Talk:Plantations of Ireland

Strange edit war
What is going on here? I don't understand this edit, which seems to be changing a grammar error into a different grammar error. At any rate, it seems stupid for everyone to revert each other with no discussion. Please,, , , have a chat, will you? jp×g 10:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've also been looking through the article history and the extensive edit war. From what I've found, it seems like may be a sockpuppet account of blocked user Patrick Mcdermott25 which is why their edits are being constantly reverted. It's all very strange. Huey117 (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a sock puppet. Also if idiot banner had decided to give a legitimate reason for reversion I would have validated his wishes like I did with JPxG, yet he refused to give any and violated the rules of Wikipedia again and again. He started the edit war not me. I told him to go to the talk page and give his issues with it. He did nothing but revert my edits without reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.77.81.149 (talk • contribs)
 * Okay, then I go to SPI. The Banner  talk 19:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * so what happened at SPI? Link please. El_C 12:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Started with it, but became grumpy about the many PAs so I did quit with it. Then it slipped my mind. The Banner  talk 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not my work, but see Sockpuppet investigations/Patrick Mcdermott25. The Banner  talk 07:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)


 * IP, your comment above is subpar. Calling your content opponent an "idiot" is subpar (obviously). If you continue conducting yourself in a manner that's incompatible with a collaborative project, that's just going to void your position by extension (as a product of a page or project-wide suspension). Also, please consistently WP:SIGN and WP:INDENT your comments. We need to know who said what to whom at any given time. In short, be professional by reviewing the pertinent documentation and acting accordingly. Thanks. El_C 12:30, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

"Plantation" or "Colony"
Anyone know the state of current scholarship on this topic? In the British Empire article there's a relatively brief mention of the Ulster plantation in the first section, which has been described as a "colonization" project. I objected to this framing on the grounds that it's controversial and unnuanced, but editors don't really want to contend with this issue. I know that Modern Irish scholarship is much clearer on the point that it's inaccurate to describe Ireland's status inside the UK (1801 -1921) as "colonial". What about Early Modern scholarship? Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do you start that discussion here again? You got a pretty clear answer in that discussion, but you seem to dislike that answer. The Banner  talk 06:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is actually not entirely clear if this is a neutral way to cover this history. Some of the sourcing used in this article disputes Ireland's "colonial" status in the plantation period.


 * What has been made perfectly clear (to me at least) is that the editors who cover this content don't want to confront this issue. When subject material is controversial and disputed, neutral language and more balanced coverage is required. That does not mean taking one side of a scholarly debate, and then attempting to shoo away editors who raise more than one objection to this approach. The use of "colonial" terminology to describe Ireland's historical position is pervasive on this encyclopedia, appearing in numerous articles.Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It is no shooing away but I think they call it forumshopping. The Banner  talk 14:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that it's shooing away. Why did you (or other editors) take a side in this debate in this particular article? Are you unaware that describing Ireland as a "colony" is controversial and the subject of a decades-long historiographical debate? Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical that any modern and reliable scholarship does not treat the Plantation[s] of Ireland as a colonial enterprise. Everything I've read on the subject certainly does. Even the one source you cite unequivocally says: "As early as the 19th century, historians such as George Hill reflected on Ireland’s status as a colony and its relationship to England’s other early colonial enterprises."  Your position (in the earlier thread linked to above) that Ireland itself was engaging in colonial activity in the Leeward Islands is a red herring; that has nothing to do with whether the Plantation of Ulster was itself colonial in nature. (It's rather like arguing that nothing the US has done, e.g. in Okinawa, Guam, the Philippines, etc., etc.) has ever been colonial, just because the US itself was once the product of colonialism). I have a suspicion that you have not actually read the Horning book you cite [I haven't either, but I've read the critical review of it in detail], since it does not appear to make a case that the Planation was not colonial in nature, but rather that its success as one was mixed; that Ireland was not much use as a model for colonising the Americas, because of vast cultural differences; and that generalisations about similarities and links between Ireland the the Americas have more to do with later Irish immigration than with British colonial policies. And none of that speaks to whether the British conquests and later plantations of Ireland were colonial, either in contemporary intent or in modern analysis.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Gallowglass
This article should mention that the immigrants were joining Scots already present in Ulster from centuries of smaller-scale immigration of gallowglass mercenaries and their families from Scotland. The Plantation of Ulster article mentions them, but not this one, so it is presenting an inconsistent historical view to our readers. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)