Jump to content

Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleDonough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 10, 2021Good article nomineeListed
February 8, 2022WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 28, 2021.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that both grandfathers of Donough MacCarty, who fought for the Irish Catholic Confederation, were Protestants?
Current status: Good article


GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sotakeit (talk · contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Johannes Schade! I've put this GA review on hold for the moment to give you chance to correct some clear citation issues. As per WP:GAFAIL, any articles with extant cleanup banners qualify for immediate failure. Although in areas the article is very well cited, there are still quite a few statements missing citations. If you could correct this, I'll continue with the review. Let me know if you have any questions in the meantime. Sotakeit (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sotakeit: Dear Sotakeit. Thank you very much for taking on this review. Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty is my first GA nomination. I see that you have created 233 pages, of which 34 articles. I looked at Saint-Sulpice, Paris, which is very nice and particularly well-illustrated. I am still a bit of a novice. I read up in the instructions and see that "articles with cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid" should be failed immediately. Thank you for rather putting this review on hold. I feel that it is not up to me to remove the cleanup banner as I am evidently biased. I must admit that I do not see where the "missing citations" should be. Could you eventually add some "Citation needed" maintenance tags to guide me? I hope to collaborate well with you and learn a lot. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sotakeit: Dear Sotakeit. A week is gone. I have added 36 citations. I am not sure that this has fixed the issue as in the process I also added more content and the citation density (18 words/citation) stayed the same. What do you think? With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay @Johannes Schade:. Life getting in the way. I've removed the hold tag and hopefully I'll get through this this evening or tomorrow. On a first glance it's a good article, so I don't think there is likely to be many suggestions. Will update you ASAP. Sotakeit (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Johannes Schade:, thanks for baring with me. Overall I think thing the article is good. With some tweaking in areas, I think it would pass on all six criteria. I made some minor changes with language, there being quite a few examples of what I think would be considered informal English. I've made some suggestions below that would need addressing. Sotakeit (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sotakeit. I am glad to hear from you. I do not seem to find citations for the 6 statements you mention. (1 & 2)I have deleted the first two. Nothing is known and things could perhaps be different from what I imagined. (3) The 3rd "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting." I wonder whether it really needs a citation. (4) I reformulated I think it should be understandable and obvious without another citation. (5) This is not a sentence I wrote. I am still looking for where it came from. (5) Lieutenants could leave Ireland and appoint a Deputy who stood in for them. — You find the term "grace" old-fashioned. However, this is the name used by the historians. I found, however, that Wikipedia has an article The Graces (Ireland), which I had overlooked, so I reworded a bit and linked to this article. — I changed reign to tenure, the Infobox seems to tolerate this. — Mountgarret had become the President of the Confederacy. I reworded to make this clear. That's it for today. With many thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sotakeit. I deleted the sentence about knighthood being a bonus, but kept the Efn. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sotakeit. I have doubts about the usefulness of the two tables of sessions. Perhaps I should throw them out. I replaced all 10-digit ISBNs with 13-digit ISBNs in the sources. I added citations for the two small family trees, which did not have any up-to-now, but I wonder what the right way is to provide verifiability for a family tree. User Jdorney has given me a citation for Cromwell "His aims were avenging ...". Unluckily, that source is not accessible online.
Dear Sotakeit: I added an anchor to link to for the issue-link in the Infobox. Also a citation for Brian Boru.
Dear Sotakeit. I added the citation that you demanded (1.A.1.6) showing that the Lord Lieutenant had the right to appoint a Deputy under him.
@Sotakeit: We are going nowhere. I want to withdraw the nomination. Please, just fail the GA. I will then restart with a different reviewer.
@Sotakeit: I consider you have withdrawn from this review. Not knowing why you do not respond, I thank you for your efforts and hold you are well. I will follow the instructions under "If the reviewer withdraws" and open GA2, hoping to get a new reviewer soon. Johannes Schade (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    1. I've removed the citation banner as, on the whole, the article is well sourced. There are still a few statements that I think need to be referenced:
      1. "She must have converted to Catholicism to do so."
      2. "The subsidiary title, Baron Blarney, was certainly meant as a courtesy title for Donough MacCarty, but apparently he never used the name."
      3. "Sir Donough, as an Irish Catholic, therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament in which he was sitting."
      4. "... who was however powerless in Confederate territory."
      5. "His aims were avenging the uprising of 1641, confiscating enough Irish Catholic-owned land to pay off some of the Parliament's debts, and eliminating a dangerous outpost of royalism."
      6. "...and therefore could now appoint a deputy under him."
    2. The use of "reign" in the infobox doesn't quite fit here. Perhaps "tenure", as used here, is a better option?
    3. I'm unsure of the meaning of the use of "graces" here, and subsequently throughout this paragraph. I'm not sure this is standard English anymore: "King Charles I had let know in 1626 that he was ready to grant "graces" to the Irish Catholics against payment". Maybe an explanation or a synonym?
    4. Some clarification needed here I suspect: "...at the capital he was received by President Mountgarret". President of what? Mountgarret is mentioned previously without the title.
    5. There are nine uses of the word "probably". I would suggest using some synonyms or alternatives. "Likely" perhaps?
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    1. Is there a better way of phrasing "Some said that Muskerry avoided...". Who said this? See MOS:WEASEL.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    Well referenced.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well referenced.
    C. No original research:
    1. This strikes me as original research: "Knighthood seems to still have been considered a bonus for the job". Do you have a reference to support this?
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Well illustrated.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: John Maynard Friedman (talk · contribs) 10:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to review this article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Lead

[edit]
  • As a general principle, footnotes should be limited to incidental details or explanations of points that may not be obvious to readers unfamiliar with the topic or or period. So the footnote about the variations of his name does not qualify, it should be in the body. The footnote about Lord Strafford does qualify, but "highest position in Ireland" is far too vague: should it say something like "the King's representative in Ireland, like a modern governor-general but with significantly more executive power"? But in that case, what does the Lord Lieutenant do? By the way, at first use, I would prefer the honorific 'Lord' prefixed to Strafford but maybe this is not conventional?
    • Perhaps the explanations of the spelling variations does qualify for "incidental", but the main reason for putting it to away was that I did not want to start off with something as boring as that. It does not engage the reader. The spelling variations are important of course when you want to make searches in the literature, but the common reader will not go for that. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backtracking here today from the mention of Lord Deputy of Ireland at #Honours and Parliaments, I've just had a look at Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and see that you shouldn't mention that title in any event because it didn't come into being until 1690. The Lord Deputy article tells me that Strafford was Lord Deputy, so this is should be reported here. As he is important, you need somewhere to expose his given name (Thomas Wentworth).
  • "He joined the Confederates " needs to be prefixed with "In the War of the Three Kingdoms" to give it wider context.
    • I think Muskerry wanted to join the Irish Confederates precisely and not a side in the British Civil War that he did not really care about. The Confederate war should of course be put into the wider context. I do not like the term. There are worldwide and through time certainly hundreds of wars that involved three kingdoms. It is a politically correct version of British civil War as the Irish nationalists refuse the term "British", in British Civil War when applied to Ireland or in British Isles. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand "Restoration" to "Restoration of the Monarchy".
    • If I do that I should probably also render explicit an Overthrow of the monarchy, which is hidden in the word Commonwealth. Do you feel that more general terms are needed for our Nigerian and Japanese readers? I expanded to Restoration in 1660. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Within reason, yes. Actually I try to write for GCSE students who have been given an essay assignment. I won't dumb down the language but do try to give them some clear sign-posts for at least the major milestones. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • After some more thought I think you are right. I therefore changed to a wlinked "restoration of the monarchy". Do you have a suggestions what Commonwealth then should become? It is probably even more confusing to my favoured Nigerian reader and perhaps to your GCSE students as well. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you,  Done
        • Formally it is the Commonwealth of England. I think spelling it out like that is good and will cause readers to do a double take, as indeed thyey should. Agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which reminds me of an earlier confusion I had. When you refer to "Parliament" during the Confederate War, I am conditioned to think of that in English term: Parliament v King. Clearly you shouldn't bog the article down with a history of Ireland, that you should assume your readers have background knowledge to be in this deep. I wouldn't expect you to recognise a parallel event in, say, Poland. But a note or footnote somewhere would assist an unwary English reader who expects the world to rotate around London. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:47, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Parliamentarian in the lead and to Commonwealth of England where it occurs in the text. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and origins

[edit]
  • His father: the citations say "Cormac". The citation for "also known as 'Charles'" is almost a throw-away in its citation. I suggest that this is clutter and I would delete.
    • Do I understand you correctly that the citation you mean is "He [Charles] d. v.p. being slain ..."? Did you not realise that I added the "[Charles]" part to explain who "he" is? I thought it was conventional to do this in quotations. MOS:QUOTE has examples for adding "things" between square brackets ([]) in quotes, even if not precisely in the manner I do. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, [...] is the convention as you say. My concern is more about a seemingly arbitrary choice of which name to use, that it should be "He [Cormac] d. v.p. being slain..." or if ambiguous then "He [Cormac (Charles)] d. v.p.... "
        • Changed to "He [Charles (Cormac)] d. v.p.... " I decided to make Charles his main name.
          • Ok, the main issue was consistent treatment.  Done
  • I don't really understand why their religion was so significant, maybe this needs a specific sub-section to explain?
    • Reading on about The Graces, I am now even more confused. You say that the family was protestant, that his mother was protestant, so how did he get to be catholic?
    • Ok, I didn't know that the Confederate War in Ireland was a war of religion. I'm even more sure that you need a subsection to explain the religious background.
  • "Oge" : google translate does not recognise this word as Irish Gaelic. Did you mean Óg (Oge)?
    • You are right this is not correct in Irish, but I am just repeating what I find in the English literature. They say "Cormac Oge". In Irish "young" is "óg" and younger is "óige" [ˈɔːɟɪ] (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/óg), but all the literature says "oge". I suppose it is a older or Munster-local form of óige or an anglicisation of it? I think Irish does not really get transliterated as it is written with the Latin alphabet. I think there is no doubt it means "younger" and that is all I wanted to say. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine but you have written "was distinguished from his grandfather by the Gaelic epithet 'Oge'," when it is not Gaelic. How about "was distinguished from his grandfather by the Gaelic epithet Óg, (transliterated into English as 'Oge') meaning 'young'"? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed the wording so that it does not say Gael but "coming from Gaelic".Johannes Schade (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It would read better as "an Anglicised form of the Gaelic" --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I had another look at Oge. It seems indeed to be an anglicisation. The "i" in "óige" is mute. The anglicisation dropped the acute accent (called "fada"), which makes the o long, and omitted the mute "i". In Irish most consonants can be pronounced "broad" or "slender" according to the accompanying vowel. A bit like the c and the g in English words of French origin. The "g" in "óige" is a slender "g", which sounds a bit like the English g in "age". Now Irish has a spelling rule "slender with slender and broad with broad", which says that slender consonants must have slender vowel (i,e) before and after the slender consonant, hence the introduction of a mute "i", or that is as I understand it now.
  • The caption on the portrait "The 2nd Viscount Muskerry" needs expanding to say "Donough MacCarty as the 2nd Viscount Muskerry". Readers do need these signposts.
    • This portrait is badly misplaced. It should be next to the text to which it relates, ("On 20 February 1641, Sir Donough's father, aged about 77, died in London, during his parliamentary mission.")

Early life, marriage, and children

[edit]
  • "MacCarty married Eleanor Butler " Which MacCarthy? (I know what you mean but I shouldn't have to stop to work it out. Best use forenames in this section.
    • I added the first name at this place.
    • Done Johannes Schade (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would read better as "Donough married ...". --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are editors who told me not to use his first name when he is an adult. WP:BIODD "Use full name in the first sentence, surname after". Doing this sounds weird I agree with you, but you find this implemented in many biographies in Wikipedia. Luckily having a title solves the problem in his later life. I suppose when somebodies family has not been discusses it is without problem to say "Einstein did ...".

Honours and parliaments

[edit]
  • State opening of Parliament: the word order is a bit awkward. I would write it as "The Parliament was opened with all pomp on 14 July 1634 by the new Lord Deputy of Ireland,[77][78] Lord Strafford,[79] who had taken up office in July 1633.
    • You need to check the article for this kind of WP:EGG, it was only when suggesting a rewrite that I spotted that Wentworth and Strafford are the same person. War and Peace syndrome! :-D
  • "The House of Commons had a Protestant majority[81] as King James I had created 39 pocket boroughs to that effect for his Irish Parliament of 1613–1615.[82]" is wp:SYNTH. The source say that James created the pocket boroughs to ensure a government majority.
My quote just says "James created thirty-nine new boroughs expressly for parliamentary purposes ...". This is at p 109, line 3. A bit further it says Government strong but if you read what is before at the middle of p108 it says "it was necessary to secure a Protestant majority".
    • Government majority meant Protestant majority in these crazy religious ("sectarian" as we would say in modern Northern Ireland) times.
      • But you are straying into SYNTH. The citation just says "government". I appreciate that it becomes more obvious when we get to The Graces but I think you are jumping the gun. Maybe you can explain that the government had to be Protestant but you can't misrepresent the source. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Lord Deputy at the time, Lord Falkland, never held that parliament." 'Convened' that parliament? (I mis-stepped here because I was expecting something like 'Falkland never held that parliament had the right to do so". A legalistic interpretation of the word 'hold', perhaps?)
    • Indeed. I must be wasting a lawyer's time. I chose neutral and slightly imprecise "held" because I think the King summons the parliament on proposition by the viceroy. Changed to "summoned" nevertheless. Do you agree?
  • "Sir Donough therefore expected to see the graces confirmed in this parliament[87][88]" I'm a bit worried that this may be wp:SYNTH since the citations just say that Catholic landowners in general expected. But it is a reasonable surmise.
    • I think this WP:SYNTH is a dangerous one that one should not take to sharp otherwise we will limit ourselves severely and cannot write texts that make sense to the reader. Take also into consideration that if I gave only the page, you would you would have much more trouble to cry WP:SYNTH.
  • "Catholic MPs expressed their anger by voting against any law proposed by Wentworth thereafter and due to absenteeism among the Protestant MPs, they were able to vote several laws down. Sir Donough, as a Catholic, surely voted them down." Avoid the wp:synth by rephrasing as "Catholic MPs, who included Sir Donough in their number, expressed their anger by voting against any law proposed by Wentworth thereafter and due to absenteeism among the Protestant MPs, they were able to vote several laws down. "
  • Ok, I'm being a clever clogs here, but I would insert a wiktionary link thus: "The committee compiled a [[Wikt:remonstrate|remonstrance]] (or complaint) against Strafford" though I suppose it would be disqualified as a wp:egg.
  • "Sir Donough therefore succeeded as 2nd Viscount Muskerry" The portrait caption needs to say "Portrait of Sir Donough as the 2nd Viscount Muskerry". In fact, I would create a subsection called "Viscount Muskerry" and put into it the portrait and the whole paragraph beginning "On 20 February 1641, Sir Donough's father, "

Irish wars

[edit]
    • The approach of Mountgarret's rebel army as another motivator is uncited. The article about Mountgarret piqued my interest, where it says that "After this he was chosen general of the Catholic Confederation which the rebels had formed to coordinate their war effort; but the county of Cork having insisted on choosing a general of its own. Thus were lost the advantages of undivided and vigorous control of the Confederate armies. The Viscount's forces were thereby considerably weakened, and he was defeated by the Earl of Ormonde at the Battle of Kilrush, near Athy, on 10 April 1642." This decision not to coalesce seems to have been a serious error of military judgement that deserves explanation if it can be done briefly (I'm conscious of mission creep, so skip if it isn't trivial to do).
    • I notice also that that Mountgarret article uses the term Anglican rather than 'Protestant' - this may be just me but I associate the latter term more with nonconformism and evangelicalism. Worthy of consideration, not a show-stopper by any means,
    • You are of course right. I did not want to bring in the distinction, which is important in Northern Ireland, but not for Lord Muskerry in Munster. It seems to me that Protestant is generally accepted for covering both the Anglicans and the nonconformant Protestants in the present context. Johannes Schade (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Restoration, death, and timeline

[edit]

Line-by-line review complete

GA criteria

[edit]
  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: yes
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: yes, but GOCE review advised.
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by MeegsC (talk) 09:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
3/4-length portrait of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
3/4-length portrait of Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
  • ... that one of the members (pictured) of the Supreme Council of the Irish Catholic Confederacy had two Protestant grandfathers? (1) MacCarthy 1913 p. 66: "Cormac MacDermott, 16th Lord, born in 1552, attended Parliament in 1578 as "Baron of Blarney", and conformed to the Protestant church." (2) McGurk (2004) p. 361, right column: "In the 1613 parliament he [Thomond] strongly supported the protestant party ..."
    • ALT1:... that Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty (pictured) who fought for the Irish Catholic Confederacy had two Protestant grandfathers? (1) MacCarthy 1913 p. 66: "Cormac MacDermott, 16th Lord, born in 1552, attended Parliament in 1578 as "Baron of Blarney", and conformed to the Protestant church." (2) McGurk (2004) p. 361, right column: "In the 1613 parliament he [Thomond] strongly supported the protestant party ..."
  • Comment: The hook fact is not central to the biography of the subject

Improved to Good Article status by Jdorney (talk) and MadMax (talk). Nominated by Johannes Schade (talk) at 17:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
  • Cited: Yes - Offline/paywalled citation accepted in good faith
  • Interesting: Yes
Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
QPQ: None required.

Overall: ALT1 prefered Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dera Buidhe. I have done some work on the {{cn}} tags. I would like you to have a look and remove them if you agree. With Thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging buidhe, who may not have seen the above note. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johannes Schade I see one citation needed tag by note e. SL93 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are also two original research tags. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SL93 I have removed the maintenance tags and made corresponding changes. The article is under review for MH A-Class. Besides, I wondered whether the hook should not use "both" instead of "two", e.g. "...that both grandfathers of Donough MacCarty (pictured), who fought for the Irish Catholic Confederation, were Protestants?" With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 12:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issues have been fixed so I'm reapproving this. I will add your tweaked hook as ALT2 in case the promoter wants to choose it because it isn't introducing any new information. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic?

[edit]

@Johannes Schade: I doubt that your inference that "therefore he was a Catholic" (to have joined the Confederacy) would meet the standard for A-class? If he had declared himself an Atheist or a Pagan – anything but Church of Ireland – would he have qualified? Unlikely I know but WP:OR forbids such editorial inferences. Have none of your many source texts covered this explicitly? perhaps equally they all thought it obvious? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to find better. Where is the limit of OR: if a source says "John Smith had two daughters: Anne, born in 1815, and Berta, born in 1816." I would say you are allowed to write "Anne, the elder", based on that source, even if strictly speaking, this is inferred from the source and the source never says "elder". So in this case. The confederates were all Catholics. They called themselves the Confederate Catholics of Ireland. I do not think there was anything in the statutes or their oath that forbade non-Catholics to join. They had to give themselves an air of tolerance to please the king, who was the head of the Church of Ireland. Johannes Schade (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Anne/Berta example is not really germane since it is a logical deduction from the information presented, it is a 'closed information domain': this is not. At that time (and no doubt more recently), people were quite relaxed about religious labels according to political, commercial or romantic expedience. I have no real doubt that at the time he joined the Confederacy, he at the very least presented himself as a Catholic. But the problem is that I have inferred it but I am not a reliable source. It would be so much better if you could find an RS that would say so. In the list of details we don't really know about him, it is just one and not even a particularly significant one – but becomes so when the article mentions that his grandfathers were both Protestant: it highlights an anomaly that begs to be picked over. That's what makes it an intriguing DYK candidate, albeit worded carefully to sidestep the OR problem.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, relevant policy is WP:SYNTH, not OR. "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. " --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear John Maynard Friedman. I found a citation that comes much nearer to calling him directly a Catholic: Hickson (1884) says "But, staunch and devout Roman Catholic as he was, he [Donough] refused to sanction the extermination ...". Friendly greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 08:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an unambiguous statement and satisfies my concern. Issue resolved. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Dear Johannes

I see you've been doing a lot of work on Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. The article is included in a list mentioned on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica as containing indirect links which would benefit from updating into direct EB1911 wikisource links. At a quick glance (there may be more) I can see two relevant references which are using the Internet Archive:

  • Atkinson, Charles Francis re Great Rebellion and
  • Round, John Horace re Baronet

How shall we handle these changes? Shall I go ahead when it's quiet, or would you prefer to do them? Best wishes ArbieP (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ArbieP. Thanks for giving me a warning. I am quite often busy on this article but I can cope with possible edit conflicts. Just go ahead with what you believe you must do. You know well that I object and do not believe these are improvements. Freundliche Grüße, Johannes Schade (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Johannes All done. (I hope found them all) ArbieP (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gallarus Castle

[edit]

On 15 September, Clancarty submitted a petition against John FitzGerald of Enismore concerning the possession of Gallaris, which was granted, as the Journals of the House of Lords (1779) states on page 342, left column, in the entry for the 15 September 1662: "Ordered that John FitzGerald of Enismore, Esq., do deliver the Possession of Gallaris ...". This is an isolated statement that needs to be put into context. It seems reasonable to identify Gallaris with Gallarus on the Dingle peninsula, County Kerry, which originally belonged to the Knight of Kerry. I have not been able to find out who John FitzGerald of Enismore was, possibly a cadet branch of the Knights of Kerry. If Gallaris is Gallarus near Dingle, then Enismore might well be Ennismore Townland that appears in the Dysert Parish, List of townlands of County Kerry and is situated in the Barony Iraghticonnor (see List of baronies of Ireland),which is the northernmost of the baronies of Kerry. This Ennismore later belonged to William Hare, created Baron Ennismore (1800) and Earl of Listowel (1822). However, there is also an Ennismore near Cork. The main question is of course: by which right could Clancarty claim Gallarus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johannes Schade (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 November 2021

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donough_MacCarty,_1st_Earl_of_Clancarty&oldid=1206707638"