Talk:Plantations of Ireland
|WikiProject Ireland||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
I've added quite a long piece on the Ulster plantation. Maybe it should be taken away from here, put on the Plantation of Ulster page and replaced here with a synopsis? Jdorney 10:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I see what you mean: this is now a far better and more detailed article than the one it is supposed (by Wiki rules) to summarise! The contrary argument is that the Ulster text here is proportionate in size and content to its Munster and Leinster (midlands) texts: it would be wrong if it were otherwise. (Excellent stuff, btw).
- In an ideal world, the detailed article Plantation of Ulster would be made to redirect here, because really it makes no historical sense to consider it in other than an all-island (sic) context. I predict another civil war if you do that! It's not ideal, but I really don't see a realistic alternative to maintaining essentially the same content in both articles. --Red King 13:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Ok then. Just looking at the article, its very large now and its not even finished! (Though most of the main bits are done). Maybe it would be better to break it up, I dunno, but as you say, it can only be understood as an ongoing process in Irish history Would be good also to get some images to break up the text, dunno where this could be got though Jdorney 20:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cheers for encouraging comments btw Jdorney
- I think the specific slice of Irish history that this article concentrates on is the colonisation thing. It describes a specific facet of English policy: partly to give prizes to the winners, partly to keep the awkward squad from coming home, partly to pacify a dangerous neighbour, partly to close the back door (the Spanish Armada was still living memory). Unless there was a distinct change of policy at any stage, then it has to be taken as a whole. That's why I thought that essay had an interesting 'take': why did the PoU succeed when the PoM and PoL failed?
- Pictures would be good: if there are any contemporary drawings then they are certainly out of copy-right. If they have been re-engraved, it's arguable. That's why I added the re-engraving note to my 1641 map of Galway . Unfortunately, I don't have anything else to scan. Hopefully someone else will contribute?
Right. All done. Whadya think? feel free to edit away of course.
re pictures, the one of Galway proably wouldn't be much use for this article, but it would be good for the History of Galway page and an upcoming article on the siege of Galway that User:Fergananim is working on. to be honest, I don't actually know how to work the images here at wikipedia, althoug hthere are smoe images I have on my own computer that I'd like to use for various things. Jdorney 13:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I did it for the History of Galway article. I wasn't suggesting that it be used here, my point is that modern engraving of old images may not count as simple reproductions so they need to be checked for clearance.
- There is a tutorial on pictures at Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial.
Ah yes! probably should have red the whole post! Beautiful map though, where did you get it?
I have a look for images for this on the net. A map with the plantations marked would be good, espcially for people who aren't familiar wit hteh geography of Ireland.
What do you think of the text I've written? Maybe it could do with an epilogue on how the plantations have affected modern Ireland, esp the partition of the north and south? Any other comments? Jdorney 16:12, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I bought a reproduction in Galway many years ago: as it is a mere facsimile with no claim to renewed copyright, I decided that that it was public domain based on expiry of the engraver's work of 1820, when it was included with Hardiman's History of Galway, and scanned it. The orginal is in the library of Trinity College and is about 2 meters wide. The reproduction is bigger than A3, possibly double foolscap so I had to do multiple scans and photoshop them back together (hence the shade artefact in the upper left!).
- Yes, a map would be good - is there aleady a wiki map of the four provinces that you could manipulate?
- The text is excellent - the absence of further edits is a recognition of that.
- Yes, a short para on consequences would be good, but primarily in the form of summaries to refer readers to the relevant sections of History of Ireland.
- --Red King 11:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
Hi, just adding a note to explain the re-formatting. reading through the article, it seemed to me that it would make more sense for the reader who was not familiar with Irish history if it was put in chronological order.
Re images: We need a map of Ireland that is shaded or something to show the planted areas. However I have no idea how to do this. I illustrated the Irish Confederates Wars and related pages - maybe those images could be of some use here. Also, do you know if it is possible to email your own images to wilipedia and then use them? If so, how is this done? Jdorney 20:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There are some good maps on History of Ireland, but maybe don't have all the detail and phasing you need. To create the maps, I think you need Photoshop or PaintshopPro. I haven't come across any way to e-mail: I think you have to upload as per Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial. --Red King 23:23, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The descendants of the British Protestant settlers largely favoured a continued link with Britain, whereas the descendants of the native Irish Catholics wanted Irish independence."
Isn't Adams an English name? This all assumes that the different peoples didn't intermarry, a common myth, but one not borne out by historical documents of the time - or people's surnames. --MacRusgail 11:24, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, fair point, you could also cite people like Terence O'Neill and Lenny Murphy, who were Protestants, but as a generalisation, it still stands up. Most people in Ireland with surnames derived from Irish are catholics and the majority of people whose surnames originate in England or Scotland are Protestants. The last thing I want to do is to perpetuate sectarian mythology, but by and large the ethno-religious communities of the 17th century are still broadly the ancestors of the current ones in NI - at least in outline - and the poltics of today cannott be explained without some reference to the plantations. Jdorney 12:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Well I would point out that loads of Irish native surnames were altered to sound like English names e.g. O'Coileáin became Collins. As such, while some intermarriage did take place, it seems that the article is largely right broadly speaking.- Peter
....My family name is Scott from Fermanagh- you would think most certainly of planter ancestory, but we have been Catholic / Nationalists for as long back as we can trace... I don't belive it is accurate to assign religious / political beliefs to surnames...
Long term results
Does anyone else think that
- Since many present day unionists (Ireland) are descended from the Gaelic Irish (e.g. Terence O'Neill) and many Irish nationalists are descended from British settlers (e.g. Gerry Adams)
is rather irrelevant in this paragraph and certainly should not be in the primary element of a sentence that ends in The Troubles in Northern Ireland are therefore in some respects a continuation of the conflicts of the 17th century. (which really sums up the whole paragraph). --Red King 17:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
I would like to add a link from the section on the Ulster plantations to the article I created on the Doherty family history. As well I may do the same in future for stubs I would like to write on Cahir O' Doherty and O' Doherty's Rebellion. If that would be acceptable. Kevlar67 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- provided you put it in "See also", I doubt that anyone would find cause to object. --Red King 18:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
I had just linked to this article from British Empire and thought the size of the intro para was offputting. I left a small piece as the intro, and transferred the rest into the body as an overview section. OK?--188.8.131.52 12:14, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Jdorney 15:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Not entirely sure if this is normal Wiki protocol but I'd just like to congratulate you all on an informative piece that manages to avoid POV. Thanks, I learnt a lot.184.108.40.206 10:32, 19 May 2 thanks............
Cavan in Ulster Plantation
I believe Cavan, Donegal and Monaghan where not included in the Ulster Plantation. I only heard this, so I would be very happy if anybody would like to comment on this.19-Lenny-89 20:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
- The Plantation of Ulster article says Six counties were involved in the official plantation — Donegal, Coleraine, Tyrone, Fermanagh, Armagh and Cavan. The County of Coleraine was the main part of what became Co. L'derry with the most organised plantation. Presumably Antrim and Down already had significant Scottish populations. --Rumping (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Monaghan privatly planted
The map of the plantations at the top of the page says monaghan was privately planted which is wrong. It was the only Ulster countie not to be planted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Plantation of King's County and Queen's County
Is this one plantation or two? The article is ambiguous as written.
"The first such scheme was the Plantation of King's County (now Offaly) and Queen's County (now Laois) in 1556, naming them after the new Catholic monarchs Philip and Mary respectively."
Was this a single scheme as stated at the beginning, or were there two schemes or plantations as implied by the "them" later in the sentence? It seems from later text that there was a single plantation with both names attached, but the ambiguity needs to be cleared up. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
New map needed
The Ireland 1450 map in this article is inaccurate and misleading. Reasons being the MacDonnells in Ulster are not native Irish but Scots-Gaels, and the Burkes are not native Irish but Anglo-Irish. Mabuska (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Burkes were pretty Gaelicised by that time though and the MacDonnells, well at that tiem tehre easn't that much distinctio between Gaelsin Ulster and those in western Scotland, so I don't think it's misleading really.
- Jdorney (talk) 20:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
- They are still different. The MacDonnells can't be claimed as being native Irish when they descend from Norse-Gaels from the Western Isles, and along with that some of their septs have Norman pedigrees as well. The Burkes whether they were Gaelicised or not doesn't make them "native Irish". They are still Anglo-Irish/Hiberno-Norman in their descent. Being Gaelicised does not make you instantly native Irish. Mabuska (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
- Can you explain how simply becoming Gaelicised means that you can't be Anglo-Irish/Hiberno-Norman? There is nothing to explain as its only the map that needs altering. I don't see why map of boundaries in 1450 is being used anyways seeing as the first plantations were in the second half of the 16th century. Surely a more contemporary map of the mid 16th century would be better.
- Well to be honest we're getting into very muddy waters here because the term Old English was first used in the early 17th century in a very different politcal context - to highlight the right of the older, Catholic, elite against the "New English" Protestant settlers. It's not really appropriate for Gaelicised lordships like the Burkes in the 14 and 1500s. 'Norman' by 1500 is anachronistic and while they were of "Anglo" origin, in the 1500s the two Burke lordships (Clanrickarde and MacWilliam) were held in the Gaelic manner - that is by "tanistry" or election and they raised troops and exacted tribute in the Gaelic manner, as well as being Gaelic in language and culture etc. So it's more relevant to put them in the "Gaelic" than "anglo-Irish" camp at that particular time. For instance the Palesmen wrote of the Battle of Knockdoe in 1504, Kildare Fitzgeralds and Pale V Clanrickarde Burkes and allies as the "victory of the English over the Irish".
- I am on about the classification of "Native Irish" in contrast to "Anglo-Irish" not "Gaelic" in contrast to "Non-Gaelic". You can be Gaelic in all your customs if you so wish and not native Irish you know but still Anglo-Irish. I think we are crossing-hairs on what we area reading into it. For me i am taking a sourced geneaological perspective on this - paternally they are still Norman which as far as im aware aren't native Irish. A new map would be easy enough to create, and a more relevant and accurate map. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Verifiable and reliable???
Jdorney is what i'd say close to engaging in an edit-war over the following:
|“||These communities contended with the Roman Catholic elite who shared a common identity and set of political attitudes.||”|
This is what was there and is sourced by the quotation given. However Jdorney seems to need to feel that it must explicitly state "shared a common Irish identity" despite the fact the quote given doesn't state so.
Now in an attempt to vindicate their continual persistence in adding this in they have "expanded" the quote to ensure that it does state Irish:
|“||Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War p. 5-6, "The Gaelic Irish and Old English were increasingly seen by outsiders and defined themselves, as undifferentiatedly Irish...By the 1630s, members of the Catholic elite, whatever their paternal ancestry, shared a common identity and set of political attitudes...Conversely it is possible to speak of a contending Protestant/New English/British group. The term 'British' has validity because of its contemporary usage (in referring to grantees in the Ulster Plantation for example) and, especially, because it embraces, as it was designed to, both English and Scottish interests in Ireland...the consciousness of being a privileged minority in a hostile enviroment"||”|
It now looks like the mashing together of two different sentences to create a source for "common shared Irish identity". If anyone else has access to this source can it be proven that Jdorney isn't inventing content up to back themselves up and that this is actually in the source given? Mabuska (talk) 10:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Drop the confrontational tone please. Read it for yourself if you think I'm 'inventing' things . Don't appreciate the accusation by the way. Incidentally it was me who wrote the original piece and you who keeps changing it to say something it does not say. Jdorney (talk) 13:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of the initial reverts why didn't you just expand the quote in the first place and ref the link to the Google books one essentially since it was so problematic in the first place? The google link would of helped resolve the issue quickly after my first revert.
- Also if you look i actually changed it to say what was said in the quote. You are one who kept editing it to say something not backed up by the quote until you expanded it. Querying your addition to the quote especially after your reverts is a fair and right question to ensure reliability and verifability. Mabuska (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Plantations of Ireland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121011192652/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1962/en/act/pub/0029/sched1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.
- Padraig Lenihan, Confederate Catholics at War p. 5-6, "By the 1630s, members of the Catholic elite, whatever their paternal ancestry, shared a common identity and set of political attitudes...Conversely it is possible to speak of a contending Protestant/New English/British group. The term 'British' has validity because of its contemporary usage (in referring to grantees in the Ulster Plantation for example) and, especially, because it embraces, as it was designed to, both English and Scottish interests in Ireland"