Talk:South Dublin
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Footnote
[edit]- Department of Education and Science Deleted this as it refers to no sub-division of the county as advertised. Only uses the 4 divisions or Dublin postcodes. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Feudal
[edit]Was County Dublin a feudal entity? I think so but another editor disagrees. The evidence is that it was founded by Norman barons during the Norman invasion of Ireland. The Danish city was confined to a narrow district. The Norman barony or baronies was much wider. It was a Norman invention, nominally in the gift of the King of England. The wiki article Historiography of feudalism states: "In the case of their own leadership, however, the Normans utilized the feudal relationship to bind their followers to them. It was the influence of the Norman invaders which strengthened and to some extent institutionalized the feudal relationship in England after the Norman Conquest". Sounds a lot like feudalism to me. But if the entity is not feudal, then what is it - late Gaelic Chiefdom? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- You think so? It either is or isn't, anything else is OR. A feudal entity means a lord with vassals and serfs, who was the Lord of County Dublin? A Norman lord, the English king? Also the problem with the word feudal, is that is dates from the 17th century coined long after feudalism has ceased to exist. Also, some historians argue that feudalism existed in England and Ireland before the Norman invasions. Snappy (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- See Castleknock history section "The feudal Barony of Castleknock was created by Hugh de Lacy, Lord of Meath and granted in 1177 to Hugh Tyrrell. It was held for three and a half knight's fees, owed to the superior Lord of Fingal. It later passed to the Viscount Gormanston.". Lords, barons, knight's fees - all sounds a lot like feudalism to me. It was not feudalism, what was it - a late Gaelic Chiefdom? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- See also the History of Ireland 1169–1536 "What eventually occurred in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th century was a change from acquiring lordship over men to colonising land. The Cambro-Norman invasion resulted in the founding of walled borough towns, numerous castles and churches, the importing of tenants and the increase in agriculture and commerce, these were among the many permanent changes wrought by the Norman invasion and occupation of Ireland.[2] Normans altered Gaelic society with efficient land use, introducing feudalism to the existing native tribal-dynastic crop-sharing system. Feudalism never took on in large parts of Ireland, but it was an attempt to introduce cash payments into farming, which was entirely based on barter. Some Normans living further from Dublin and the east coast adopted the Irish language and customs, and intermarried, and the Irish themselves also became irrevocably "Normanised". Many Irish people today bear Norman-derived surnames such as Burke, Roche and Power, although these are more prevalent in the provinces of Leinster and Munster, where there was a larger Norman presence." Seems fairly definite that feudalism was going down then. So if anybody's guilty of OR it's Snappy: to obstinately persevere of this viewpoint in the face of evidence to the contrary would indeed constitute contrariness as well as OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly wikipedia isn't a source and that Castleknock history section is unreferenced. There is no mention of the Counties of Ireland being feudal entities, just administrative areas. Sub-divisions like baronies could well be described as feudal (though again the word wasn't invented till centuries later), but I see no sources for Counties (not baronies) being feudal entites? Can you provide any? Snappy (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Dear oh dear, must I become your personal OR research assistant? Did you not even take the trouble to click the Hugh de Lacy link? You would have received a ready answer to your question there: he was granted the entire County, indeed the Kingdom of Meath by the King. Here's the relevant bit to spare you the trouble: "Henry applied to Ireland the feudal system of land tenure which the Normans had already introduced into England. Henry granted Hugh de Lacy “the land of Meath in as full a measure as Murchadh...or anyone before or after him held it.” By this grant, known as a Liberty, within the territory de Lacy was granted power equal to that of the king himself, the only reservation being that the king could dispose of Church lands anywhere. A person with this jurisdiction was known as a Count and the territory over which he ruled was called a county. One of the privileges of a Count Palatine such as de Lacy was that he could create barons or inferior lords.
- In turn de Lacy divided the land among his barons
- Hugh Tyrrell obtained Castleknock
- Gilbert de Angulo (or Gilbert de Nangle), became Baron of Navan obtained Morgallion " etc etc Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is possible for you to have an exchange without resorting to personal abuse? I am merely asking questions, as I am entitled to do on Wikipedia when another editor inserts unreferenced material into an article. When I questioned the material, all I got was a link to a Wikipeida article (WP is NOT a source, as you should know) and that section of the article was itself unreferenced. I did read the Hugh de Lacy, but maybe I missed the bit where it said he was Lord of County Dublin. Snappy (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- Am i not entitled to be a little snippy Snappy? You ask questions, you get replies. You ask for proof you then shift the goal posts. What gives here? Understanding or another issue? Let's go back over your requests:
- Firstly wikipedia isn't a source and that Castleknock history section is unreferenced. There is no mention of the Counties of Ireland being feudal entities, just administrative areas. Sub-divisions like baronies could well be described as feudal (though again the word wasn't invented till centuries later), but I see no sources for Counties (not baronies) being feudal entites? Can you provide any? Snappy (talk) 19:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- See also the History of Ireland 1169–1536 "What eventually occurred in Ireland in the late 12th and early 13th century was a change from acquiring lordship over men to colonising land. The Cambro-Norman invasion resulted in the founding of walled borough towns, numerous castles and churches, the importing of tenants and the increase in agriculture and commerce, these were among the many permanent changes wrought by the Norman invasion and occupation of Ireland.[2] Normans altered Gaelic society with efficient land use, introducing feudalism to the existing native tribal-dynastic crop-sharing system. Feudalism never took on in large parts of Ireland, but it was an attempt to introduce cash payments into farming, which was entirely based on barter. Some Normans living further from Dublin and the east coast adopted the Irish language and customs, and intermarried, and the Irish themselves also became irrevocably "Normanised". Many Irish people today bear Norman-derived surnames such as Burke, Roche and Power, although these are more prevalent in the provinces of Leinster and Munster, where there was a larger Norman presence." Seems fairly definite that feudalism was going down then. So if anybody's guilty of OR it's Snappy: to obstinately persevere of this viewpoint in the face of evidence to the contrary would indeed constitute contrariness as well as OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- "There is no mention of the Counties of Ireland being feudal entities." I provided the proof of the County of Meath.
- "Sub-divisions like baronies could well be described as feudal". Not just could be - they are.
Now you want proof of Hugh de Lacy as "Lord of Dublin". I made no such claim. He was merely Lord of part of it - Fingal. However his overlord - King John - exercised feudal powers in creating the county of Dublin and then parcelling it out to his chosen barons as baronies and lesser landholdings. That's feudalism. Is this seriously in doubt by you? Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- The only thing you are entitled to be is civil. So far you've been rude, disrespectful, aggressive and made personal attacks. Anyway back to the original issue, you insertion: "This feudal entity, which had been created during the Norman invasion of Ireland, was abolished under the Acts.", is poorly worded and a better wording would be "This administrative county was abolished under the Acts.". Your wording implies it was a feudal entity when it was abolished. Snappy (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's time to stay cool. I would recommend taking a look at dispute resolution and if that does not work and someone resorts to the kind of behaviour mentioned then it might be best to disengage or one can go to ANI. In any case, it is totally against Wikipedia policy to indulge in personal attacks. Just my two-cents worth (from someone who's been on the receiving end). Hohenloh + 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Eponymous category policy question.
[edit]Per WP:EPON, "The question arises as to whether eponymous categories should be placed in (made subcategories of) the categories which their corresponding articles belong to. Logically they usually should not (for example, France belongs to Category:European countries, but Category:France does not constitute a subset of European countries).".
I would interpret this to mean that the article South Dublin to the Category:Counties of the Republic of Ireland, but Category:South Dublin County does not constitute a subset of Irish counties. Is this correct? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- No, it isn't. WP:EPON makes that purist point then says by convention, many categories do contain their articles' eponymous categories as subcategories, even though they are not "true" subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Is it any wonder that editors go forum shopping when faced with such self contractdictory polices. WP:EPON scarcely deserves the name policy seeing as it embraces two contadictory positions simultaniously. Clearly it's a case of "whatever you're having yourself". Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
County South Dublin or just South Dublin
[edit]Is it common usage or just OR to state "In Ireland, the usage of the word county nearly always comes before rather than after the county name; thus "County Clare" in Ireland as opposed to "Clare County" in Michigan, US. The exception to this norm occurs in the case of those counties created after 1994 which drop the word county entirely; thus "South Dublin" as opposed to "County South Dublin"."? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2012 (UTC)