Talk:Daniel O'Connell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Contents 1 The Right Honourable 2 organising 3 O'Connell and tithes 4 it wasn't his head! 5 funding 6 Article needs Balance 7 Artical Needs Ref's 8 Book List 9 Needs References added tag 10 removing information 11 Daniel O'Connell 12 removed selective POV tag 13 Recent Formatting 14 Revert User:Jill Teed

[edit] The Right Honourable

The Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield article has the phrase "the right honourable gentleman" when talking about Daniel O'Connell who had (rather oddly given earlier battles) raised the issue of his religion in the British Parliament. Was he a member of the Irish Privy Council, and did this continue after he had been Lord Mayor of Dublin? --Henrygb 22:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] organising

I think this article needs some organising (breaking into sections) and probably expanding.

Anyone know enough to do it? --Paulc1001 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree. At present, a casual reader might get the impression that O'Connell was a famous duellist rather than politician. I'm going to put a clean-up tag on it and bring it to the attention of the Irish Wikipedians group. --Ryano 12:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] O'Connell and tithes

Demiurge why do you keep deleting entrys that i add about O'connell rejecting Sharman crawford's call for the complete abolition of tithes in 1838. If you want me to reference it, it can be found in Robert Kee's 'The green flag: a history of irish nationalism'

• I reverted your edit because you also (inadvertently I presume) deleted a large section of the article. Demiurge 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

==Duplicitous bastard Rarely in the history of Irish political life has there been as big a duplicitous bastard as this little conniving cunt from the arsehole of Kerry. And that's a statement. Not even Aodh Mór Ó Néill in 1594, Charlie Haughey in 1979 and the entire British ascendency in Ireland in 1695 combined could best him. Now can somebody more eloquent than my fine self put that in this article, which at present infers it in places to the initiated (e.g. the felicitous timing of his "imprisonment")

PS: Oh yeah, and what happened the "freeholders" after that so-called 'Catholic Emancipation'? Tell us, how many were wiped off the register as the quid pro quo to consolidate O Connell's middleclass within an anglocentric powerbase? And even more objectionable to my mind is this utter bullshit of O Connell the opposer of violence. It is so fucking indicative of national school indoctrination that it is painful. In 1798 he was lifting arms on behalf of the British Empire as a Yeoman against the native forces of resistance. He threatened violence many, many times throughout his career; prior to Emancipation against the Empire and in the Repeal campaigns to defend the Empire. Fine actions indeed for one who supposedly "opposed violence". To say O Connell was in principle opposed to violence betrays the most fundamental lack of understanding of precisely what Daniel O Connell, an ambitious middleclass Catholic under the rule of the most powerful empire the world had ever known, was about. The birds above his statue on O Connell street have a better understanding of the man than most Irish people. 193.1.172.163 04:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you got that off your chest. Is there anything in the article you would like to amend, backed up by cited sources of course? --Ryano 10:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nah, I'm much better now, thanks very much for asking. 193.1.172.163 15:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a disgraceful way to treat one of the great uncrowned kings of Ireland, it is clear that a prodestant wrote this or someone clearly living in hope of "the great union" which exists between northern Ireland an england (hardly a great union,when so many unfourtante people living in the union oppose it so greatly).O'Conell was definately against violence he had a whole army of people hanging on his every word his monster meetings attraced vast amounts of people who followed every word he spoke,if encouraged them to use violence in the slighest the so called gret empire would of been brought to its knees,but he didn't he wanted constittuinal reform for the country and was willing not to use violence to get it!

[edit] it wasn't his head!

O'Connell's body and head did not part ways! It was his heart that was embalmed and buried in the Irish College in Rome. His body was otherwise returned intact to Dublin.

[edit] funding

"The Association was funded by membership dues of one penny per month, a minimal amount designed to attract Catholic peasants. It was so successful that the Association raised several million pounds in its first year."

where is the source of this. how on earth did the raise that kind of money from a penny a month, even with patronage from the odd rich person —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.95.153.4 (talk • contribs).

• A few quick sums (8 million people in Ireland, 12 months in a year, 240 pennies in a pound) gives a maximum of £400,000 even in the unlikely event that every man, woman and child on the island gave money. I've amended the article to remove the "several million" claim, good catch. Demiurge 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs Balance

The link to the Repeal Association should be removed as it is a disgraceful article. The article Repeal (Ireland) should be merged with this article. The reason for the citations is to provide the opportunity to address the misconceptions relating to Young Ireland and there relationship with Daniel O’Connell. The O’Connell article is very sanitized. The disputes with Young Ireland would give a much fuller picture of O’Connell, and greatly enhance the page. --Domer48 16:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Artical Needs Ref's

This is a very poor article in facts, I hope users will agree. --Phoblacht 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Phoblacht - I wrote the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the section entitled 'Early LIfe' - the bits about O'Connell's quandary as a student at King's Inns at the time of the French Invasion of Bantry Bay in 1796 - and I also wrote all of the section entitled 'O'Connell Quotes'. In order to substantiate what I wrote I gave the name of the first three books listed under the section entitled 'References' and also some of the 'Links'. I certainly do not agree that the parts I wrote are lacking in facts or references. What exactly do you want here? [PS - Why is your name, 'Phoblacht', aspirated? Should it not just be 'Poblacht'? In Irish the aspiration does not make grammatical sense. Just curious] Oz MH 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

This article needs citations/references. I know a bit about O’Connell, for every citation, I will put forward an alternative view of his career. Without citations, this article will be edited. I would like to see some referenced comments on the veto controversy, the tithe war, the chartable bequest act, the colleges bill, and the celebrated “peace resolutions.” Possibly some information on the O’Connell tribute, or his U turn on federalism. What about O’Connell not producing any accounts for the money of the repeal association. A lot of information there that should and will be added. --Domer48 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 of the section entitled 'Early Life' is based on the two references already supplied. If you keep inserting requests for references in this paragraph I will insert the text of the entire letter.Oz MH 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so his uncle told him not to get involved in any militia activity? When did he give these instructions, and how? Why would his uncle instruct him in such a way? What was the quandary he found himself in, disobey his uncle, or relent to peer pressure? Is that it, that the quandary? Reference it and I will look it up. Why would I have a problem with you inserting the whole letter? I have been at the end of some rough editing, not with citation tags, but with the information being removed altogether, for lack of references? Citation tags are just a prompt, one I would much prefer, to the more ruthless edits! I would point you to my earlier contributions on the discussion page? I will be adding more material to this article, you a free to challenge the information I put forward, at least we will have some balance! --Domer48 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Domer. I HAVE referenced it! If you don't have access to this letter which was written shortly after the French fleet entered Bantry Bay and is dated 3rd January, 1797, then I have offered to quote it more fully. In it O'Connell asks his uncle what he should do given that all of his fellow students are feverishly enrolling themselves in militia. He asks his uncle to decide on the line of conduct to be observed and advises him of the cost of entering any militia should his uncle consent to it. Oz MH 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Oz, Would I be right in saying that the first two lines, in the second paragraph on “Early Life”, would have the same reference as the one used below it marked 1? If that is the case, well ok, just put the same reference after it. Below is a paragraph from Dennis Gywnn’s, Daniel O’Connell The Irish Liberator, Hutchinson & Co. LTD. Which should illustrate my confusion.

“But events were approaching quickly which were to rouse him [O’Connell] from his loneliness and morbid self-reproaches. The French expedition to Bantry Bay had produced a profound sense of alarm; and early in January he followed the example of many others in enrolling in the Lawyers’ Corps of Artillery. He had not anticipated that Hunting Cap would refuse to send him the money for his admission; and the news threw him into an hysterical state when it came. But a week later Hunting Cap sent the money with almost as great harshness as he last week refused to permit me.” I have added some information to supplement your edit. --Domer48 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Domer, judge for yourself how you would interpret the letter that the young Daniel O'Connell wrote to his patron and sponsor from Dublin on the 3rd January 1797. Here follows a transcript of all of its content relevant to the current discussion:

My Dear Uncle,

You may easily judge of the disturbed state into which the momentous transactions of the last week threw this city…I cannot avoid saying something of my own situation. While the state of affairs remains in suspense the greatest alacrity is shown on all sides. Every man capable of bearing arms has taken them up. In the midst of the general fermentation you must not be surprised if my inclinations tended to run with the current. But I hope you will at the same time do me the justice to believe that I was not unmindful of your express commands. I am now the only young man as far as I can learn of the body of lawyers or students of the law who has not entered into some corps. … It is for you to say what I am to do. It has been industriously propagated that such men as did not enter a corps would be marked by government. … For my part I am young, active, healthy and single. What excuse can I possibly make? None but your commands. They will serve with my friends and those who know me. But those who see me only at King’s Inns or in court cannot perceive the reason why I am not on parade. You will conceive an idea of my situation. You will hence decide on the line of conduct to be observed. I need not add that your decision will be religiously obeyed. Yet I must suggest the necessity of my quitting Dublin should your decision be contrary to my wishes. If I remain here I may perhaps incur the disgrace of being forced to march as a common soldier in the extraordinary portion of the militia for which they are going to ballot. But the whole of my conduct rests with you. Should you consent to my going into any corps it will be necessary to inform you that I could not afford the expense attending it out of my allowance, and that the corps into which I should wish to enter would be the lawyers artillery as the best regulated and least expensive. … If I should have expressed myself with too much ardour on the subject of taking up arms I hope, my dear Uncle, you will pardon me. Surrounded as I am with young men whom the moment has inspired with enthusiasm, with the blood of youth boiling in my veins, you will not be surprised that I should be more than usually animated. I thought to write to you last week on this subject and it was with difficulty I was able to prevent myself. But now I am not capable of resisting the temptation.. Indeed, I have persuaded myself it is my duty I should write. When you gave me your former directions an invasion was an unforeseen event. … [P.S.] I could quit any corps I now entered as soon as the danger of invasion was over and, the coat of the artillery corps being blue, by taking off the facings it would be serviceable. Oz MH 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Oz, as to interpretation, that is open to discussion. Was he asking for permission, or mitigating his decision. Anyhow interpretation some would suggest is a POV, and with my limited experience having been on the wrong end of the stick since I started would advise caution, that interpretation dose not end up on the article. Thanks for that, kind Regards --Domer48 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book List

All these books discuss Daniel O’Connell, his actions and motivations. For those who wish to see O’Connell in a more positive light I would suggest the books by Dennis Gwynn. --Domer48 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs References added tag

This article needs to be referenced. The information is incorrect and misleading. Once a reference is applied, regardless of the accuracy of the information, the citation tags can be removed. --Domer48 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removing information

This article needs to be referenced, edits to unreferenced material, needs to be referenced. The recent edits of material, by O’Donoghue suggesting that the source of the references were “blatant POV from one slanted source” is not a justification for removing the material, considering that O’Donoghue did not reference the material they added, or substantiated their claim. If O’Donoghue has an alternative source which can balance, these statements by all means add them, but do not remove referenced material, unless you can illustrate your views on the discussion page. --Domer48 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As per your request I have provided the references to "intimidatory and majoritarianist form of Irish nationalism", which were removed for lack of a reference. Hopefully this clears this up.

And yes, I believe an over-reliance on any source (Daniel Gwynne, for example) needs review. Yours, O'Donoghue 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, re the reference. Very questionable though, as a source that is, should get someone more experienced to look at that i.e. ATT. For example, it says “He detested violence as a weapon of reform, respected religion and the rights of property…,” which dose not sit well with your presentation of the information, another example would be “From 1812 to 1817 the Irish Government was little else than a long-sustained duel between O'Connell and the new chief secretary, Sir Robert Peel,” the Irish Parliament had been abolished since the Act of Union in 1800, hardly reliable. No were in the source dose it mention that a lot of liberal Protestants supported emancipation, you would think that it would. It would be my opinion, that you are putting your interpretation of the information you are using into your edit (NPOV). No matter, I have added additional material, just for a bit of balance. I will put together some more background information i.e. what drove O'Connell, such as the effects on Ireland as a result of the Act of Union, the famine of 1817, and 1822, the destruction of Irish industry, how the Act of Union was passed with blatant bribery, intimidation, and how emancipation had been promised by the British Government to the Catholic bishops, if they supported the union, and then left them waiting 30 years till they got it. I’m glad you pointed out that site for me, I like to address misconceptions, distortions, and in some cases lies. Regards --Domer48 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User O’Donoghue, The Fenian’s where not founded till 1858, in America, by the remnants of the Young Irelanders, not in 1829. So you have added material, into a referenced source, which is blatantly incorrect. You have again removed referenced material, and have in no way attempted to justify this with comment. You have shown little regard to the layout of the Article, and how it is presented, and have placed tags only over the sections of which I have placed material, material which is verifiable and categorised as both Primary and Secondary sources. You have placed material which I have found questionable in relation to source, and I have illustrated with examples, to make you aware of the questionable reliability of that source. Your recent edits is showing extremely bad fate, and should not be continued. I will allow to the opportunity to revert your recent edit, or I shall have to do it myself, which is not how I would wish to proceed. Regards --Domer48 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel O'Connell

I removed the reference to the Fenians, you could have do so yourself. I thought of them automatically when a reference was made to secret societies. James Stephens, O'Donovan Rossa, etc. were not Americans, but I am not going to quibble.

As far as the rest goes, I don't know what else you want. I only re-edited because you dismembered my quote (in the first paragraph) and I fixed it.

I am assuming good faith and I hope you do as well. Also, NO OFFENSE, but please use spell check, you would be surprised how poorly your messages read.

Yours, O'Donoghue 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. remember O'Connell was not an Irish Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The actions he took bordered on extortion, no matter how laudable the goals and regardless of what John Mitchel may have written. That needs to be clear in light of the historical consequences and repercussions, even to the present day.O'Donoghue 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said they were Americans, read what I said, and check your own message, and see how it reads. You olny re-edited because you think I dismembered your quote! That is not a justifiable reason for an edit. In fact that is disruptive behaviour. On the discussion page I justified my edit. If you question my reason for it, the discussion page is the place to raise it. You on the other hand did not, so if I’m reading you right, all your edits were based on the fact I edited a line out of your quote. What I now want, is for you to Replace the material you have edited, that is the referenced material I added, place the tags above the page, that is what I would like you to do. On O’Connell, what ever you think about him, doses not interest me in the slightest. As long as its referenced and a reliable source. (it dose not even have to be true). You do not know what my view of O’Connell is, so do not assume to tell me, editors have to assume a NPOV. You on the other hand have expressed an opinion, and will be judged on all future edits in relation to O’Connell. P.S No Offence taken re spelling, I would not be that petty. Regards --Domer48 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I restored the neutrality, unreferenced tags as per your request. The reason I removed those tags is because I had already added POV tags to the sections in question which I viewed as POV, which are still there and which comprise some/most of your contributions, which may be why you are upset. If so, sorry.

As far as "referenced material" you claim I removed, I do not know what you are talking about, so fix it yourself, I am not your servant. Just don't dismember my first paragraph quote as you did before.

Also don't threaten me because I hold an opinion - anything I added to the O'Connell page I provided a reference for. However I removed some of the unreferenced tags which littered the entire article because they averaged one per every two lines or so - THAT IS OVERKILL and a misuse of the unreferenced tag.

Regards,O'Donoghue 21:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sourced referenced material is not POV, the source of your material is questionable, the reliability of it I have shown to be dubious, and the only thing I removed was a POV which was not even in the quote you used. In relation to unreferenced tags, I much prefer them, to cutting out unreferenced material. I like to provide editors the opportunity to reference their material. Changing your original message, was a bit silly, the history of it is there so now I do not know which one to answer [[1]]. What is the POV which compromises all my referenced material? Is it the source, is that the POV? I have used three, which one of them do you have a problem with? As to threatening you, what are you on about? As to the referenced material you removed, the second reference by Michael Doheny. The section tags are placed on referenced edits by me, and unreferenced sections you leave, and remove citation tags? Your tone and attitude is argumentative, and doses not assume good fate, your use of tags is selective, sort out the material you have removed, and remove the selective tags. If you persist with this behaviour, I will ask for an administrator to review all the pertinent material. Regards--Domer48 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed selective POV tag

I have removed the tags because I considered them selective, see above discussion. I replaced the edit which was removed. Regards --Domer48 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Formatting

The presentation of the page has been greatly improved with the recent formatting by User:One Night In Hackney. The removal of the citation tags, and their replacement with a section tag, was innovative, and one I did not consider. The merging of references is definitely something I will use in future. If the contents box could be placed in the top left hand corner it would enhance it further, I unfortunately lack the know-how. Regards --Domer48 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to help. The contents box is currently in the right place, underneath the lead. I realise you're still learning, so I'll explain further. The lead is designed to give a summary of the entire article, so anyone who reads just that will get a decent idea about the subject. The table of contents and the main article comes after the lead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thats great thanks, good job on formatting, Regards --Domer48 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert User:Jill Teed

I consider this to be POV. O’Connell represented the majority of the Irish population, with a ratio of at least 5-1. (I stand to be corrected, and probably will) . That he never intended to use physical force to achieve his questionable goals i.e. Repeal, to then describe his tactics as one of intimidation shows a lack of knowledge of the subject. While I can understand the point that is being made, the references below certainly dose not illustrate it. If that reference is to be used, then it is one of interpretation. An editors interpreting information to make a point is POV. Regards--Domer48 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Your attempts at censorship re O'Connell are not appreciated. If you persist I will take the matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard. You came to Wikipedia with an agenda:

The period of history covered by the Young Irelanders, or correctly titled Irish Confederation, is deeply interesting. In it we find the origins of the Republican physical force tradition. Through their writings we see the evolution of Irish Nationalism forged into a coherently articulated force. While they have left us a boundless spring of primary sources, the misconceptions created around them by unscrupulous writers, who believe they can shape the present by manipulating our understanding of the past is a challenge to all right thinking people who believe that history belongs to us all. A start must be made to address this; therefore I will place my axe to the root, and would invite you to do the same.

However, if you think you are going to impose your views on this page or any other you are mistaken. Your rv of my edits (for which you cited "see discussion page" in the edit summary although there is nothing there regarding this matter) is neither more nor less than an attempt at censorship. You can deify John Mitchel all you like, but keep it in your private writings, not a public access encyclopaedia. Jill Teed 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If you check the discussion page on the Daniel O’Connell Article, you will see the reason for the revert. And hands up, I have an agenda! An agenda which I spell out on my user page, which you helpfully provided. To correct the information on Young Ireland, and back it up with referenced material. Your accusation against me assumes bad fate, and is against wiki policy. You should address the edits of a user, and not the user, and not engage in this type of behaviour. I will now point this matter to an administrator, should you continue to engage me in such a hostile manner. Regards

I have referred the matter to an administrator for advice. If I might suggest, you should place your notices on the appropriate discussion page, it allows other Users to review the information provided. Just trying to be helpful, and hope you will assume good faith. I will not revert until I hear from an administrator, and will move all related discussions to the appropriate page. Regards--Domer48 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)