User talk:Svejk74

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kavurma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lamb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Qovurma—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Phonet (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edits on Cannon; if you have a few moments, can you take a look at the revised Articles on Thomas Buchan, Robert Duncanson and Hugh Mackay - I'd welcome your input on any of these.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Svejk74, I've recently updated a Nomis citation you added to Rhosllanerchrugog, with a new template I've been involved in that may be of interest. Template:NOMIS2011 hopefully makes it easier to create quality cites to Nomis Local Area Reports Search. I hope this is useful for you.TiB chat 00:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just wanted to say thanks to you for improving the Battle of Lagganmore article.QuintusPetillius (talk) 10:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blue bonnet (hat), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Freehold (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tibbie Tamson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Perambulation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warwickshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Edgehill (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cerne Abbas Giant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dorchester (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Snorkers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Piglet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work today. I'd started working though the paperwork to try and identify the "cn"s and vague links, but you seem to have done a thorough job revising it. There's just 3 refs that need more detail, number 11 at present. If you can have a look at them tomorrow, fine. If not I'll have a go at sorting them out tomorrow evening. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've got them all now. I added much of the original material several years back so had the refs to hand, it was an opportunity to clarify and tidy up some bits as well.Svejk74 (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work on Glossary of coal mining terminology.

I wonder if you'd be able to add anything to User talk:Andy Dingley#Question, or to work some of these terms (Level, roadway, slant) into the definition list? (Along with adit and drift).

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 09:26, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have taken more care to explain the changes - I know you put a lot of work into this and its frustrating when it seems to be ignored. It wasn't my intention; your input has significantly improved this article. Its not always obvious but it got me thinking about other areas, which for me is the point; the latest being how to trace the conversion of the Irish Jacobites into the United Irishmen.

My apologies again.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problems, I appreciate you leaving a message here. I've no doubt we can continue to collaborate to improve this whole topic area.

There are a handful of excellent books out there on Irish Jacobitism, though as I mentioned before my access to the most recent and significant of them, which comprehensively demolishes the myth of the "quiet" 18th century in Ireland, is limited due to it being an Irish language work.Svejk74 (talk) 16:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Athlone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aughrim (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Lonnolsirikmatak.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; I've got some comments but would you prefer me to wait until you've finished? Robinvp11 (talk) u19:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead as it may affect what else I add.Svejk74 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do - btw, this might be a useful link on numbers; P136 History of the transactions in Scotland, in the years 1715-16, and 1745-46; https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jFNJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=Alexander+Grants+Regiment+of+Foot+1715&source=bl&ots=k1k5bIQTa6&sig=ACfU3U1HAFy5k0VAUbq6Q7Zs9VslNa1KAQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6yaTN9LjgAhXUDWMBHUZSA484ChDoATAEegQIBhAB#v=snippet&q=fowke&f=false Robinvp11 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, that looks useful. Feel free to make additions btw if you have sources to hand. I would like to get the articles on Murray and Perth up to scratch too as both are currently a mish mash of out of copyright cut 'n' paste stuff and later tinkering. Svejk74 (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about I do Murray, then you edit; also I've updated Thomas Fowke and Peregrine Lascelles (government commanders at Prestonpans), so feel free to edit. Football tomorrow :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan. Likewise, I'll rework Perth and see who else needs looking at...Enjoy the game! Svejk74 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff, I think this is now a really solid piece of work and a great example of being willing to challenge our own ideas, not simply those of others. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks excellent. Amazing to think the regiment existed for only a month, really, considering how often it's referenced. Svejk74 (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm updating Tullibardine (he seems to have become mentally ill after 1720, which I hadn't realised);

• Did you look at the Royal Ecossaise? I'm curious as to the make-up of the second battalion recruited in Perth (the British government argued for a while on whether they should be considered POWs).

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, you will see that I've added a little bit of further information already (along with a better picture) to try and minimise the amount of 19th century DNB stuff. I actually pilfered a few of your refs from the Glen Shiels article so you may recognise some of it. We should have the full set of lieutenant generals then. I'd not heard of the mental issues but it doesn't surprise me as his behaviour over the years seems erratic at times.

I'd actually been thinking about the Royal Scots, oddly - perhaps one of the few units deserving their own article. I would have thought the second battalion would have been made up of the usual recruits being bought in at this stage (mainly deserters and people 'hired out' in the north-east) but it may be there was a stiffening of exiles in there who could legitimately argue to be in foreign service? Another thought is that a number had been recruited in Scotland in 1744-5 and then shipped over through the east coast ports, hence the confusion over their status. Svejk74 (talk) 12:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I think our edits on Tullibardine crossed; I'll take a look this evening and add back significant omissions, let me know if I miss anything that should be in.

Robinvp11 (talk) 07:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I didn't add anything especially ground-breaking anyway - the main thing I wanted to emphasise is that he was important to the Rising due to the recruitment potential of the Atholl estates, and that the Athollmen were essentially conscripted under vassalage, hence Lord George's letters to Tullibardine complaining that they kept deserting.

Look forward to seeing what you can dig up on Tullibardine anyway, he's not very well documented on the whole. Svejk74 (talk) 19:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this interesting background; http://theses.gla.ac.uk/680/1/1995mackillopphd.pdf

Now updated John Huske and William Belford (artillery commander at Carlisle and Culloden); also added a bit on Blakeney, seems he was a full blown alcoholic by the time of Minorca :)

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really interesting stuff that thesis.

I've rewritten the article on John Drummond and will have a look around for anyone else needing an update. Towneley might be an interesting one. I think the actual 'battle' section of the Culloden article needs work but this will need a bit of thought, given as it's probably a more viewed article than the main 1745 one.

Good work on Blakeney. On the other side it can be difficult to lay hold of solid documentation on some of these exile types; I'm having particular problems with William Dorrington, colonel of James II's Foot Guards, despite him being a senior Jacobite figure in the 'War Party' during 1688-91 and later on a general in the French Army (the Foot Guards later became the Regiment Roth). He seems to appear more or less out of nowhere serving with Monmouth in France; as he was an English Catholic I suspect a family connection to the notorious Royalist Sir Francis Dodington (who converted to Catholicism and whose surname was often spelt 'Dorrington') but so far the documentation doesn't bear this out. 11:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Hello – I noticed that you are the primary author of both of these articles. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to provide proper sourcing for the content in these articles? As of now, it appears that the citations are incomplete in the absence of a "references" or "bibliography" section in both cases. In case you need assistance, please let me know. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:03, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As both articles have a "references" section, can you explain what you mean by "absence of a 'references' section"? Svejk74 (talk) 23:30, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references are incomplete, in the sense that they only include the last name of the author without providing their full name or the title of their work. The citation style needs to comply with MOS:CITE. Thanks and Regards, — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nice re Glenbucket and Morgan - I've added Talk Pages and Sources. Updated Kilmarnock, Lord Elcho and Murray of Broughton.

Re leadership issues; an interesting distinction is many of the Scottish Jacobites (Lord George, Elcho, etc) supported James, not Charles, while James also disliked and mistrusted Sheridan and Strickland (despite having appointed them). This mattered because James made it really clear he wasn't interested in the throne. Also, many links between Jacobites and Freemasons.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:47, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is that incident where Lord George had to apologise after giving the (accurate) impression his loyalty was to James, not Charles - possibly the Carlisle resignation letter I think.

Lord John Drummond and Perth were both heavily involved in the Freemasons too; the portrait of John used on his page was part of a set painted of a group of members, IIRC. It does seem to have had some relevance in maintaining connections much like the family links.

On a related note while looking up the story of Glenbucket's trip to Rome, I recalled that Murray of Broughton's papers (printed in Blaikie) mention a discussion prior to 1745 involving Perth and himself where they talk about options for going it alone without French support - Lochiel, Glengarry and Keppoch's names (and I think Appin's) are all mentioned as people who might get involved as their estates were going downhill and they were running out of time before they had to sell up or accept government positions. It's interesting as this covers pretty much everyone who joined initially; it emphasises the small and close knit circle in the north-west at the root of much of this, as opposed to the 'Jacobites' elsewhere who thought more in terms of a French invasion.Svejk74 (talk) 12:03, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, re your bios on the Cambodians; I spent 15 years in Asia and worked in Cambodia in the early 90s before the UN turned up; first time I went to Angkor Wat, there was a rope barrier - What's that for? If you cross it, the Khmer Rouge shoot you. Good safety tip :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been an interesting time, that era has well and truly gone (although a lot of the same people are still running things).

I have to say the Wikipedia info on Cold War-era Cambodia is even poorer quality than that on the Jacobites or the period between 1640-1750 in Britain - it makes me cringe that people may be using it as an information source. Trying to improve it was a bit of an uphill struggle particularly when people start attacking the more serious academic sources like Kiernan and Vickery as communist sympathisers. Svejk74 (talk) 07:29, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, your excellent work at Francis Towneley has motivated me to work on an article for his brother. I started it just after the Francis article, almost eight years ago and forgot about it. It would be great if you could add to John's article from the sources at your disposal. A word of caution though. It seems a number of authors have confused the two, and I've just noticed such a problem with one of your additions to Francis' article. None the less, great stuff.TiB chat 18:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've removed the problematic prose from the Francis article, but it's not pretty. There are issues with the sources that I don't currently have access to. Can you take a look when you get a minute. Thanks again.TiB chat 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thanks. Will take a quick look now! Svejk74 (talk) 19:12, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Do you have access to the offline sources used in the recent changes to the article? I'm seeing verification issues with the sources can see and I'm wondering how to proceed. Thanks. TiB chat 13:10, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexander Macdonald, 17th of Keppoch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glencoe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment and the reference. I think its more complicated than Compounder v Non-Compounder (Harris identifies eight separate factions within the Patriot Parliament). Key issues were autonomy and land reform; both cut across religious boundaries. In the mid 18th century, Catholic emancipation was backed by the government as a way of undercutting Protestant nationalists like Wolfe Tone, viewed as being more dangerous. (see article on Church of Ireland).

Several sources argue viewing the Williamite war primarily as one of religion is a perspective driven by outsiders at the time, then solidified by de Valera and his recasting of Irish history in the 1930s. But I'm wary of going too fast :) Robinvp11 (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at the updates; I wanted to make sure I hadn't removed anything vital but please feel free to add or edit as needed. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited William Dorrington, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mere (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the explanation. I added agriarianism because it was in the Communist Party of Kampuchea and so I thought it was also referring to the Khmer Rouge. Ironically, I believe it's misrepresenting when it's clearely referring to a specific model of communism/Marxism, i.e. Marxism–Leninism; what matters isn't necessarily the word used but what it means. It doesn't mean or refer to the philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state nor to a theory and method of working-class self-emancipation [...] relies on a method of socioeconomic analysis that views class relations and social conflict using a materialist interpretation of historical development and takes a dialectical view of social transformation but rather to the official state ideology of the Soviet Union (USSR), of the parties of the Communist International, after Bolshevisation; and [...] the ideology of Stalinist political parties, which was called and is known as Marxism–Leninism by reliable sources themselves. Historical context is important and ever since the October Revolution and the Cold War the words Communism or even just Marxism were used to refer to Marxism–Leninism and its various variants. Sâr found many of Karl Marx's denser texts difficult, later revealing that he "didn't really understand" them. Instead, he became familiar with the writings of Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, including Stalin's The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks). Stalin's approach to Marxism—known as Stalinism—gave Sâr a sense of purpose in life. Sâr also read Mao's work, especially On New Democracy, a text outlining a Marxist–Leninist framework for carrying out a revolution in colonial and semi-colonial, semi-feudal societies. The Marxism he and many others studied in Paris and pretty much elsewhere was Stalinism; and many common Marxism criticisms are actually referring to Marxism–Leninism and that is caused by the fact that Stalinism became both the Communist and Marxist orthodoxy; indeed, the word Stalinism itself was mainly used by communists and Marxists critical of it and became more common after Stalin's death with the "Secret Speech". It's not like I'm interpreting the sources in my own way, they're clearly referring to what reliable sources refer to as Marxism–Leninism. It's not WP:OR nor WP:SYNTH if that's clearly what they're talking about and/or referring to, whether the source is from a non-communist, an anti-communist, or someone who believes that Stalinism is the inevitable result of Marxism and so on. Am I wrong? I'm not even disputing that Communism is the WP:COMMONNAME; then again by the same logic it should be capitalised since that's what many sources do and they do it exactly to distinquish between communism and Marxism–Leninism. I'm just saying that I believe accuracy and WP:NPOV triumph in this specific case and that this is justified in being an exception. Then don't get annoyed when people keep confusing the two like they do with fascism and Nazism (fascism is left-wing!, Nazism is socialism; it's in the name!, etc.) and have to put a FAQ. Either way, I invite you to join the talks I started to state your thoughts.--82.63.72.187 (talk) 02:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please help and tell me your thoughts? Thank you. Am I wrong?--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Butler dynasty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hans Holbein (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure what the problem with western Atlantic was? Slow day? Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 08:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think we need a road map for how to proceed with the Jacobitism article. Would you like to collaborate? Jdorney (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, very happy to help out.Svejk74 (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think we have the basis in the talk page now for how the Irish section should go. Let me get back to you that. Regarding the 'political background' section. I was happier with it before the most reverts/edits. I started working on a revised section with what I considered to be the necessary details here but then I looked back and thought that the version of November 24 (here) was considerably better and clearer than the current section, though a bit longer. I feel that the most recent 'condensing' actually makes the section more confusing to the reader and omits fairly necessary details. What do you think about that? Jdorney (talk) 18:26, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; I've no particular opinion on the 'political background' section, really - I think the earlier version is probably more explicit and detailed, but there is also an argument for keeping things brief - both versions of this section are largely the work of the same author anyway. Go ahead and make any changes you feel improve it.

The article has certainly improved immensely in the past couple of months (differences over Irish Jacobitism aside) but I think overall the glaring omission is still a general historical overview of Jacobite activity during the period - the risings, plots, foreign support etc. I guess that would go where the "Military" section currently sits.Svejk74 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think you're right about that. It might even go in right after the 'political background' section. It's really necessary stuff and at the moment there's nothing but a few lines. I can really only work on the Irish stuff, I don't have the knowledge to really get into the English and Scottish aspects I'm afraid. Right I'm going to work first on the 'background' section and then I think we should work out how to lay out the Irish section. Jdorney (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I think my only continued issue with the Irish section as it stands I feel it still spends more time laying out the exceptions or inconsistencies than it does stating who the Irish Jacobites were and what they believed or professed to believe. I have no doubt Jacobitism was a broad church over time, but the Irish form was distinct.

Ideally from my point of view it should start by defining these distinctive points of Irish Jacobitism - militant Catholicism, a stress on the Stuarts' Gaelic heritage, emphasis on the 'three crowns' rather than on a single British monarchy, definition of the successor regime as heretical, the importance of the large exile community in active service - while we can use the existing evidence of non Juring Protestants etc to show that this wasn't the whole story.

I have to agree with Sean Connolly that the example of 18th century Protestant patrotism isn't a particularly instructive comparison; he points out this had its roots in the kind of Protestant opposition to 'arbitrary power' that drove much of the opposition to James. They are directly competing models of proto-nationalism, as I see it. Having recently read Stewarts' Summer Soldiers about 1798 in Antrim amd Down has sharpened this in my mind a bit.

I also agree with Connolly that the post 1750 agrarian unrest had little Jacobite content - though it's interesting that the favourite tune of the Ribbonmen was The White Cockade.Svejk74 (talk) 22:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think I largely agree with that. That's exactly it, it currently says who the Jacobites were not rather than who they were. (I think as far as I can tell the same is largely true of the English and Scottish sections as it stands).

Yes, the late 18th century is a break with with the past and realignment, in my view. Though I think that in so far as plebian Jacobitism represented Catholic sectarian nationalism in Ireland it just changed form, through the Whiteboys, Defenders, Rockites, Ribbonmen and so on.

I would personally also lay some emphasis also on the Confederate Catholics of the 1640s and the Jacobites. It was after all essentially the same cause, pursuing Irish Catholics interests through the persons of the Stuart monarchs. But let's not go down the road of favouring our own interpretations. I'm going to try to edit over the next few days or weeks to lay out some of the points above (reflecting consensus among the secondary sources and outlining where they disagree) and then we should talk again. Thanks! Jdorney (talk) 00:27, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've re-written the Irish section of the article in my sandbox here User:Jdorney/sandbox. Can you have a look and see what you think? Thanks! Jdorney (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Jdorney, I will take a look.Svejk74 (talk) 11:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. On a vaguely related note I recently got round to finishing Tom Dunne's Rebellions. There is some very interesting material in there on the links between earlier Jacobite proto-nationalism and intercommunal violence in Wexford in 1798. Svejk74 (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, go on then, fill me in! Jdorney (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well he starts from the usual assumption that Wexford was a long-settled, English speaking area and shows that instead at least some of the rebels were Irish speaking. Further to that there was at least one part of the county - the barony of Bantry IIRC - where patterns of landholding predating even the 'Old English' estates in the south east of the county (never mind the larger post 1689 ones in the north) remained: men from Bantry, probably Irish speaking, were unusually well represented in the rebellion as were Catholic 'middlemen' families who had previously suffered land confiscations.

He goes into the example of poets like O Longain who cross the boundary between Jacobite forms of resistance and later ones, but also identifies a fragmentary Irish language poem about the battle of New Ross collected in the 1820s which includes some Jacobite-era tropes.

Lastly I think he shows fairly well that many people involved in the rebellion were related or were neighbours; in the latter case this stretches to violence. His argumemt is that there is some truth in the assertion that the United Irish organisation was weak in Wexford; also that Defenderism was minimal in the county, and that instead what happened was that the community actually fractured along lines set in the 16th and 17th centuries - it was a 'popular' uprising drawing heavily on long memories of Jacobite tinged resistance to land confiscations. This goes very much against the interpretations of Gahan et al. which stresses the United Irish, republican side of things - and does I think lead into some uncomfortable areas. He got some very angry reviews as I recall!

As my own small addition to the above I was interested to see, while starting to tidy up his article, that Father Murphy's patron Nicholas Sweetman was a suspected Jacobite back in the 1750s.

By the way I read over your rewrite of the Jacobitism section and it looks spot on, you've got everything I would have stated.Svejk74 (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, thanks. I'm no expert on 1798, but that interpretation does make a certain amount of sense to me. It also helps to explain a certain level of continuity between before and after the 1790s in terms of popular political and communal identities. Where it gets complicated of course is that liberal Protestant landowners were also involved in 1798, certainly in Wicklow and Wexford. But contradictions are real, whoever said Irish history made sense?!

Thanks re the Jacobite article. Ok, I'll go ahead and stick that in. It was only when editing it that I realised how many gross basic misunderstandings there were in the version we had up to now. I don't mean to be unkind, but I think it was case of a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous thing. Similarly I think the English and Scottish sections right now are confusing. Hopefully someone else can work on them. Jdorney (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will have a go at the English bit initially - as with Ireland a lot of space seems to be taken up with explaining why the nonjurors were not 'real' Jacobites, though I do think English Jacobite support was a much more insubstantial thing that Irish, or Scottish, for that matter.

The big division here in academia is between those who believe the Tories were not a Jacobite party, although some flirted with the exile court when excluded from power by the Hanoverians, and the minority view, led by Eveline Cruickshanks, which argues that a majority of Tories were crypto-Jacobite and simply waiting for the right time to declare their hand.

On another subject, I earlier looked at your talk page as was considering responding there - I note the error referring to the Black and Tans as the RIC 'Reserve' has come up yet again. Reminds me, the image used on the Black and Tans article of a man with a Lewis gun is almost certainly one of the 'Auxies', rather than a 'Black and Tan', isn't it? Svejk74 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I would have thought so. The beret/tam o' shanter would normally mean an 'Auxie'. But since the Black and Tans' uniform was cobbled together from anything available when they came over first, it's hard to know, I gather they all were kitted out in regular RIC uniform as soon it was available in late 1920 though.

That would be great re English Jacobitism, a phenomenon on which I confess to being almost entirely ignorant. I've never been entirely able to grasp what being a Tory meant at the time apart from discontent at aspects of the 1688 revolution (duty of obedience, divine right etc). But what would a Stuart restoration have meant for English Jacobites? In Ireland it seem obvious what Catholic Jacobites hoped to get out of it, but not in England. Hopefully I'll learn from watching your edits.

I think the Scottish section also needs a shake up for the same reasons. At the moment it tells me that the Jacobites were not Catholics, nor Gaelic speakers, but Episcopalians who fell foul of 1719 legislation. And those who opposed the 1707 act of union. But not all of them. It's not that enlightening to someone who doesn't know this in depth (like me). But from my somewhat surface knowledge, from Montrose's royalist uprising in 1644 down to the Jacobite rebellion of 1745, there really was a strong Gaelic Highland element to Scottish Jacobitism (or, 'Stuartism')? And its suppression was also linked to repression of Gaelic Highland culture, was it not? I really don't know enough to edit here, but again it seems like the section is telling me who the Jacobites weren't, rather than who they were. Jdorney (talk) 19:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. All the progress made erased. Jdorney (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit frustrating when I made a specific effort to retain all the references from a previous version, even those I felt were a bit peripheral to the main argument. I don't claim to be the world's foremost expert on Jacobitism, but I think I have a reasonable grounding in the way it's depicted by the main academic voices these days.Svejk74 (talk) 11:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Jdorney (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a couple of issues in particular - firstly, sentences getting edited in a way that although the original source is kept, the sentence now completely misrepresents what the source actually says. This is just sloppy at best.

Secondly, an insistence on demonstrating 'complexity of motive' to a ridiculous degree. As an example, the main reason for mentioning the Scots Malt Tax, as I see it - and the only reason it has been mentioned by authors like Duffy and Pittock - is a well-known quote from a contemporary diarist in 1745 stating that the Jacobites' proposal to repeal it had made them popular in their area (rural Aberdeenshire). It is an interesting demonstration of the sort of local issue that drove recruitment. Why we then have to be told that there were also anti-tax riots twenty years earlier in the strongly Whig town of Glasgow, I have no idea; it does nothing to advance our understanding of Jacobite motivation, and if the point is that Jacobites had a whole range of issues motivating them, including transient or self-interested ones, then surely the 1745 tax issue by itself shows this. The effect is to make it, as you say, extremely confusing.Svejk74 (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet this user appears intent on totally rewriting the article. How do we proceed here? Should we just revert and ask that further issues are addressed on talk, or should we re-edit and try to to correct the problems? 22:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

My instinct would be start a revised version of the altered sections in the Sandbox (some of the new wording is an improvement, albeit where it hasn't misrepresented the sources or confused the issue) and edit again later. Might even be better to base it on the pre-edit version and then incorporate any useful subsequent changes to the structure.

My own biggest issues at present are that the Irish section is again tying itself in knots trying to demonstrate that Jacobitism wasn't about 'loyalty to the Stuarts' - a bit pointless as this is an answer to a question nobody is asking. Similarly the English section now talks about why support there wasn't about 'ideology' but has largely cut out what that ideology actually was (the ideological structure of Jacobitism was in many respects identical to 1680s Toryism and explains some later sympathies). Similarly the non-jurors who though small in number provided the cause with its real 'backbone'. This needs to be corrected.

What I really want to try and check is that the article doesn't become infested with the whole 'pro/anti-Jacobite' thing still, surprisingly, active in (some) contemporary academia. The argument is still seen as a moral one. I can't imagine why this is so - except that issues of religion and nationality are involved. After the revival of serious Jacobite studies in the 1980s under people like Cruickshanks and Clark one well known historian went so far as to condemn interest in the "obscurantist troglodyte" Charles Stuart; that's the type of thing we are dealing with. It's even more pointed now that the Scots Jacobites are seen as proto-nationalists by some.Svejk74 (talk) 11:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the political background section again, now doesn't really make sense. I'd be very much inclined to revert the whole lot to be honest. 11:26, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What I'm going to do initially is transfer the last pre-edit version to my Sandbox, then we have an easily viewable copy of that.Svejk74 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes well that's a first step alright. Interesting (above)do you think that it's some sort of political agenda we are encountering? Jdorney (talk) 12:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, I'm not sure. I think the problem with the Jacobites is that a lot of the time the agenda is still encoded in the academic sources. I find this with some of Jeffrey Stephen's articles for example; his default setting seems to be that Jacobite sources are untrustworthy liars. Similarly Murray Pittock is overly generous in assessing the Jacobites of 1745 as forward-thinking nationalists. It's a much milder version of the same issue (and which divides along largely the same faultlines) you see in the historiography of 1689, or 1798 - it seems particularly vulnerable to influence by preconceptions about what government should look like and who should exercise it. Or perhaps a need to prove the Union was the 'right' course of history as the Jacobites could never have won. Sometimes it's more basic than that - one Scots academic claimed a colleague described the Jacobites as "thieving Catholic b*st*rds"

- while you also have obviously pro Jacobite societies still in existence too - so it's sensible to be alert for it at times.Svejk74 (talk) 13:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right I've had a go at correcting both Irish section and political background section. Though honestly I felt they were better as they were. (E.g. who among general readers knows who the Seven Bishops were? But the explanation keeps being deleted). Let me know what you think. 15:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks a good start, I am interested to see if they get re-edited.

I think this is a general problem with trying to condense things down; some concepts no doubt make sense if you've been thinking about the article for days or weeks but the general reader needs a bit more information. For example they will not understand what 'ideology' means with respect to the Tories without understanding who they were, what things like 'divine right' mean and why the Tory 'ideology' was defined by them. Most people looking up Jacobitism will have very little understanding of Early Modern political culture so they deserve a bit of explanation.Svejk74 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly. And furthermore, it begs the question; was there a 'Tory ideology' at all? These weren't modern political parties with manifestos and programmes, let alone think tanks and position papers etc. And it begs a further (!) question of, if there was tory ideology how did it come to be? I.e. the specific circumstances of the restoration and the exclusion crisis. Jdorney (talk) 12:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, watching your edits here with interest. Two things: regarding 'romantic revival'. Should this include the Irish nationalist (Young Ireland onwards I think?) appropriation of elements of the Jacobite history; Sarsfield, The Patriot Parliament, 'Remember Limerick' etc? Two: regarding the English and Scottish sections, while I understand that editors must strive for consensus, I must say I am still unhappy with the latest rewrites. Again the problem is that the sections (a) try to talk about who the Jacobite supporters were not and not who they were. And (b) the re-writes are very argumentative, saying one thing and arguing against it. The reader is given no clear picture of who might have supported the Jacobites or why. Rather, the article seems to be going out of its way to argued that no one really supported the Jacobites. Especially with regard to Scotland the section does not say the most obvious (as far I know) conclusions of Jacobite historiography; that support for the Stuarts came disproportionately from Episcopalians, non Jurors and those who opposed the act of union of 1707. Again, it all seems to be smothered in a cloud of arguments and sometimes irrelevant details, so that the reader is unable to discern the main points. I think we need to be a bit firmer on these salient points if we're to have an article that is intelligible to the average reader. Jdorney (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 974161712 by Mmmarkkk (talk) you've got it wrong What didn't you understand about 'Catholic allegiance to the Pope and Protestant nonconformists belief were compatible with divine right, since both argued there was an authority above the king'. Papists and Proddies believed in divine right, in a god. CofE believed in the monarch was in charge. That's why some of the protestant "nonconformists" allied with catholics. Because they were onconformist and believed in the power of god over tha CofE and the monarch. I fully read the article and the reference which I gave.Mmmarkkk (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Murphy (priest), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orangemen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts on the article, opening para for now. The problem is essentially the same as in the other article. The paragraphs argues for a specific case, viz. that James's supporters in Ireland were 'divided' and that there were contradictions between James's goal and their goals. While this may be true to an extent, it's overemphasized here. E.g. there were tactical differences between Tryconnell and Sarsfield regarding how to fight the war, but no real divergence in terms of goals. They wanted James on the throne to advance the Irish Catholic agenda - viz recovering political power and recovering landed property lost in the Cromwellian and earlier period. And certainly there were others, eg Hugh Baldearg O'Donnell who wanted a more radical outcome, but these were fringe figures. Secondly regarding the divergence between Irish Catholic Jacobites and James, this is overdone, implying that they did not wholeheartedly support James and his cause at all. They did, they just thought that they could bend James to their will. Basically I don't think the contradictions between James' agenda and his supportes was as important as the article says.

The second problem is that this para leaves out the important context of Ireland in the 17th century: 1641, Cromwell, the confiscation of the 1650s and incomplete restoration. None of the first three are even mentioned. The term 'land reform' is used for the Jacobite landed agenda which I think is misleading (as I've said before), and distinction is set up between that religion. When of course the land question actually hinged on religion. Suggesting that Tyrconnell had no interest in undoing the Act of Settlement is plain wrong, I think, too. I don't see what trade has to do wit hteh fissures of 1689 at all.

Thirdly, regarding Irish Protestants, it should be made clear that in the main these were of English and Scottish extraction, owed their landed property in large part to the plantations and confiscation of Cromwell and earlier and were terrified that Catholic power would mean another 1641 and most from teh start raised their own militia forces against it. This was not only in Ulster. Bandon in Cork for instance was also a centre of Protestant Williamite resistance. The reader is not given a clear picture of the sectarian and partly ethnic faultlines here, which are clouded in detail rather than explained clearly.

Let me know what you think,

Jdorney (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think I agree with that. While there were different factions in the Irish Parliament and the army, and some of them might have disagreed with many of James's own views, I can't see that this affected the regime overall - after all there were a number of factions in the English parliament at the same time, yet this is hardly taken as evidence of fundamental disunity. I've read Lenihan's biography of Tyrconnell and despite lots of discussion of his effort to build a Catholic 'establishment' over the years one thing that comes across very strongly is his almost extravagant loyalty to James, his patron - extending to sending his best troops to shore up the English regime at the cost of Ireland's own security.

Again I suppose I would make the point that while there are interesting exceptions to every case (e.g. the nonjurors who supported James, or the handful of Dublin Protestants like Creagh who sat in the Commons in the 'Patriot Parliament') they shouldn't be emphasised to the degree that it makes it difficult to see the broader, fundamental characteristics of James's regime in Ireland and of its supporters.Svejk74 (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, well I think that we're in agreement on the fundamental points then. I' going to have a go at editing that para in the coming days along those lines. It think the next section also needs a lot of work and clarification. At present the reader isn't given a clear picture of the basic contours of the Derry/Dromore/Eniskillen campaigns. And there is a statement that then defenders of Derry appealed to James first and not to William? I'd have to check that out, but it doesn't sound right? Jdorney (talk) 21:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about the defenders of Derry - I suppose they may have issued a statement of loyalty to make it clear that the refusal to admit Antrim's regiment was not an act of rebellion as such.... but you have to wonder how honest that was. Certainly at Enniskillen a large part of the local administration was keen not to provoke any trouble with James's government, but were overruled by a more stridently anti-Catholic faction so the idea the town was simply looking to James to provide security doesn't hold much water - instead they seem to have been preparing for the rerun of 1641 they felt was about to happen.Svejk74 (talk) 13:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see, yes I think the current wording rests on another misunderstanding then, to be honest. Overt declarations of loyalty in the period are not the same as underlying allegiance. But first things first, I'm going to edit the background paragraph first if that's ok. 18:00, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have found what seems to be the original source of this - it's something titled "The Declaration of the Gentlemen of Derry" in most sources, which tries to blame the gates being shut on some of "the meaner sort" of inhabitants and which then claims this as an act of providence since they had then received information (presumably based on the 'Comber letter') that a "general massacre of Protestants" was intended by local Catholics. Its argument seems almost identical to a letter John Campsie and others sent to Lord Mountjoy in Dublin which essentially says the same thing (you should be able to find some references to this easily enough). However in context it seems to me very much like an example of hedging their bets - it's mainly designed to make the gates being closed not appear like an overt act of rebellion.

I think one of the confusing aspects of the current wording is the comment that the siege itself did not start until April. While that is correct in one sense, it doesn't really reflect the situation on the ground in that James's regime was already in its knees at the time the gates were shut, and by late December he had fled England; the letters from Derry seem clearly designed to balance this situation against the fact that Tyrconnell still remained in control of Ireland for the time being.

Svejk74 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read it. I don't believe a word of it. I grew up there, I've been down those tunnels and the Edge Hill Stephenson station area since the '70s. It's a bunch of quarrymen seeing a hole in the ground and assuming it's a quarry. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to hear that. I didn't live at Edge Hill but relatives did and I have heard the stories about Williamson since childhood (hence why I wrote much of the current article in 2018).

Having said that, I don't think in this case it's a 'bunch of quarrymen' imposing their ideas on the excavations. Lucas is from the geology department at Edge Hill Uni, and Bridson and Jones are from the Williamson Tunnels Heritage Centre in Smithdown Lane, while some of the conclusions are based on archaeological findings from excavations adjacent to the Heritage Centre site when student flats were being built. The techniques being used by Williamson's workmen were those designed to release stone in large, usable blocks, not simple purposeless excavations. It is worth rereading Lucas and Bridson's original article as the argument is pretty conclusive, as well as being the closest thing to a sober academic assessment of the 'tunnels'.

It also provides a reasonable explanation for Williamson's secrecy (i.e. the fact he would have owed a large sum in mineral rights). No doubt he was an eccentric character but extremely shrewd too, particularly as by vaulting over the quarries he was able to restore the area to valuable building land.Svejk74 (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that paper for a whole bunch of reasons.

First, it's a badly-written paper. It starts out with its conclusion, then tries to support it. The evidence is trimmed to fit. In particular, it scare-quotes 'tunnels' throughout.

Secondly, it conflates 'Wiliamson used some pre-existing quarries' into 'All of Williamson's work was in re-using quarries'. This is the piece that just doesn't stand up. There probably were quarries involved, because the place is riddled with them. It's good stone. There seems to be absolutely no record of these quarries, because by the time decent record-keeping started, Liverpool was expanding outwards to this sort of distance and the quarries were now 'old'. The ability to excavate new quarries was constrained because they now wanted to keep the new roads level, not put holes everywhere!

One of the best examples of this is probably the Moorish Arch area of Edge Hill station, Stephenson's base for Rocket et al. The excavation here is huge, and yet I know of no record for how it came to be there initially (we looked in 1980, for the Rocket 150 celebrations). It's far too big for Stephenson to have excavated it (it would have taken years), so we can only surmise that he acquired it ready-dug as a convenient base for the railway operations, with the main public station on the flatter area beyond (and expanding sideways, once the Lime Street lines were added). Stephenson did make considerable expansion to it, as the many boilerhouses and engine sheds cut into the side of the cutting show.

I'm happy to agree that some of Williamson's larger chambers probably began as quarries, and show their arches above as a means of making good the ground above, so that it was buildable again. But I still believe the classic folk tradition here, that Williamson built tunnelled follies in order to provide work - there's just too much there, and much of it too narrow, for it to be related to stone quarrying.

Thirdly, the maps they use show too low a density of tunnels within the overall tunnelled area. Much of the work at present is in refuse clearance from these and the new tunnels (which were known then, although not accurately mapped) don't show on their maps.

Overall I'm happy to say that quarries were involved in this (although it's a political point within the Williamson group, hence the 'quarrymen' label), but that shouldn't diminish Williamson's tunnelling otherwise, the expansion and the likely altrusitic aims. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:58, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several years back, you uploaded this picture of a pig, citing it to a specific 1897 book. As per the talk page, it does not appear to be in that book. Could you please comment? Thank you. DS (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? DS (talk) 00:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't at least respond, I'll need to delete that image for having bad provenance. DS (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. Deleted. It can be restored if you supply actual provenance. DS (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered your query on TP and updated the Non-Juror Schism article; as ever, I appreciate the query because its improved that article and made a few things clearer (for me).

Have a look but I suspect Monod made the same error as me ie Non-Jurors as an internal pressure group within the Church of England (the vast majority), and members of the Non-Juror church - ie schismatics (small minority). But even schismatics weren't de facto Jacobites.Robinvp11 (talk) 19:17, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that, I think the identification of the 'internal pressure group' vs the schismatics makes it a lot clearer overall.Svejk74 (talk) 19:54, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you moved "List of longest living cats" back to "List of oldest cats"? I believe the previous one is the better title. 172.250.44.165 (talk) 07:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a short reference to Barratt 2000 in there, but no full reference. Would you mind adding it? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now done.Svejk74 (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the conclusion the assessment system is broken, particularly the A class reviews, which appear to be primarily conducted by a small group of mates.

I'm deliberately putting articles in for B class review, not Good Article or A, as I hope that will raise the standard in general. Occasionally that means exercising patience (amazingly, some long-term editors don't like it :)), but the pickier they are, the more rigorous it becomes.

So it would be a good idea for you to submit some as well, if you have time. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is. It's one of the problems with Wikipedia - a few people interested in reviewing, others in enforcing arbitrarily selected 'style' rules, other people interested in tinkering with infoboxes, very few actually interested in writing and improving content.

"B" seems a good standard to go for as the criteria are at least reasonably objective - I don't pretend to understand what "A" class demands, having observed a few reviews. I think Murray of Broughton is now about as complete as a general encyclopedia could ask for (I can't see much else you could write about him that's of biographical interest) but "B" class seems a reasonable place to start!Svejk74 (talk) 13:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think :) Robinvp11 (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A huge improvement! Svejk74 (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Richard Talbot, 1st Earl of Tyrconnell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of the Dunes.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

French Revolution - wow. I've just finished reading the latest Desmond Seward book 'The King Across the Water', which rehashes nearly every single cliche about the 'Lost Cause' imaginable and is quite the most biased account I've seen. Possibly because Seward is an alumni of Ampleforth, the leading Catholic public school in England. It's disappointing because I've read a number of his books and now I'm wondering how accurate they are. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd been following that one developing for a while, partly as I'd been toying with the idea of having a go at the article on the 1798 Irish rebellion (a whole other discussion to be had on influence there!). The article's looking much better for your efforts. As usual the whole topic area seems to be a shambles - if you'd like a real laugh (in the least amusing sense of the word) have a look at the article on Robespierre, which seems to have fallen into the hands of someone with a great deal of enthusiasm but little knowledge of coherent English, or of the subject for that matter.

The Seward book is pretty bad - it comes across very much like an account based on an uncritical reading of Jacobite supporters' own correspondence, a real 19th century throwback. You may be right on the Ampleforth thing, as with reasonable 'popular' histories available these days I can't see what other excuse he has.Svejk74 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked out of the ARW Talkpage because it just annoys me and the article is so riddled with errors, arguing over George's role seems relatively minor.

So I'm focusing on the article for now, but let me know if you need something :). Robinvp11 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK - you seem to be making good progress with the article anyway. I've finally made a start on rewriting Irish Rebellion of 1798 Svejk74 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Svejk74: Word of warning :) I've been dragged into the Copyedit discussion, much to my distress. The Virginia Historian combines an uncanny ability to make really complex deductions from simple statements with an inability to say anything in less than four lines, thinks he knows more than he really does but has a nagging suspicion he might not and thus turns everything into a 'lets see who knows the most about world history' contest.

Just be careful to be really focused and not let yourself get dragged into pointless discussions such as whether or not the Vietcong were better trained than the Patriot militia (really). Robinvp11 (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Thomas Myddelton (younger), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convention Parliament.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be always one step forward two steps back with this article. I'm really only competent to edit the Irish section, but the political background section is currently terrible. Incomprehensible, I'd suggest, to the average reader. It starts with really unclear discussion of the issues surrounding Stuart rule, then there are three or four paragraphs about the mid century wars in Ireland, but nothing about Scottish and English Royalism or the Civil wars there or the despoition of the monarchy by Parliament in 1649 or its Restoration in 1660! It desperately needs a spring clean or even better, a total re-write. Thoughts? Jdorney (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could certainly do with shortening. A lot of the points are tangential to the main argument and I'd suggest that the key message should really be that a) James was deposed by William and Mary in 1688 b) he retained large numbers of supporters or sympathisers, for a variety of reasons and c) various people supported the restoration of the senior Stuart line for at least 60 years afterwards.Svejk74 (talk) 11:05, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes exactly! Plus, I would suggest the issues of state religion in the three kingdoms and role of parliament in government? And why are there 3 of four paragraphs about the Confederate/Cromwellian wars in Ireland?? Jdorney (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cerne Abbas Giant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sexton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have been cleaning up the citations in Irish Army (1661–1801). I am unble sort out a couple of short citations that you added because they do not link to a long citation in the references section (see Talk:Irish Army (1661–1801)). I would appreciate it if you would take a look. — PBS (talk) 09:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tree ring enclosure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Britain.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing unexplained reverts of the content that you don't like on Korma won't get overlooked like you are thinking.

Stop your disruptive editing. 43.242.116.149 (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been on Wikipedia for about 15 years (unlike an anonymous IP with a handful of edits( and wrote the bulk of that article, so no, it's not disruptive editing.Svejk74 (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't mean you are not engaging in disruptive editing. 43.242.116.149 (talk) 04:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in this edit you introduced undefined sfn references to "Elliott 2012", and in this edit you introduced undefined sfn references to "Pakenham 1987". As the references are undefined nobody can look them up, and the article appears in Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors. You can find guidance about fixing these errors at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors#Resolving errors. These have been outstanding since December 2020, and in December 2022 another editor asked on the article talk page for help fixing them. If you could fix them that would be appreciated. DuncanHill (talk) 12:31, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]