Talk:History of Ireland (1691–1800)

Ireland High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Former countries

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles

History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Comment[edit]

It would be good if someone added more about the relationship between the poor and their lords. It could also help to mention Swift's Modest Proposal (1729) and how it ties in with the state of Irish poverty at that time. This page currently goes into little detail about the extent of poverty in the 1700s and how it was caused.

RFC: Irish history series[edit]

I have opened a discussion on a reorganisation of the series of articles dealing with Irish history at Talk:History of Ireland#RFC: Irish history series. --RA (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grattan's Parliament[edit]

There appears to be a mini edit war going on over this edit, but in fact the sentence - with or without the qualification - doesn't make any sense to me. This is how it reads in the stable version:

Many Irish Protestant liberals were sympathetic to the French Revolution of 1789, which appeared to show that Roman Catholics were not adverse to "liberty" as the Whig ideology of the Glorious Revolution had long claimed.

Perhaps a re-write, with citations, would be a better idea than disputing the addition of unsourced content to an unsourced statement. Scolaire (talk) 08:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grattan was deeply opposed to the French Revolution and was a political disciple of Burke, not of the French leaders. I'm sorry but this is common knowledge, the edit was reverted by a prominent troll who is stalking me. 86.40.96.88 (talk) 09:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not work on 'common knowledge', only on reliable citations. See WP:VERIFY. --Red King (talk) 12:00, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could quote 300 books to backup what I say. But its the intellectual equivilent of stating that 'Padraig Pearse was a Republican'. Please understand how important this distinction is. 86.40.96.88 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edit back again. I feel I have answered the criticisms and established that Hohlenhoh is stalking me for perverse reasons, reasons he hasn't accounted for. I don't understand why these republicans are in conspiracy against me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.96.88 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 April 2010

Since my own question has not been addressed, I am deleting the entire sentence. Scolaire (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:86.40.96.88, if there are 300 books that support what you say, you only have to find one of them and give the page number. If you don't know how to write a citation in wikipedia style, put it here and someone will convert it for you. --Red King (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's irrelevant, because the whole sentence has been deleted. Scolaire (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is why good people don't edit wikipedia. You clearly know nothing about 18th century Ireland, while the people who do, and are passionate about it, are forced to run through hoops to point out the bleeding obvious to people who poke their nose in to where it doesn't belong. When I first sat my undergraduate degree in history, I was always informed that 'footnoting the obvious is a pointless endeavour'. If you had even a cursory knowledge of 18th century Ireland, you'd know that Grattan was a disciple of Burke. YOU SHOULDNT HAVE TO FOOTNOTE THAT, ITS LIKE FOOTNOTING THAT RONALD REAGAN ADMIRED WILLIAM BUCKLEY.

PLease have a little think about this. Maybe you'll restore my faith in humanity. But what you ask is far too absurd, and you too would realise this, if you actually understand the immense complexity of history.

I am thoroughly disillusioned. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 20:50, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it's irrelevant, because the whole sentence has been deleted! Scolaire (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not irrelevant, you deleted relevant and illuminating material because you don't understand the significance. This is why wikipedia has failed as a project. People with no interest or passion in this particular area call the shots by exploiting obtuseness of reasoning and are bereft of common decency. Frankly you should be ashamed of yourself, by your 'intervention', you have managed to bastardise an otherwise decent article. This whole Wisdom of Crowds lark is a lie, you are living proof that the intervention of the ignorant is a stain on the aspirations of an intelligent humanity. I think you personally are indicative of a far wider problem on this website - namely, the pedantic, frivolous interventions by people with no knowledge whatsoever about what they are talking about. Please, just go away. 86.40.210.11 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just explain what the sentence is supposed to mean. These articles aren't written by the pseuds for the pseuds. They're supposed to make sense to the masses. Scolaire (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endnotes[edit]

There are no endnotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.182.57 (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. I've added one now.

Citation[edit]

There was a [citation needed] tag on one statement. An IP added a citation without being aware of the proper format and was simply reverted, twice, once with a fairly uncivil edit summary. It's worth noting that even if the IP had known to use <ref> it would have done no good since, as the editor above pointed out, there was no reference section. As to providing a page number, the fact that a standard history of Ireland named the volume on the eighteenth century 'The Long Peace' is an ample citation for the fact that "it has been called 'the long peace'" - no page number required. This kind of knee-jerk revert does nothing to improve any article. Nobody should have to point out WP:DONTBITE to experienced editors. Scolaire (talk) 08:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IP that added the cite was reverted once, and not by me. The other IP which I reverted is quite clearly not a good faith editor but a disruptive stalker reverting RashersTierney's edits, as this and this demonstrate. O Fenian (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Didn't see that. Apologies. Scolaire (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Old Style and New Style dating[edit]

Does anybody know when Ireland adopted the change of start of year and change of calendar? I.E., was there an Act equivalent to England's Calendar (New Style) Act 1750? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK it was 'officially' adopted with the enactment of the English act and no separate Irish act was considered necessary. Here is an interesting essay on the contemporary politics of the Julian/Gregorian calendars wrt Ireland. RashersTierney (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! p9 of above source states "Grattan's Parliament of 1782 felt the need to formally enact the legislation again because this was a case of the Westminster parliament exercising its alleged superiority over its Irish counterpart." RashersTierney (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed name change[edit]

Someone appears to think that there was such a thing as a single 'Act of Union 1801'. There wasn't, there were two, and they were both passed in 1800 and thus are referred to as the Acts of Union 1800. Although their provisions _came into force_ on 1 January 1 1801, this era of Irish history definitely and incontrovertibly came to an end on 31 December 1800, and thus I propose that this article's name should be changed to History of Ireland (1691–1800). See Talk:Acts of Union 1800#1800? for further explanation. >MinorProphet (talk) 01:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence / syntax[edit]

---'The history of Ireland from 1691–1800 was marked by the dominance of the Protestant Ascendancy. These were Anglo-Irish families of the Anglican Church of Ireland, whose English ancestors had settled Ireland in the wake of its conquest by England and colonisation in the Plantations of Ireland, and had taken control most of the land.---

Hello there, This first sentence is problematic for a number of reasons, not least that it contains a few typos which, out of respect, I'm not inclined to correct without your blessing.

working backwards, 'take control OF most of the land'.

'whose English ancestors had settled IN Ireland'

'settling Ireland', 'the colonisation of Ireland' and taking 'control of most of the land' all compete for the same prize so I suggest simplification.

delete comma after Ireland[,]

Anglo-Irish families, the Anglican Church of/IN? Ireland, and the having of English ancestors are probably not exclusive categories. See part III in Edith Johnston's https://archive.org/details/greatbritainirel0000john (free to borrow)

Kind Regards, M.H. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PfPorlock (talk • contribs) 09:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PfPorlock: Not probably, but definitely the 'Anglo-Irish' were not exclusively descended from English planters. I read section 3 in your reference and point taken -how ridiculous it is to describe this class in such a narrow and controversial way when we can all see their family names are by no means strictly those of the New English -Fitzgerald, Connolly, O'Brien, Daly etc etc. The Ascendancy was an amalgam of the descendants of the Tudor/Cromwellian English and the Gaelic and Old English nobles and upstarts who cleverly converted to the established church either to retain their privileges (eg the Dukes of Leinster, the Earls of Upper Ossory) or to achieve some degree of upward mobility (the Connollys, the Guinnesses). That's why you see these Irish names scattered about the rosters of parliament and the CoI records, as well as in the genealogies of those Ascendancy types whose surnames are typically English. The Anglo-Irish article makes some attempt at some nuance here, but even there they tend to treat the "New English", "Old English" and "Gaelic" aristocrats as discrete categories.

I've noticed you posted this over 3 years ago and have heard nothing but the sounds of crickets. What type of changes do you propose? Jonathan f1 (talk) 02:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Hello. Thank you for your reminder and my apologies for not responding previously but I gave up trying to interact with Wiki after a bruising experience with one of its editors/enforcers on another thread. As you know, life is too short etc. Kind Regards, M. 185.235.46.5 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had similar experiences on here and rarely go out of my way these days. It's too bad some of these spaces are so politicized. Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]