Talk:Tír Amhlaidh

Merge

Whilst I could simply file a merge request at Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers, as it is a newly created article I will notify its creator @Dylanovsky: first to see what they think.

I propose that this page be merged with Tirawley:

• There is no need for two articles on what is effectively the same place. One a barony based on the other, which both have the same names in English and Irish.
• The information here can help bulk up Tirawley, especially in regards to a history section.
• The English name will almost always be the first thing searched for on the English language Wikipedia and it will take the reader to Tirawley not here.
• Merging both will help improve the standard and depth of the Tirawley article.

It would only take a very small rewrite and organisation to perform. A similar example of such an article is Iveagh, which is also both an ancient Irish territory and barony. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed the vast majority of the information was simply copy and pasted from Tirawley from which it was then deleted. Whilst there is no problem in that per se, I reverted on the grounds of WP:BRD and for the reason: is it really needed? No. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:35, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for notification, i oppose a merge though on the grounds that while they occupy the same space, they are fundamentally different entities. The Gaelic tuath has a different history, political structure and origin to the barony. The barony is an English political division and has its own history. I have separated these on purpose, as this rolling together of Gaelic territories with baronies is causing a lot of confusion and preventing the development of information in a clear manner on Gaelic Ireland. For the same reasons i request you not to revert edits until you see why im doing this. Thanks.

Kodai (talk) 14:41, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

If the two articles were quite substantive in content then I could see the need for two separate articles however in this instance there is no need for it. All it's doing in splitting hairs and creating articles of minimal content. I don't see what confusion is being created, can you provide examples? Indeed did you look at the Iveagh article to see how it can be done? Indeed what gives the barony the right to be at the namespace "Tirawley" and not this article considering this is the English Wikipedia and Tír Amhlaidh is the Irish name for the barony, whilst Tirawley (and Tyrawley) is the English name for the medieval territory?

In contrast to your argument, the barony is a direct continuation of the Irish tuath even if only in name and general delimitation. As I'm sure you well know, most if not all baronies are based on Irish tuaths as are most counties. Should we split Dublin up into Viking Dublin, the Pale, UK Dublin and Irish Dublin considering they were all basically different entities of different structure and history? No.

I will revert edits on the basis of WP:BRD if I feel it needs be. If you wish to copy and paste information from one article to another then by all means however I will request you provide a good valid reason for deleting it.

Mabuska ^(talk) 15:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

@Mabuska: Hi, the current size of the articles has no bearing on this issue. They both need extensive development. What is of vital importance here is that a distinction between the two types of entity be made clear. They are distinctive enough to warrant separate entries in Wikipedia.

A look at the Iveagh article is a good example indeed, the incoming links to that article range from the Dagda to the Irish House of Commons to Acts of Union. Many of these events and concepts occurred long after the tuath had ceased to exist. The article is a good article, but i recommend that also be split as the articles information is fragmented by using the English Barony name as interchangeable with the Gaelic tuath. The information is related spatially but not logically, therefore is fragmented and breaks WP:COHERENCE

They are different conceptual and functional entities and therefore to mix them is confusing to anyone trying to understand the history of Ireland. I have included the tuatha as historical subdivisions as they are no longer extant, but in contrast the baronies are still active boundaries in the Republic at least. Hence i created a new category called to group these historic territories properly. The reason to delete the annalistic information from Tirawly is because it is relevant only to the Gaelic tuath, not the English county subdivision which that is the legal English name of. Including it in both is just duplication and makes no sense.

The baronies are mainly cadastral in function and subdivisions of English counties, all they share with the tuatha is location and name, but they do not overlap in time, function or in any other way. It is very important, i believe, for the principle of WP:COHERENCE and WP:COHESION that these different entities are separated in the encyclopedia. Kodai (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Personally as it is outside the scope of my area of interest, which is primarily Ulster, do whatever. Just in the long run it makes more sense for them to be both at the same namespace. I would like to point however: by using your argument then we need to split all the province articles up into separate ones as the medieval Irish cuige and the English created and defined provinces of Ireland share nothing but name. It was the English who defined the number of provinces (there was once at least seven) and their exact boundaries by shuffling counties between them. Indeed the Irish cuige of Ulster ceased to even exist for a century and a half. Unlike the Irish cuige, which where sub-divided into smaller and smaller tuatha right down to ballybetagh's and ballyboe's all of which had fluctuating boundaries, the provinces as we know them as defined by the English consist of counties, baronies, civil parishes and townlands all of which have set boundaries.

As an example: The over-kingdom of early medieval Ulster never really consisted of more land than that east of the River Bann and that over-kingdom was wiped out by the Norman Earldom of Ulster, which was likewise replaced after its fall by a new province that spanned the north of the island and ruled by the O'Neills (who basically merged their over-kingdom of Ailech with their conquests of Airgialla and Norman Ulster). After the fall of the Gaelic order and the shriring of Ulster and the tinkering with its boundaries (I.e. Losing Louth to Leinster and gaining Cavan from Connacht), we get the present-day English defined province. Each of these different versions of Ulster only shared the name and for the later part most of the same territory yet are regarded as all being part of one and the same both here on Wikipedia and the real world. Pre-Norman Gaelic Ulster and post-Norman Gaelic Ulster weren't even ruled by the same Gaelic dynasties or dominated by the same clans (MacDonlevy of the Dal Fiatach as opposed to the O'Neills of the Northern Ui Neill, and the Maginnis, Haughey, Geoghegan as opposed to the O'Kanes, O'Hagans, and O'Quinns etc.).

But whatever. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)