reference.
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Page 75.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Page 47.
    • ^ P. Robinson The Plantation of Ulster. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 2000. Pages 125-128.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Pages 150-153.
    • ^ A.T.Q. Stewart: The Narrow Ground: The Roots of Conflict in Ulster. London, Faber and Faber Ltd. New Edition, 1989. Pages 40-41.
    • ^ Dr. Raymond Gillespie. “Reaction of the Natives”, BBC.
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Pages 178
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Page 314.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Page 29
    • ^ C.A. Hanna: The Scotch-Irish: Or, The Scot in North Britain, North Ireland, and North America. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1902. Page 182.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Pages 132.
    • ^ Cyril Falls: The Birth of Ulster. London, Constable and Compant Ltd. 1996. Page 201.
    • ^ A.T.Q. Stewart: The Narrow Ground: The Roots of Conflict in Ulster. London, Faber and Faber Ltd. New Edition, 1989. Pages 40-41.
    • ^ Dr. Raymond Gillespie. “Reaction of the Natives”, BBC.
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Pages 178
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Page 314.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Page 29
    • ^ C.A. Hanna: The Scotch-Irish: Or, The Scot in North Britain, North Ireland, and North America. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1902. Page 182.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Pages 132.
    • ^ Cyril Falls: The Birth of Ulster. London, Constable and Compant Ltd. 1996. Page 201.
    • ^ A.T.Q. Stewart: The Narrow Ground: The Roots of Conflict in Ulster. London, Faber and Faber Ltd. New Edition, 1989. Pages 40-41. Dr. Raymond Gillespie. “Reaction of the Natives”, BBC. J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Page 178, 314. M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Page 29, 132. C.A. Hanna: The Scotch-Irish: Or, The Scot in North Britain, North Ireland, and North America. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1902. Page 182. Cyril Falls: The Birth of Ulster. London, Constable and Compant Ltd. 1996. Page 201.
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Pages 76-79.
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Pages 80-83.
    • ^ Prof. Nicholas Canny. “Reaction of the Natives”, BBC.
    • ^ A.T.Q. Stewart: The Narrow Ground: The Roots of Conflict in Ulster. London, Faber and Faber Ltd. New Edition, 1989. Pages 40-41.
    • ^ Dr. Raymond Gillespie. “Reaction of the Natives”, BBC.
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Pages 178
    • ^ J. Bardon: A History of Ulster. Belfast, Blackstaff Press. New Updated Edition, 2001. Page 314.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Page 29
    • ^ C.A. Hanna: The Scotch-Irish: Or, The Scot in North Britain, North Ireland, and North America. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1902. Page 182.
    • ^ M. Perceval-Maxwell: The Scottish Migration to Ulster in the Reign of James 1. Belfast, Ulster Historical Foundation. 1999. Pages 132.
    • ^ Cyril Falls: The Birth of Ulster. London, Constable and Compant Ltd. 1996. Page 201.
    • ^ T. A. Jackson, p. 51.
    • ^ Edmund Curtis, p. 198.
    • ^ T.W Moody & F.X. Martin, p. 190.
    • ^ Edmund Curtis, p. 198.
    • ^ T. A. Jackson, p. 52.
    • ^ source given below
    • ^ T. A. Jackson, p. 51.
    • ^ source given below
    • ^ Edmund Curtis, p. 198.
    • ^ T.W Moody & F.X. Martin, p. 190.
    • ^ source given below
    • ^ Edmund Curtis, p. 198.
    • ^ T. A. Jackson, p. 52.