Talk:History of County Kildare

Untitled
With its reference to 'landed Catholic rebels', the notes on 1642 read like a nineteenth-century Anglican clergyman's account of early-modern Irish History.86.46.222.197 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

There is talk on the Irish Wikipedians' notice board of merging this article with County Kildare. While I disagree, I think that this article needs to be selectively pruned, and possibly selectively merged into other articles. There's good info (and as far as I am aware it is the only article about the history of an Irish county), but it's broken up into too many sections and some of the information could probably be moved to other articles without taking away from this one (ie a single sentence about one aspect of Kildare's hirtory, with hyperlinks to more detailed articles). I'll try to help out on this - I'm a Kildare man myself.

One thing that I will do for now is to move this article to History of County Kildare (I won't use "History of Kildare" as this might be used for the town eventually) to conform to style guidelines, and following the precedent of History of Ireland, History of Dublin etc. Cormaggio @ 23:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with the move of the article, i think the name is more appropriate to the MOS that would be use in these types of articles. My concerns are, how this reads, it kinda bounces around alot, and their is no real flow to the article, their is also no introduction. Second is extraneous information note really related to the county history, but i see you are looking into that. Third is integration with the main article, County Kildare, a snysopisis of the history should be given in that article that relates to this article, with users being directed to this article for a more in depth look at the subject. It seems though you have a good idea on what what you want to do already, and that being a kildare man, your better situated that what i would be in improving the txt of the article. FYI, i did remove the two infoboxes as they are more/better situated for the main county articles then the history articles, i also removed one cat. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Nod. Cormaggio @ 11:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've merged some sections, more from the first half of the article. I now think we need to condense some of the latter bits, maybe like creating a section on simply the 20th century and merging the various sections into larger ones by a time period or a significant marker. I'm not sure about the space devoted to things like Maynooth University or the Curragh barracks - these are the kinds of things I would prefer to see mentioned here and linked to in more detail on their own articles. What do people think? Cormaggio @ 11:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Questionable contents
I have just removed a passage of text that appeared to be totally wrong: it mixed up the hypothetical "Book of Kildare" (an apparent early medieval gospel book that is known only from a later report and probably was simply the Book of Kells) both with the 14th century Kildare Poems (B.L. Ms Harley 913) and with the unrelated "Ich am of Irlaunde" text of Bodleian Ms Rawlinson D.913, falsely spoke of "some of the earliest poems and carols in the English language" (when what is at issue here is merely the first English texts in Ireland), and also introduced the alleged name of a poet ("Hugh FitzBernard") which does not appear anywhere in the relevant literature and actually contradicts the authorship attribution of the existing poems under the cited title, which is "Michel Kyldare". This jumbled mess sat unchallenged, unchanged and unsourced in this article for over four years, since the very first edits (by a user who was indef-blocked shortly after ).

I am afraid the whole rest of the article will need some thorough fact-checking too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)