Talk:Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Commencing review
Another detailed piece of scholarship with careful referencing.

Lead

 * "Donnchadh or Donnchad (Anglicised [mainly] as Duncan), son of Gille-Brighde of Galloway, was a Gall-Gaidhil prince and Scottish magnate whose career stretched from the last quarter of the 12th century until his death in 1250. His father, Gille-Brighde..." Better would be "Donnchadh or Donnchad (Anglicised [mainly] as Duncan) was a Gall-Gaidhil prince and Scottish magnate whose career stretched from the last quarter of the 12th century until his death in 1250. His father, Gille-Brighde of Galloway..."
 * The rest of this paragraph is hard to follow. In particular there is too much background information that is inappropriate for the lead. Main example: "Fergus' forced retirement to Holyrood Abbey in 1160 led to the partition of his kingdom between the pair, and closer overlordship from the Scottish king. Conflict which broke out in 1174 following the capture of William the Lion, King of the Scots, resulted in Uhtred's death and the intervention of the English and Scottish kings." This should all go, with the next sentence instead reading something like "Donnchadh was held hostage (by whom? It isn't clear) for nearly a decade as a result of conflict over (half-sentence explanation inserted here)"
 * Next para: "... but the details are unclear" is redundant - you've already told us the sources are a problem.

Geographic and cultural background

 * May benefit from some sort of intro sentence to make clear to the reader why they are being told this in the context of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick.
 * First para: "...by Donnchadh's day French, Anglo-French, English and Flemish settlers were thickly settled under Scottish overlordship..." should be imrpved, perhaps to "...by Donnchadh's day there were many French, Anglo-French, English and Flemish settlers under Scottish overlordship..."
 * Unless language is actually going to be germane to your discussion of Donnchadh, suggest you omit "...so that the British language of the area was probably either dead or almost dead, perhaps surviving only in the uplands of Clydedale, Tweeddale and Annandale.[18] Gaelic had penetrated much of the old Northumbrian and Strathclyde territory, coming from the west, south-west and the north, a situation that led historian Alex Woolf to compare the region to the Balkans.[19]"
 * Just generally, this section needs to be re-considered, as to how much of it is necessary to understanding subsequent discussion of the article's subject.

Gall-Gaidhil rebellion, civil war and exile

 * This doesn't really work in its current form. The article's subject doesn't rate a mention until the last paragraph. I would suggest that the reader will get lost in four paragraphs of context for the important fact, namely: "The agreement Gille-Brighde came to with the Angevin monarch". I think most of the material belongs in articles on Gille-Brighde and the relevant "histoty of" article (i confess to not knowing what that might be).
 * The section should be reduced to something along the following lines: "It is likely that from 1161 until 1174, the brothers Gille-Brighde and Uhtred, Donnchadh's father and uncle respectively, shared the lordship of the Gall-Gaidhil under the Scottish king's overlordship, with Gille-Brighde in the west, and Uhtred in the east. When in 1174 the Scottish king William the Lion was captured during an invasion of England, the brothers responded by rebelling against the scottish monarch. However, they then fought amongst themselves, with Donnchadh's father ultimately prevailing, despite stiff resistance from Uhtred's son Lochlann (or Roland). Having defeated his brother, Gille-Brighde initially unsuccessfully sought to become a vassal of King Henry II, however in 1176 both he and King William met the English court at Feckenham in Worcestershire and an agreement was made. Under its terms, Gille-Brighde entered King Henry's peace by promising to pay him 1000 marks of silver and by handing over his son Donnchadh as a hostage. Donnchadh was taken into the care of Hugh de Morwic, sheriff of Cumberland. The agreement seems to have included recognising Donnchadh's right to inherit Gille-Brighde's lands, for nine years later Lochlann's invasion of western Galloway following the death of Gille-Brighde was described by Roger of Hoveden as "contrary to [Henry's] prohibition".

Disputed inheritance

 * I don't think this is needed: "According to Hoveden the onset of this conflict had been preceded by an evil omen: the inhabitants of Cunningham—a land belonging to the king of the Scots under Richard de Morville whose daughter and heiress Helen had been married to Lochlann since c. 1176—said that a fountain near the "church on Uinin" (i.e. Kilwinning) ran with blood for eight days.[55]"
 * I would redo the early parts of this section to make the sequence slightly clearer and keep the focus on Donnchadh. I suggest along the following lines: "The activities of Donnchadh's father Gille-Brighde after 1176 are unclear up to his death in 1185, though he appears to have engaged in raids on William's territory. Lochlann, who a decade earlier had previously unsuccessfully resisted his uncle's forces, reacted to his death by invading his father Uhtred's old territory, threatening Donnchadh's inheritance. Lochlann had the support of King William, who had previously wanted to subdue Gille-Brighde "and the other Galwegians who had wasted his land and slain his vassals",[53] but, probably fearing the response of Henry II,[54] had not been willing to act. (new para) At that time Donnchadh was still a hostage..."
 * "Another battle took place on 30 September, according to the Chronicle, against a chief named Gille-Coluim; the latter was killed, but so too was Lochlann's unnamed brother". As Gille-Cluim is the only person named in the sentence, he cannot be "the latter".

Mormaer of Carrick

 * While I understand the narrative structure, I would not begin a new section as though it were part of the old: "Lochlann refused the invitation, so..." Plus, the previous sentence sounds nothing like "an invitation"!
 * This heading may be better placed above the para that begins "When Donnchadh adopted the title of "earl" ..."
 * More another day, sorry. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm curious - does a person get to adopt the title of earl at their own decision? That is how it reads, and it seems a bit strange, sort of like deciding to knight oneself (difficult, if only because of the weight of the sword).

Activities in and around Carrick

 * I think this can be omitted as straying too far from the article's subject: "Alan, who died four years later, fell into disgrace with King William and disappeared from royal circles, but his son Walter (nicknamed Óg, "the little" or "younger" in several Melrose charters) recovered the family's position, and by the late 1210s held, along with the Galloway family, a dominant position in the councils of William's successor Alexander II."
 * "Records also exist for Donnchadh's religious patronage..." should be a new paragraph.
 * A "super-grange"?? Sounds like a super-charged car. Is this really established terminology? What differentiates it from just a grange?
 * I think this can possibly be omitted as straying too far from the article's subject: "Witness to both grants were some prominent churchman connected with Melrose, magnates like Donnchadh, Earl of Fife, the latter's son Máel Coluim, Gille-Brighde, Earl of Strathearn, as well as probable members of Donnchadh's retinue, like Gille-Osald mac Gille-Anndrais, Gille-nan-Náemh mac Cholmain, Gille-Chríst Bretnach ("the Briton"), and his chamberlain Étgar mac Muireadhaich.[90"
 * What is/are teinds?

Donnchadh's Anglo-Normans

 * A lay person (including me) won't know what is meant by the terminology here: "...charters to Melrose were subscribed by..."
 * "...he had land there (under Donnchadh) with which to dispose" does not sound right - perhaps "of which he was free to dispose"?
 * At one point the article says "...he called Gille-Brighde "my lord", indicating that Donnchadh probably inherited them in his territory". I don't know whether it should be explained in the article or a note, but I don't see why using those words shows that Gille-Brighde inherited the Anglo-Normans rather than acquiring them in his own time.
 * "As for Vaudey Abbey's lands, by 1223 they handed it over to Melrose Abbey because..." Who are "they"? Is it not just de Colville?
 * more later hamiltonstone (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Foundation of Crossraguel

 * Does the literature have anything to say about why Donnchadh wanted an additional Cluniac house in Carrick?
 * What is Suthblan?
 * "A papal bull of 11 July 1265 reveals that the Paisley monks had built only a small oratory there served by Paisley monks". The "there" in this sentence logically means Paisley, but i think it means Carrick, in which case "Carrick" should be inserted.
 * Need an explanation of what "mandatories" are (or use a different word).
 * As I've mentioned in previous discussion, "...is attested 1274 x 1292" is much too technical for WP: i suggest "...is mentioned in sources dated to between 1274 and 1292."
 * At the end of this section i was slightly confused - is Crossraguel the same thing as Carrick, or are they two separate monastries / houses?

Irish involvement

 * This was a difficult section to follow. There is no question that it needs to be here - clearly Donnchadh was a significant player in the history outlined. However the combination of a clutter of names, and no easy sense of the broader picture, makes it hard to follow as a narrative. I think this needs a couple of introductory sentences that describe to us the overall political picture in the region at this time, so we can start to understand whether and how or why Donnchadh came in on one 'side' of a broader conflict. At the moment we are launched into the middle of things with "It related that in 1197, after Jordan's death, John sought vengeance..." But I admit I am unsure what specifically to recommend, and I acknowledge that I seldom ask for more background in these very thorough articles. :-) Perhaps simplify the start, to something along the lines: "Ulster in the late 12th century was the site of a struggle for control between its Prince (under what country's King?), John de Courcy, and his rival Hugh de Lacy, (later earl of Ulster). John de Courcy sought the assistance of Donnchadh, who was his wife's second cousin once removed (move the detail of through whom he is a cousin to a footnote)..."
 * Related to the above, the chronology seems a little out of order in the first two paras?

Death and legacy

 * "According to this argument, Donnchadh's son and intended heir was Cailean mac Donnchaidh (alias Nicholaus), who issued a charter in Donnchadh's lifetime as his son and heir." Nowhere in this paragraph are we told of what happened to Cailean mac Donnchaidh, which makes it read strangely - we are left thinking 'well, if his son was his intended heir, why did his grandson end up with the estate?' Can there be some explanation offered? Did the son die, was he disinherited?
 * "...Niall, lived only six years and died leaving only four daughters". You can't have four children by the age of six :-) Do you mean "outlived Donnchadh only six years"?
 * "...granting him the "Cenn Cineoil", with the right to lead the men of Carrick..." Does this mean that the Cenn cineoil is the right to lead the men of Carrick, or is it something which merely includes this right. If it is indeed a larger thing which gives, amongst other things, the right to lead these men, then the nature of a/the Cenn Cineoil needs some explanation.

Conclusion

 * I think that's it from me for now. I am presuming all images are OK. Happy to discuss any of the above suggestions, and will have another run through once the above have been addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead
Lead points, adjusted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Geographic and cultural background

 * May benefit from some sort of intro sentence to make clear to the reader why they are being told this in the context of Donnchadh, Earl of Carrick.
 * done.


 * First para: "...by Donnchadh's day French, Anglo-French, English and Flemish settlers were thickly settled under Scottish overlordship..." should be imrpved, perhaps to "...by Donnchadh's day there were many French, Anglo-French, English and Flemish settlers under Scottish overlordship.
 * I've tried to adjust this ... thusly.
 * Doesn't look right to me: apart from a problem with tense, which is probably a typo, i don't understand why the "Scots had settled them". It wasn't a B&B, I'm sure they settled themselves... It just doesn't sound right to my ear, but I won't get stuck on it. :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Unless language is actually going to be germane to your discussion of Donnchadh, suggest you omit "...so that the British language of the area was probably either dead or almost dead, perhaps surviving only in the uplands of Clydedale, Tweeddale and Annandale.[18] Gaelic had penetrated much of the old Northumbrian and Strathclyde territory, coming from the west, south-west and the north, a situation that led historian Alex Woolf to compare the region to the Balkans.[19]"
 * People are generally very interested in this, and it gives good background. Do you think removing this is an important priority?
 * Well, not for GA, but since you were planning to go straight for FA, I thought I may as well raise it. I think it is interesting too, but it just seemed without any relevance to Donnchadh, and I think we have to hang on to that test for content. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just generally, this section needs to be re-considered, as to how much of it is necessary to understanding subsequent discussion of the article's subject.
 * It takes alot to put this subject in its context. This a small local ruler in an area and time poorly covered in wiki. I think the article is better with it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be best to address these last two points (that both relate to the amount of material included) later in peer review or FAC, where you will get more voices than just mine. My views are first, that the article should be about the article's subject. The test for inclusion of background in this article is: if it was left out, would the remaining text be harder for a lay reader to understand. I am such a reader, so I am often sympathetic to the contextual material. However, taking the language example, it appears entirely irrelevant to learning about Donnchadh. It is definitely material that belongs in Wikipedia somewhere, I just don't think it belongs here. For example, there might be an article on "Mediaeval English language", or "History of Northumbria", and that might be the best place for it. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Where it needs to be probably is in an article about the Gall-Gaidheal, distinct from the article Norse-Gael. This area is unfortunately one of those where the difference between the understanding of scholars and the understanding of popular writings or tertiary sources is astronomical. Part of the intention with that section was to bridge that gap in a way that illuminates Donnchadh's life. With a guy like Donnchadh, with so few sources, the best way to understand Donnchadh is to understand his world. Whether we need quite everything that's there I suppose we can relook at that once your other points have been addressed. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, yes I agree this is the issue. But even though I am a lay reader with a general interest in British (esp Scottish) history, I did feel I was being led rather a long way away from Donnchadh at times. The main reason to do something about it is not to remove info for the sake of encyclopedi discipline, but because it can get in the way of the reader remembering where s/he is up to in the account of the subject of thr article. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Gall-Gaidhil rebellion, civil war and exile
Per above. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trimmed ... . Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Disputed inheritance

 * I don't think this is needed: "According to Hoveden the onset of this conflict had been preceded by an evil omen: the inhabitants of Cunningham—a land belonging to the king of the Scots under Richard de Morville whose daughter and heiress Helen had been married to Lochlann since c. 1176—said that a fountain near the "church on Uinin" (i.e. Kilwinning) ran with blood for eight days.[55]"
 * I guess only I found that piece interesting. Removed.


 * "Another battle took place on 30 September, according to the Chronicle, against a chief named Gille-Coluim; the latter was killed, but so too was Lochlann's unnamed brother". As Gille-Cluim is the only person named in the sentence, he cannot be "the latter"
 * Adjusted . Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 01:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Mormaer of Carrick

 * While I understand the narrative structure, I would not begin a new section as though it were part of the old: "Lochlann refused the invitation, so..." Plus, the previous sentence sounds nothing like "an invitation"!
 * Adjusted.


 * I'm curious - does a person get to adopt the title of earl at their own decision? That is how it reads, and it seems a bit strange, sort of like deciding to knight oneself (difficult, if only because of the weight of the sword).
 * Hey ... don't get started with this one! ;) We don't know the origin of mormaerships/earldoms in the proper Kingdom of Scotland, nor how they emerged, let along an area like Carrick which wasn't part of the traditional structure of a kingdom. The word for the ruler of Galloway in Latin [surviving only from Anglo-French clerks] was usually dominus (lord), but in Gaelic the title is ri (king). Who knows what's going on. Maybe King William gave him the title, maybe King Henry did (to whom he was closer), maybe he just started using it himself (this isn't strange, it is common ... e.g. Duke of Normandy). For this I was careful to say nothing more than he started using the "title of earl", and that's really all that should be said I think. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, one of those issues, huh. Would it be better to say that "He first appears in sources with the title 'earl'..." I raise this because your current wording ("he started using") could be construed as suggesting that we do know how these titles were acquired, namely that it was at the person's own decision. A thought. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Activities in and around Carrick

 * I think this can be omitted as straying too far from the article's subject: "Alan, who died four years later, fell into disgrace with King William and disappeared from royal circles, but his son Walter (nicknamed Óg, "the little" or "younger" in several Melrose charters) recovered the family's position, and by the late 1210s held, along with the Galloway family, a dominant position in the councils of William's successor Alexander II."
 * As Alan and his son Walter Og were clearly Donnchadh's allies, by marriage, this sheds some sort of light on Donnchadh's own relationship with the crown. I put it in a footnote since you disagree. :)


 * "Records also exist for Donnchadh's religious patronage..." should be a new paragraph.
 * I see you've done this already.


 * A "super-grange"?? Sounds like a super-charged car. Is this really established terminology? What differentiates it from just a grange?
 * No, but it's the term used by Oram and Fawcett, p. 228. The reason why the term is used is clear from that text, though it was too digressive to mention in article. Essentially, Melrose had lots of territory in "Ayrshire", which in Cistercian law was too far away, and too large for a normal sized grange. As a result, Mauchline developed as an admistrative outpost far larger than a normal grange, more like a dependent priory, but called a grange.


 * I think this can possibly be omitted as straying too far from the article's subject: "Witness to both grants were some prominent churchman connected with Melrose, magnates like Donnchadh, Earl of Fife, the latter's son Máel Coluim, Gille-Brighde, Earl of Strathearn, as well as probable members of Donnchadh's retinue, like Gille-Osald mac Gille-Anndrais, Gille-nan-Náemh mac Cholmain, Gille-Chríst Bretnach ("the Briton"), and his chamberlain Étgar mac Muireadhaich.[90]"
 * I disagree. These appearances tell you who he was mixing with (in the case of the Fifes and Strathearns) and who were his chief associates (in the case of the others). The article, though possessing some kind of narrative, is not a narrative, but a survey of Donnchadh's life and career.
 * I see this point (and we would agree I think that I have a pattern here of picking on some of these kinds of contextual materials). I'm happy for passages like this to stay, but my point would be that you should spell out in the article the reasons that you've just explained to me. The article itself needs to introduce the passage along the lines "The witnesses to the grants give clues to who were Donnchadh's friends, allies or associates..." hamiltonstone (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What is/are teinds?
 * A teind is a tithe. I wasn't aware this was peculiar Scottish usage. Replaced with "tithe". . Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I don't want to discourage the survival of Scots terms, so other options include keeping teind and wikilinking it to tithe, or using "teinds (or tithes)". hamiltonstone (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's fine. There was no such thing as Scots in the period anyway, and clarity should be preferred to deference for pointless dialect discrepancies. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 02:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Donnchadh's Anglo-Normans

 * A lay person (including me) won't know what is meant by the terminology here: "...charters to Melrose were subscribed by..."
 * I added an explanation in brackets, which doubtlessly will be complained about by others as messy. Maybe you have another solution?
 * Yeah, it doesn't look great. Clearly I'm not a purist, but why doesn't this just say "Donnchadh was a witness to a charter of..." hamiltonstone (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "...he had land there (under Donnchadh) with which to dispose" does not sound right - perhaps "of which he was free to dispose"?
 * adjusted.


 * At one point the article says "...he called Gille-Brighde "my lord", indicating that Donnchadh probably inherited them in his territory". I don't know whether it should be explained in the article or a note, but I don't see why using those words shows that Gille-Brighde inherited the Anglo-Normans rather than acquiring them in his own time.
 * It shows that Donnchadh inherited them, rather than Gille-Brigdhe. Gille-Brighde was Donnchadh's father.
 * Homer Simpson moment. D'oh. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "As for Vaudey Abbey's lands, by 1223 they handed it over to Melrose Abbey because..." Who are "they"? Is it not just de Colville?
 * No, Vaudey ... tweaked for clarity. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Foundation of Crossraguel

 * Does the literature have anything to say about why Donnchadh wanted an additional Cluniac house in Carrick?
 * I don't think. It is quite normal. He wants an independent abbey in his territory so that he can control it, be buried there, choose the abbot, and so on.


 * What is Suthblan?
 * It's a place-name that can't be identified on a modern map. It is normal in such cases just to italicise it.


 * "A papal bull of 11 July 1265 reveals that the Paisley monks had built only a small oratory there served by Paisley monks". The "there" in this sentence logically means Paisley, but i think it means Carrick, in which case "Carrick" should be inserted.
 * Adjusted


 * As I've mentioned in previous discussion, "...is attested 1274 x 1292" is much too technical for WP: i suggest "...is mentioned in sources dated to between 1274 and 1292."
 * Adjusted


 * At the end of this section i was slightly confused - is Crossraguel the same thing as Carrick, or are they two separate monastries / houses?
 * Crossraguel is a place in Carrick. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Irish involvement
Not ignoring, will return to this. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Death and legacy

 * "According to this argument, Donnchadh's son and intended heir was Cailean mac Donnchaidh (alias Nicholaus), who issued a charter in Donnchadh's lifetime as his son and heir." Nowhere in this paragraph are we told of what happened to Cailean mac Donnchaidh, which makes it read strangely - we are left thinking 'well, if his son was his intended heir, why did his grandson end up with the estate?' Can there be some explanation offered? Did the son die, was he disinherited?
 * Clarified


 * "...Niall, lived only six years and died leaving only four daughters". You can't have four children by the age of six :-) Do you mean "outlived Donnchadh only six years"?
 * Well, maybe Niall was a special guy. ;) But yeah, that's what was meant. Adjusted


 * "...granting him the "Cenn Cineoil", with the right to lead the men of Carrick..." Does this mean that the Cenn cineoil is the right to lead the men of Carrick, or is it something which merely includes this right. If it is indeed a larger thing which gives, amongst other things, the right to lead these men, then the nature of a/the Cenn Cineoil needs some explanation.
 * Yes, one of many rights. Adjusted Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:14, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The Irish again
OK, we have progress on the Ireland section, but it is not yet a model of transparency. Apart from the few points below, I'm not going to hold it up at GA, but for what it's worth I think this section may hit some difficulties at FAC. At the same time, hopefully that process will provide get more advice, ideas and editors to help iron out the wrinkles at that point. That's it for Ireland. I think there's one or two points above, eg. re the stuff about the title of earl, on which I made some comment that is yet to be addressed, but we are nearly done here. See what you think, Deacon. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "...ruler of Tir Eoghain". Tell us where this is, ie. Ulster, Cumbria or somewhere else.
 * "...the Cenél Eoghain". The what?
 * "...had disseised them". Had what?
 * "The king, who was now Henry III,..." This reads as though he had changed his name. Do you mean it is a different king, in which case I think change simply to "King Henry III..." or "John's successor, Henry III,..."


 * Tried to address these in edits. The wording of the earl bit seems to have changed (by me you or someone else I don't know), it doesn't seem to be making any assertion about how he "acquired" the title, just when he started using it. Changed the first line to "adopted or was given". Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 13:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)