Talk:Conor O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal 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.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conor Myles John O'Brien, 18th Baron Inchiquin. 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/20100515020348/http://www.obrienclan.com:80/conorf.htm to http://www.obrienclan.com/conorf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion?[edit]

This peer is given as born in 1943 but serving in the RAF in World War II! Is the detail relating rather to his father?Cloptonson (talk) 12:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced content and content sourced to deprecated sources[edit]

@The Banner: We cant have any unsourced or poorly sourced claims on a WP:BLP, they have to be removed immediately. Your most recent edit not on this page suggests you are well aware of that [1]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: You have all the time in the world, the text can still be found in the edit history. There is no need for it to remain up in order to find sources. I understand your frustration but edit warring BLP violations back onto a page isn't acceptable under any circumstances. WP:BLP says immediately and it means immediately. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthlessly removing text because it is sourced by a deprecated source is not the best way to improve the article. Starting editwarring why I try to improve the article is also not a positive course of action. I am working on it. Respect that. The Banner talk 19:56, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’l respect it but only under WP:IAR, what we are doing is clearly against the rules but I believe that you intend to source everything you can and will remove anything you cant eventually source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your editwarring and preventing the article to be improved is indeed against the rules. By now, I am finished. Have add some sources, removed some text. No need to bludgeon the article over deprecated sources. The sources were easy enough to find. Did you try to find them? The Banner talk 20:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see that the article advanced - I did have to do some work on it once, and it had room to improve, for sure. Not to butt in, but I think an important point is at issue - Horse Eye's Back, the rules for BLPs (I both edit and have written BLPs) specify urgency for material "challenged or likely to be challenged" and require immediate action for "contentious material" - other material can be citation needed tagged and time given. I did not see anything contentious here. We do have high standards for BLPs but we don't require every single point to be cited now. This is important as while you are correct that redacted text can be found in history, once cut it may be lost as many don't look back - and such action can also discourage other editors (many articles were written when article standards were arguably lower, and there are thousands with major need for improvement). Anyway, the net result here is a better and more robust article. SeoR (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you have gained a grumpy editor (me) because of the rudeness of HEB. The Banner talk 15:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Conor-outside orig.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baronetcy[edit]

Was there not a subsidiary title associated with Dromoland, a baronetcy of Dromoland and some other townland? SeoR (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed, Conor P. O'Brien was also 10th Baronet O'Brien, of Lemeneagh and Dromoland (cr. 1686), now we just need a citation... That title seems to follow the same line of descent as the baronial one.

Meantime, the claim about "Prince of Thomond" is widely mentioned, but has no sound basis in Gaelic law (and yes, some of the leading Gaelic families did unilaterally try to "change the rules", ironically to follow Anglo-Norman custom, but that attempt itself has no basis in Irish law or tradition - and now the Irish state simply does not recognise any of these claims, even Chief of the Name ones which might have some logic, at all). SeoR (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]