Talk:Poynings' Law (on certification of acts)

Untitled
a very sloppy article, which needs rewriting by someone knowledgable. Adam 04:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I edited this a bit
I just added some information to this. Its a part of a paper I wrote. I didn't know how to do the footnote citations, but I added them intext and the full bibliographical information is at the bottom, so if someone wants to change it they can. Or I will try to do figure it out when I have time —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbo 22 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmmm
I just figured out that wikipedia does use intext, so I guess they are ok!

Can anybody change the title of the entry? Its "Poynings' Law" not "Poyning's Law" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbo 22 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I've queried the spelling at Talk:Edward Poyning. Certainly the short title given to the Act by the RoI is spelled "Poynings' Act 1495", though.  Silverhelm 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

I changed it
I changed it to Poynings' Law for now. Tbe more common way its spelt in the scholarship is Poynings' Law. I was under the impression it didn't have a name like that, but Poynings' Law/Act became nicknames for it, and its conventionally been referred as that since —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turbo 22 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Poyning's or Poynings' ?
The creator of this law was Sir Edward Poyning, so it seems unlikely that the law should be called Poynings' Law. If it is indeed so called, I think the spelling requires explanation in the article. Maproom 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

On checking - I think I'm probably wrong. Google has many more hits for "Poyning " than for "Poynings ", but the Concise Dictionary of National Biography gives the man's name as Poynings, and I think it is more likely to be correct. Maproom 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If his name was Poynings, then the article should be Poynings's Law. S apostrophe is only used of plural words. E.g., one car's headlights, ten cars' headlights; this class's white-board, all the classes' white-boards.  [According to Fowler's Modern English, cited by Lynne Truss in Eats Shoots and Leaves But she goes on to say that it does not apply to the ancient world, thus Achiles' heel].  So is Poynings sufficiently ancient? I doubt it! Or is it just a common gramatical error - probably!
 * Nuttall Encyclopædia of General Knowledge (1907) calls it "Poynings's Law ]
 * The statute law database (which I guess is authoritive) calls it Poynings' Law (but I think that they are blaming the 1951 Government of Northern Ireland for giving it this short title).  --Red King 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

War of the Three Kingdoms and the Interregnum
A mention of the situation regarding this law's validity during the War of the Three Kingdoms (including Kilkenny Confederacy) and dururing the Interregnum (Ireland) would improve the scope of this article. -- PBS (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed move
There are many articles that refer to Poynings' Law, which are now going to a disambiguation article, because they all refer to subordination of the Parliament of Ireland to that England. A change of such significance should have been flagged here first. The 'Certification of Acts' act is the one most often intended and so should be the primary article per wp:COMMON NAME. Yes, it is good to add other acts but it should have been done by creating a disambiguation article and adding a template:about hat note to this, the main article.

Is there a reason not do so now? --Red King (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I have untangled the information about the two acts into separate articles, one long and the other stubby. Most inlinks from other articles were via templates, which I have updated. The remaining 74  can be manually repointed. It is true that most are referring to Poynings' Law (on certification of acts), but a significant minority refer to Poynings' Law (confirmation of English statutes). I think this evidence of persistent confusion is reason enough to put a disambiguation in place to forestall future confusion. jnestorius(talk) 21:07, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I agree and support the change you made.
 * I know we have wp:BEBOLD but this strikes me as a case where it would have been polite to have given that introduction before you began rather than after. --Red King (talk) 11:29, 25 February 2020 (UTC)