Talk:Richard Óg de Burgh, 2nd Earl of Ulster
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Good first steps
[edit]I added a few links and rearranged some text to make this conform, and look more like other articles in the "earl of ulster" line. Some of the information contained in the article seems off-topic, such as the links between the de Mandeville's and the castle, etc... I left them in since I'm not at all sure that they don't belong, but they seem out of place here. JByrd 21:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Minor move
[edit]Just a bit o' pedantry here, but I see that 'young' Burke doesn't have a síneadh fada so I'm moving to correct. Brendandh 23:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Bonkers
[edit]It is surely worth pointing out to the anonymous User who has changed the world-wide recognised surname of O'Connor to some Gaelic surname that this is the English-language Wikipedia. Alright for history books in Eire maybe but if you persist in this sort of thing, occasional readers accessing Wikipedia won't have the faintest idea who you're talking about. Regards, David Lauder 20:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
- I suggest, Mr. "Eire", that you cast yourself with great speed out of your benighted status on this issue, consult some professional historians writing in English on Irish historical topics [such as in this article] and, in the process, you will discover it is professional practice to maintain the Irish spellings of Irish surnames when the article is written in English, just as one would when writing French surnames in an English language history. The exception to this rule is when the Irish family in question was firmly part of the anglicised class. Now, please desist from your depressingly British nationalist ranting. Regards. 86.42.97.195 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can only repeat that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and virtually all books in English, on Irish and Scottish history, right up until recently, carried the names in the accepted English format. It is only recently this trend has begun to rewrite everything and it is ridiculous. On the other hand if you want to write the article in gaelic, thats fine. If I followed your reasoning I would be writing Johann instead of John and Munchen instead of Munich. English language writers have, since the advent of the written word, anglicised everything foreign, not because they were "depressingly British nationalists" but because they were English-language speakers. I have no objection to, say, the French referring to London as Londres. Your anonymous rudeness speaks volumes. David Lauder 11:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there was never any 'accepted' English form, either officially or unofficially. Ó Conchúir has been anglicised Connor, Conor, and O'Connor among other forms. That's your first error. But you are right; anglicisation of Irish names was a trend, not a professional approach to the study of history. That professionalism knows that names carry symbolism, carry cultural and political worlds. Indeed, if anybody here really appreciates that it would be you. And isn't that just your very problem here: you don't like the Irish world being conveyed in its own right, a task all good historians would embrace. Third, indeed you may not write 'Johann', but the wikipedia article on Johann Sebastian Bach in English is certainly not entitled 'John Bach'. Fourth, if you really wish to persist in this I suggest you deliver yourself forthwith to Pádraig Harrington and change it to 'Patrick Harrington' and to Éamon Ó Cuív and change it to Edmond Keefe. The list in this regard is endless. Suffice to say that you are not seeking history here, but rather seeking a British nationalist representation of Irish history. That, my good chap, is not going to happen. It really is all about toleration, and even acceptance, isn't it. 86.42.97.195 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Far from it, the converse is true I'm afraid. Just trying to tell you that virtually the entire world knows history as it has been written for 2000 years, not as it is now being written by you nationalists trying to rewrite history. It would be a mistake to think that this hasn't been noticed by all and sundry. I even know of a college in the US which has told its pupils it will not accept Wikipedia as a reference because of all these anomolies. For people like me just trying to write traditional informative historical articles which all understand and can relate to, it is very upsetting. I suppose it had to happene when you open the door to all comers with various axes to grind. David Lauder 14:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there was never any 'accepted' English form, either officially or unofficially. Ó Conchúir has been anglicised Connor, Conor, and O'Connor among other forms. That's your first error. But you are right; anglicisation of Irish names was a trend, not a professional approach to the study of history. That professionalism knows that names carry symbolism, carry cultural and political worlds. Indeed, if anybody here really appreciates that it would be you. And isn't that just your very problem here: you don't like the Irish world being conveyed in its own right, a task all good historians would embrace. Third, indeed you may not write 'Johann', but the wikipedia article on Johann Sebastian Bach in English is certainly not entitled 'John Bach'. Fourth, if you really wish to persist in this I suggest you deliver yourself forthwith to Pádraig Harrington and change it to 'Patrick Harrington' and to Éamon Ó Cuív and change it to Edmond Keefe. The list in this regard is endless. Suffice to say that you are not seeking history here, but rather seeking a British nationalist representation of Irish history. That, my good chap, is not going to happen. It really is all about toleration, and even acceptance, isn't it. 86.42.97.195 12:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
- I can only repeat that this is the English-language Wikipedia, and virtually all books in English, on Irish and Scottish history, right up until recently, carried the names in the accepted English format. It is only recently this trend has begun to rewrite everything and it is ridiculous. On the other hand if you want to write the article in gaelic, thats fine. If I followed your reasoning I would be writing Johann instead of John and Munchen instead of Munich. English language writers have, since the advent of the written word, anglicised everything foreign, not because they were "depressingly British nationalists" but because they were English-language speakers. I have no objection to, say, the French referring to London as Londres. Your anonymous rudeness speaks volumes. David Lauder 11:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
duke of Hullesteris?
[edit]Forman's Armorial refers to Richard as the duke of Hullesteris. why? 71.194.44.209 (talk) 05:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Is it in Latin? Dux/Comes fairly interchangeable at this period. Earl Richard was in essence a Dux. Hullesteris is just a mispelling of Ulster. Brendandh (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Duke and Earl were absolutely not interchangeable during this period.
- Duke was reserved for families most important to the King directly. There were very few of them as they posed a serious potential threat to the monarch.
- This was a Scots offer to raise Ulster to a Duchy, to sway De Burgh's allegiance.
- Hullesteris is an early anglicised spelling of Ultoniae. It literally means the land of Eastern Ulster. 92.9.195.244 (talk) 11:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)