Talk:Young Ireland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Irish Republicanism (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish Republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Ireland (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reasons for POV tag[edit]

As requested by Erin Go Bragh, my reason for putting the POV tag on the page is that the article seems to set out to argue a positive case for the group. Some examples:

1. Talk of (apparently) rejecting physical force is not just mentioned, it is stressed. I have removed some of this stress (see the edit history), but I still think it is there.

2. We also have weaselly words such as:

  • "an experienced young Catholic journalist"
  • "a prolific writer of poetry and prose"
  • "unprecedented death and destruction" (although I have now removed this)
  • vauge statements like "British repression" and "first used [to belittle the group] by the English press"

3. The article is totally unreferenced, and this particular POV is apparently supported by such unreferenced statements.

4. The article was written from a personal perspective, and this comes through in a paragraph I removed where it is stated that:

  • "The time was probably not ripe for rebellion"
  • "For a detailed account of the 1848 uprising Michael Doheny’s “The Felon’s Track” is one of the most authentic."

This was a personal analysis and probably the worst kind of original research that I have come across on Wikipedia.

The worst part, however, was the following that I removed: "which saw both corrupt Governments and Monarchy’s toppled and felled, with the cry of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality."

The words are weaselly, the interpretation is a personal one as far as I can see (it's certianly not referenced), and it has POV written all over it.

I have removed much obvious POV, but I cannot remove it all since there would be little article left, and it would destroy the rest of the structure. Rather, it needs reworking. Major reworking. Logoistic 16:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I advise you to remove all POV. You are entitled to remove any unreferenced material also. In cases like this it may be best to reduce the article to a stub and start from there. It is better to have a small sound article, than a long unsound one. Tyrenius 20:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

History is a narrative[edit]

“Perhaps in no country, but only Ireland, would a plain narrative of wars and revolutions that are past and gone two centuries and a half ago, run any risk of being construed as an attempt to foster enmity between the descendants of two races that fought so long since for mastery in the land. Yet the writer of this short record of the life of the greatest Irish chieftain, is warned that such construction may, and by some assuredly will, be put upon the following story and the writer’s manner of telling it. But as to the narrative itself, undoubtedly the only question ought to be—is it true? And if so—is the truth to be told, or hidden ?—Is it not at all times, in all places, above all things, desirable to hear the truth instead of a lie?” The above narrative is taken from John Mitchel’s Preface to his first book, The Life and Times of Aodh O’Neill, also called Life of Hugh O’Neill, in the 1868 American edition. Mitchel continues, “And for the way in which it is told—the writer does indeed acknowledge a strong sympathy with the primitive Irish race...” It is would be very rare indeed to see such an admission, from a contemporary writer of history today. As to how his historical narrative would be construed, it has been shown to be both true and prophetic. For anyone to suggest that history can be written in a “neutral” way, are both deluding themselves, and everyone else who is interested in history? History writing is full of bias, opinion, interpretation, sympathy and a whole host of other human failings. The best we can hope for is balance! The really great thing about Wikipedia, is that it provides both a “talk page” and a “discussion” page on every subject it covers. This is the platform to put forward your views and opinions. It allows members and none members the opportunity to advance their knowledge on the subject that interests them, through informed discussion. History is written by people, as imperfect as we are, not by robots, or any other type of bots. If you’re not sure about an article, ask, it will not be an automated response, but a living breathing person, who happened to be interested enough in a subject to want to share it with other people. Will the response be open to question, I would be more surprised if it was not. The only people who will view these pages will be people who are interested. With enough genuine interest from people, it will be a first rate page, and an example to follow. So is history to be told or hidden, or handed to bots to bore to death, and suck the life out of it. Domer48

  • Below is a reply to each point you make.

1. Absolutely anyone who has read anything about the Young Irelanders, will have seen Charles Gavan Duffy, described as an experienced journalist. 2.Thomas Davis’s writings are still celebrated in Ireland to day, every year in fact. 3. What did the potato blight cause, a miner drop in population, get real? 4. What would you have British policy described as excessive zeal, rigorously applied? 5. I have sorted out the references used, but since you have not got a clue, what the hell use are they to you. 7.The article was written from the perspective of the young Irelanders, but since you have obviously never read them, how are you to know, ignorance is no excuse. 8. Again, since you know absolutely noting of the subject of the rebellion, you are trying to keep everyone else in the dark with your editing zeal. 9. Again, you have not read anything at all on the subject, so you would not know the Felon’s Track, is one of the most detailed. 10. This was not a personal analyse, or anything like it. It was a narrative of the people and the events. Point out anything in the piece that is not contained in the book list provided. 11. Anything I will go toe to toe on every source. The books by the young Irelanders can only be described a primary sources, what are yours. 12. The personal attack is a mark of your stature and intellect, or was it just a POV violation.

In conclusion, you have removed material of which you have no knowledge, you have not refuted anything that was written, and you have provided no new or additional material. That type of behaviour existed in the middle ages. What you can do, is check the pages for flaws, and help improve it. As to the content, leave it to those who have an interest in the subject.

The only good that can come from this is that it might spark an interest in the Young Irelanders, and that would please me greatly, being able to converse with genuine interest. Domer48

Ok, first off I am warning you to cease your personal attacks (e.g. "what the hell use they are to you", "the personal attack is a mark of your stature and intellect"). You may wish to familiarise yourself with this policy at Wikipedia: no personal attacks. Secondly, you need to put references within the text to support the points that you make that could be considered orignal research, or of questionable accuracy. Note that even if they seem obvious facts to you, putting in references to support them removes any doubt, and increases the integrity of Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources. You obviously have a lot of sources, so correctly referencing them in the article will then allow for your points to be given their proper weight, that is, if they are true. I would also encourage you to read Wikipedia: avoid peacock terms and Wikipedia: avoid weasel words. Thus, sentances such as "to the cry of Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" should have no place in a factual encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, for more information. The text that I removed breaks these Wikipedia policies, and represents unfounded speculation unless you can provide references. I would suggest you avoid vague terms like "British repression" and be more specific about what you are talking about. I leave it to yourself to consult these Wikipedia policies and do justice to your obviously great knowledge of the subject. Just remember to do it the Wikipedia way. Logoistic 01:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • You have missed the point completely! You have not addressed the central issue, in my reply to you, which is that you have no knowledge of this subject, and your motivation in obviously personal. That being the case, the only input you have put forward to date is negative in both tone and manner. There was absolutely no welcoming or encouraging remark from you to someone obviously new to the site, on how best to produce an article of quality, and an asset to members and none members alike. If you are going to go around pages, of which, in general you have no interest in or knowledge of, you should at least show some respect. If it is clearly a new member, your attitude should be one of encouragement, support and advice. Do not abuse your experience, and do not issue people warnings!

I am not interested in pushing a point of view; I’m interested in finding out what other people think. I want to make the Young Ireland page the best it can possibly be. I want the page to be challenging, informative and to stretch my knowledge to the limits. By doing this, anyone with an interest in the subject, will benefit. If you are going to intrude, let it be in a supportive and positive manner. Use your experience of the site in such a way, that we can all benefit from it. If you are going to be offended by terms such as “British repression,” when dealing with Young Ireland, you are just going to have to get use to it. Don’t take it personal that is the way they talked. When ever the term is used, and it will be because of the subject, it is directed towards the Government Policy, not the British people! There is absolutely nothing stopping you from putting an opposing view in the article. Now I am willing to accept that we got of on the wrong foot. What I would suggest is that you revert the article, and point out were I am going wrong. You have already pointed out some sites, and I am grateful. I will rectify my style, and you can help in that regard. If there is a point that you find unpleasant, and want me to explain, on the subject of Young Ireland, I will try my best. There is a banner warning above this page, I think it should stay. In fact, I think it should be over every article on history. But that is just my personal point of view. Domer48

  • I warn you one last time to stop personal attacks such as "your motivation [is] obviously personal". Please assume good faith (Wikipedia: assume good faith). I will get another user to look at this to see what they think if you do not accept my view. Logoistic 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I will of course assume good faith from here on in, like I have said, I appreciate your experience, I would appreciate your advise, and I would need your support in editing the pages I am interested in. If you are going to help with your edits, please leave a note as to why you remove material. Would it not be more helpful, to inform me in advance of your intension. There is no obligation on you to do this, it would just be a matter of courtesy, respect and done in the spirit of cooperation. For example, why remove the quotes from the John Mitchel page? Why change Honours, to miscellaneous, on the John Mitchel page? I did not add that section, it is apparently there some time, why now? Regards Domer
  • Domer a chara, please chill out, like Logoistic said please fimilairise yourself with with wiki policies. If you have valid points that conform to wiki policy then that will be included in the article.--Vintagekits 12:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Vintagekits, I will do that. As they say, "The only time you make a mistake, is when you learn nothing from it." Experience comes from making mistakes! but I am copping on?

Domer, whilst it is ok to use such long-winded sentances (as you have just used above) in addressing other users, please don't let this language creep into Wikipedia articles. The point is to get facts across as quickly and as easilly as possible. It's not a novel, or a piece of poetry, but an encyclopedia. Logoistic 18:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Will try to be less detailed. Domer48

Notes on Roy Foster[edit]

User Natalie West your edits were very interesting on the Young Ireland page. If I could just refer you to some books, in relation to Roy, Foster’s: Modern Ireland 1600-1972. They are Charles Gavan Duffy: Conversations With Carlyle (1892), with Introduction, Stray Thoughts On Young Ireland, by Brendan Clifford, Athol Books, Belfast, ISBN 0 85034 1140. (Pg. 32 Titled, Foster’s account Of Young Ireland.) Which deals with Foster’s, Modern Ireland, and Envoi, Taking Leave Of Roy Foster, reviews of his made up Irish Story, Aubane Historical Society, Cork, by Brendan Clifford and Julianne Herlihy. This book also contains the essays Irish Revisionism, School History, And The Invisibility Of Women. A Review Of Roy Foster’s Modern Ireland, by David Alvey, and Past Events And Present Politics Roy Foster’s Modern Ireland, by Brian Murphy osb. With Brendan Clifford’s, Mangling Irish History: Professor Roy Foster’s Achievement Surveyed, and Julianne Herlihy’s, Selling The Product: Some Observations On Roy Foster’s The Irish Story, Telling Tales And Making It Up In Ireland. I was going to include these titles on the additional reading section, at a later date. I found them very informative, and based on their observations, would question the use of Modern Ireland. Having read Modern Ireland, I personally gave up on much of the Modern histories, and focused primarily on primary sources. Regards Domer48

As to your Edits, I would like to here you views on the Repeal Association. The use of the word “Revolutionary” to describe it? In what context are you using the word? The disparaging way they were referred to as Young Ireland, was used before the formed the Irish Confederation. They were called Young Ireland, when still Members of the Repeal Association, and rejected that title. This is a very important point, because they were determined that the Association remain united. The use of the words “Split” and “Splinter” would not be appropriate, the same way your use of the word “disparaging,” is much more appropriate then the one I used. The terms used at the time was seceded, and faction. The use of terminology therefore is very important, as the use of words have changed, so has there meaning. On the prohibiting of the Clontarf meeting, would it not be wise to mention the proclamation that was issued the night before, and how this “projected slaughter” and “salutary lesson,” they felt to be the motivation behind it. On a personal note, what are you views on the use of the term “Famine,” when describing the potato blight? With an over abundance of food in the country at the time, how could it be described as a famine? Domer48

In answer to Dormers points:

Roy Foster

I agree with Dormer in being wary of using Roy Foster as a source and am aware of the criticism levelled at Foster's interpretation of Irish history by some of his academic colleagues. For example Professer Brendon Bradshaw (Queen's Coll,Camb) accused him of being 'ideologically driven' and 'abusing his position' and Peter Beresford Ellis (Fellow of the Royal Historical society) regards Foster as an apologist for British Imperialism in Ireland. With that in mind, I turned to Foster's chapter on the Reform movement in "Modern Ireland" in an attempt to find some citations to back up the as yet, totally unreferenced article. (not having any other references immediately to hand). I managed to find one citation for the 'monster' meeting at Clontarf being so named after the religious revivialists, and O'Conoll's decision to cancel it for fear of British reprisial and added it to the article, which I do not think is controversial. Otherwise my edit was limited to biographical facts, dates, style, typos and generally wikifying. The article still has a very long way to go in terms of citations etc and Dormer's addition to the footnotes of many of the primary sources is a good start. Natalie West 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Famine or Genocide?

According to the OED the archaic meaning of the word is 'hunger' and the modern meaning is 'extreme shortage of food' which are obviously two different things- which leads on to how the subject is treated over on the Famine page. The current article is very poor indeed and did not even mention the Young Ireland uprising at all until I added a link recently! Natalie West 02:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Page[edit]

Natilieduerinckx I have changed some of your text. With the references I have attached, you can check them out in the online edition of the book.Hope you agree. Regards Domer48

New Sections/Heads[edit]

There is a great deal more information for this article to be done. Some of the Heads would be the Charitable Bequests Act, The Maynooth Grant, The Colleges Bill, The Peace Resolutions. Existing Heads will be expanded over time. --Domer48 22:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to the 21st century[edit]

This article needs a serious overhaul; it reads very little like a work of modern history, but rather a eulogy for the movement. The fact that the sources cited date from between 1880 and 1951, and ignore half a century of significant historical writing on this period, smacks of an attempt to return Irish history to the ahistorical and hagiographical shadows of national memory and martyrdom from which it was dragged several decades ago.

Cripipper 13:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs editing to reflect an encyclopedic tone and contemporary historiography. It is striking that the sources are so old, when I'm sure historians have continued to study this period and movement. Have done some editing for tone, but it needs much more.--Parkwells (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cripipper, for your critic of the article. With your help we can improve it. I would be interested in the historical writing you mention, if you could include them in the book list it would be really helpful. As to the sources mentioned, they are all primary sources, for the best part. They themselves are used by contemporary writing on the period, and by some, have come to be used as reference work. Dennis Gwynn, who I believe you allude to, is a member of the notable Gwynn family of historians, and find the critic unusual. Though in modern history, from only my own experience, I feel this period has received so much less attention than it should. This is surprising, when one considers the amount of information available. Apart from some of the books mentioned in the books by them, they were also responsible for the publication of a number of newspapers, such as the notables The Nation, The United Irishman, The Irish Felon and The Tribune. Seen in this light, I find the brisk critic interesting. Please feel free to improve and build upon the article and if you could, include these significant historical writings you mention. Thank you again, Regards --Domer48 11:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A few paragraphs or a section on what the YI group did to help the hungry during the 1840s Famine would be a plus. I knew about that a few decades ago but have lost all my refs. It's a big gap in the article. 11:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Additional Reading[edit]

Help needed to put in alphabetical order by author's surname. Did some editing of format, but more is needed. The list is really too lengthy, but I'm not familiar with the histories. Deleted a novel. More should come off the list.--Parkwells (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Young 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:

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)