User talk:Dppowell/Archive1

History of Ireland
You did some excellent copy-edits and added some very good material to the History of Ireland. Unfortunately you didn't heed the request at the beginning to add new material to the more detailed main articles (see box to the right for list), which provide a better place for more detailed information. We are trying to qualify this article as "Featured Article" (on the front page) and one of the criteria is that it should not be too long. At 47 kB, it is already overlength. This is especially important in the material before the table of contents. I'm very reluctant to edit your work down, since it is good material - might I suggest you do so yourself? This is what I would do:


 * The History of Ireland is the story of a large island at the north-west of Europe and is heavily influenced by the concurrent History of Britain, its larger neighbour to the east. The first humans inhabited Ireland from around 7500 BC and were later responsible for major Neolithic sites such as Newgrange. Following the arrival of St. Patrick and other Christian missionaries in the mid-fifth century, a syncretized form of Christianity subsumed the indigenous pagan religion by A.D. 600. This led to a golden age of monastic Irish writing and art, the most famous example of which is the Book of Kells.


 * Starting around 800, more than a century two centuries of Viking invasions and settlements wreaked havoc upon the monastic culture and the island's fragile political structure, which consisted of ad hoc alliances between various regional tribes. By the late tenth century, Brian Boru, the scion of a relatively obscure tribe from the midwestern part of the island, had gained enough influence through political maneuvering and conquest to claim the title of ard righ (high king).  Boru and his allies defeated a combined Viking/native army at until their defeat in the Battle of Clontarf in 1014 . Though Boru himself did not survive the battle, when the Vikings ceased to be a major power in Ireland and were gradually assimilated into the native populace.


 * Boru's descendants failed to maintain a unified throne, and regional squabbling over territory led indirectly to invasion of the Normans under Strongbow in 1169. The prospect of a rival Norman kingdom in Ireland attracted the attention of England's King Henry II, marking the beginning of more than 750 years of direct English involvement in Ireland. The Crown of England did not gain full control until the whole island had been subjected to numerous military campaigns in the period 1534–1691, which included the Desmond Rebellions, the Nine Years War (Ireland), the Irish Confederate Wars, and the Williamite war in Ireland, and was colonised in the Plantations of Ireland.

Could you have another look? --Red King 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can't see us getting down to the original guidance on Article size - other articles of over 32KB have made Featured Article, so it is not tablets of stone. It has to remain sensible - a look at History of Britain will show that they gave up.  It may not be possible!  I did a major blue pencil job, but it is still long!  What is most important is that it remain interesting, and that it gives someone from Japan or Korea a flavour of our past.  The detailed articles can be for ourselves! Maybe some material could go out to existing or new "main articles".  I haven't answwered your question! - all I can say is make it tight, make it interesting!  --Red King 00:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Re: Brian and the Vikings
Hello Dppowell (anything to the Powells from Inismor?). We'll have to have a chat sometime as our interests on the Irish Viking era coincide. However, I have a few things I wish to take issue with you. They concern mostly the wording and terms you used in the "Starting around 800 ..." paragraph in the sandbox. For example:

1 - " ... fragile political structure ..."

2 - " ... various regional tribes ..."'

3 - " ... Battle of Clontarf ..."

4 - " ... the Vikings ceased to be a serious military power ..."

All of the above needs serious revision as they give a false idea of what the situation was like in Ireland during these times (i.e., c.795-1072). The situation was far more complex and interesting than the above portrays it. Looking forward to hearing from you. Fergananim 18:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Island "off" Europe
History of Ireland: Ireland is part of Europe, sure - and is an island off the the coast of the continent. It's obvious to Irish people, but perhaps not to, say, Fijians or Californians. The reference to the influence of continental history is to balance the exclusive reference to the influence of British history. Why revert without discussing? I also don't like the use of the term story in the opening sentence, but chose not to delete. Any thoughts?--shtove 21:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's always a problem to edit generalised statements (as opposed to ones of detailed fact) - you can never really fit in with the previous editor's style. In that sense, a rewrite of the intro would be good. If the reference to continental influence is verbiage then don't include it; likewise, the exclusive reference to British influence should be cut. I think User: Jdorney and User: Red King are heavily involved with the article, so you can get a three-way debate going with them. Good luck with that one!--shtove 18:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

More Vikings (not really)
Hi, Fergananim...just wanted to reply to your comments on my talk page.

First, let me emphasize that the content I added was meant to be a very high-level summary. I realize that the devil is in the details. That said, I felt comfortable with my wording, which was based on my readings of, among many other things, The Oxford Companion to Irish History (S.J. Connolly, ed.), The Course of Irish History (T.W.Moody and F.X.Martin, eds.) and the Encyclopedia of Ireland (Brian Lalor, ed.).

Like my wikipage says, I'm just an amateur, and I'd welcome any revisions you'd like to make. I just wanted you to be aware that I didn't pull my characterization of the period out of thin air.

Of course, Red King has already asked me to write an even further-condensed, higher-level version of the current intro, leaving all but the grossest details to the subsections and their related wikipages...so this discussion may be moot.

To answer your first question, my Powells are not from Inismor, but they are from another Kilronan: a townland outside of Dunmanway, Co. Cork. Dppowell 01:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey there, happy new year!

That's cool; hope I did'nt come across too hard. I accecpt what you say, and might give the section(s!) a bash myself sometime soon. I knew F.X. very breifly towards the end of his life and remain a major fan of his work. If you can afford it, get volume I of another series he had a hand in, "A New History of Ireland" (nine or ten volumes in all), which are a must for anyone ravenous to learn more about Irish history. Really I ought to get all the articles I've accumulated on the subject and summerise them here. Remind me if I forget. And Cork is a lovely place! Fergananim 17:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

History of Ireland
Hi, Re your changes to the intro, I have a small quibble. Firstly, the impetus for the start of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland was political, not religious. The problem Henry VIII had was the disloyalty and unreliability of the Kildare Fitzgerald dynasty as Lord Deputies. It was also recognised that if Ireland remained semi-conquered, it would be an endemic source of warfare and rebellions, with the potential for destabilising England. The religious aspect was, throughout the 16th century, secondary to the "civil reformation" of Ireland in English government thinking. Indeed, the first major plantation, in Laois/Offaly was carried out by the Catholic queen Mary.

My browser can't edit the intro without decapitating the end of the article, so I'd have to ask yourself to make these minor corrections.

Thanks, Jdorney 15:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice one Jdorney 18:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Syd Thrift
Nice work starting this article. I was actually in the midst of doing the same thing because I noticed he didn't have an article when I searched after noticing his death. You not only beat me to submission but in terms of detail. I'm happy to have been able to add a reference and some categories. Erechtheus 20:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That's definitely while we're all here. I love the collaborative aspect of the project, which is why I love seeing this happen. A few weeks ago, I attempted to start an article on the Kashmere Stage Band. By the time I was done, an article twice as good as the one I wrote had already been added. As with this one, I threw in the few things that weren't already covered. I count it as collaboration when that happens. Erechtheus 20:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Julian the Apostate
Dppowell, I have encountered this kind of obstinacy in the face of scholarship several times on Wikipedia, and unfortunately there's not much to do except to stay patient and continue the discussion. What's odd in many of these discussions is that editors usually agree on the importance of citing scholarship; they just do so in weird and tendentious ways, like dumping a list of 142 article titles into a discussion, or interpreting quotes to mean the opposite of their plain meaning. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Asking for input on the WikiProject is a good idea--just be sure to phrase your request in a neutral way, because you don't want to get accused of recruiting meatpuppets. Since User:Panarjedde has been a problematic editor, it may also be appropriate to get some input from admins who are dealing with his participation on other articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that's one way to have the problem solved. Don't worry, though, you'll encounter more editors like that. Happy editing! --Akhilleus (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitals & titles
As regards your edit to Valentinian III: I do not think it is correct to write "Theodosius nominated Valentinian Caesar of the west", but rather "Theodosius nominated Valentinian caesar of the west". The reason is the Manual of Style, in particular the Titles section, which states:
 * Titles such as president, king, or emperor start with a capital letter when used as a title (followed by a name): "President Nixon", not "president Nixon". When used generically, they should be in lower case: "De Gaulle was the French president."

Is there a good reason why you want to have it capitalized? (And note, for consistency, that in the same article there is also an "augustus")--Panarjedde 16:26, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Capitals & religions
From the Manual of Style, section Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines, and their adherents:
 * Names of religions, whether as a noun or an adjective, and their followers start with a capital letter.

Now, I think you agree that Paganism is a religion. So, why do you think it should drop the capital?--Panarjedde 16:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not a religion. It's a term used to refer to an enormous variety of religions, and which one you mean depends entirely on the context.  Someone calling themselves a 'pagan' today probably (but not necessarily) is referring to Wiccanism. (PS, I'm copying this discussion to the Julian the Apostate page; please continue it there. Dppowell 16:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK question
Hi and sorry. I used your entry as a means to call attention to a bigger problem - I was just picking at random, because many entries fail to link countries that are thought to be synonymous with the use of English (as if writing from an Anglo-Saxon perspective); it just happened that yours was just below mine. I initially expected admins who manage the selections for DYK to manage and wikify them, but then I happened to see that many of them are not. I was trying to call their attention, basically - since editing the entries myself would be highly questionable (and ground for banning), and since no one can possibly write alternative versions for all entries coming in. I did not mean to sound rude or bossy. Cheers. Dahn 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronicle of Ireland &c
Not at all, thanks very much. Would you have any information on the Book of Canu/Cuana beyond the fact that the annalists had access to a copy of it ? I have Kathleen Hughes's Early Christian Ireland, but it's only mentioned in passing. Irish annals says that the Synchronisms of Flann Mainstreach are lost. Anderson's Early Sources of Scottish History quotes from it, and says that copies exist in various ms., including the Book of Ballymote. Seems like it shouldn't be listed as "lost" unless I'm missing something. Any ideas ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note
I've been around long enough to make up my own mind. I will look carefully at the three versions of the British Isles and Ireland articles (current, his suggestion and the old one: ). I will also get an American colleague to look at both. Personally I would drop the British Isles easily but dropping "Ireland" is more problematic. Too many people think it is a country and would miss it. It won't be for a couple of weeks. Sorry if this sounds dictatorial but it is quickest and I honestly have no axe to grind. --BozMo talk 20:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Your "personal" comments
As regards this comment of yours, in Talk:Julian the Apostate, to which I avoided answering, for now:
 * Panarjedde, your tone (as usual) is inappropriately adversarial. Nobody is doing anything to the category.  It's just an informal discussion.  Relax. Dppowell 15:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I kindly request you to stop issuing paternalistic posts to me, and to remove the above comment from the page. I will consider further posts of this kind extremely rude. --Panarjedde 15:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ireland Edits
Yes, I thought it wouldn't be long before the facts were removed again. As you can see, I put these in (together with a bit of tidying up) to provide a version suitable for CD. I am happy that a neutral editor will decide on which version, if any, actually makes it onto the CD. Actually there's not much a problem with Ireland, unlike with British Isles, which really has been hijacked by those with an axe to grind. Arcturus 19:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Ireland
You wrote on my user talk page - ''I don't appreciate being included under the label of 'censor' or 'bigot', especially given the Republican arrows that have been slung at me while I've attempted to foment a long-overdue civil discussion on the issue. I'm sorry you're upset that your version of the article didn't pass muster, but I would appreciate you keeping your vitriol to yourself. Consider this a civility warning. Here's what I said at Talk:Ireland Lofty and Sony-youth, give up now! The owners of this article are not going allow you or anyone else to have any reference to Britain, British Isles, or any word commencing Brit..., anywhere in this article, apart from perhaps in an historical context. I suggest you find another Wiki where censorship and bigotry don't rule the day. '' I don't see any mention of Dppowell in my text. Would you like to withdraw your "warning". A couple of other things - I don't know about the CD, the last I heard, decisions were still to be made. Yes, an improvement indeed - some is better than many and more indicatative of the state of affairs. Arcturus 18:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)