# Talk:Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone

This image is not one of O'Neill being inagurated. What's the source?

What on earth are you doing referring to the Uí Néill as a figure in "British political history"? The British state wasn't even invented when Ó Néill was in action. He was a Prince of Gaelic Ireland and if you must put a modern description on him you could call him an Irish statesmen because of his involvement with European powers in his struggle against the English crown. And why can't you have the historical accuracy- not to mention respect- to refer to him by his real name, Aodh Mór Ó Néill? Would you anglicise a Chinese, Japanese or other name? 
Lastly, how in the name of God can you say he resisted the seventeenth century plantation when he fled from Rathmullen in 1607 (Flight of the Earls), the very year the plantation commenced? Instead of an independent Prince, Ó Néill was reduced to being an extremely powerful landowner after the Treaty of Mellifont in 1603. His resistance was between 1594-1603 and it was inspired primarily by a realisation that, because he was a Gael, he would never become the most powerful man in Ulster under English rule. Ó Néill would have sold his granny, had the English been able to contain their hatred for the "barbarous" Irish a bit better. It had nothing to do with resisting a plantation which was implemented in order to subdue Ulster after the Nine Years War 1594-1603.
Why does Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone get directed to this page which says '3rd Earl of Tyrone' ?
I haven't seen anywhere else O'Neill (1540-1616) labelled as the 3rd Earl of Tyrone. Tehmasp

Blunders are made - there's a similar one in relation to Gerald Fitzgerald, 15th Earl of Desmond, who should in my opinion be listed as the 14th. As for resistance to plantation - it was a creeping policy of the crown from the mid-1550's. O'Neill had seen the first effort in Ulster in Clandeboye under Essex in the 1570's, and would have realised that William Fitzwilliam's push toward the Ulster borders in the 1590's - especially his execution of the MacMahon, following that of the O'Rourke a few years earlier - not only reduced his influence but left his territory vulnerable to various legal claims (see later the Case of the Bann Fishery in 1609, which asserted a legal entitlement stemming from the Norman conquest that had been extinct for hundreds of years) and a splintering off of his dependents. Eventually, he would have been surrounded in Tyrone by English landowners with a more direct line to the English court. The same thing happened to Desmond and, to a lesser extent, Ormond. It was not a good time to be overmighty and Irish (Gaelic or Norman).---shtove 22:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
So which is he, 2nd or 3rd? He can't be both.  And if you have a problem with it why don't you correct it? Mike Hayes (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just revised  "Uí Néill Dynasty Today" to "Ó Neill Dynasty Today". People constantly confuse the two, which is understandable, but leads to deep misunderstanding. Fergananim 18:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

On the recent edit to his name - does Mór make him Hugh the Great, or Big Hugh?--Shtove 22:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely "The Great" Irishpolitical (talk) 15:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
It is literally 'big', but definitely translates as 'the Great'. Iamdmonah (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

The birth date given in the text and infobox is c. 1565; but the birth category is 1540s; should it be changed to 1560s? which is correct?--FeanorStar7 (talk) 10:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This article has both. Which is correct? 87.38.42.48 (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

http://www.historyireland.com/volumes/volume13/issue5/features/?id=113898 said to be "developed from a ‘true likeness’ of the earl".86.42.193.65 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

O'Neill never claimed this title. He wished to see Phillp of Spain, or any other European Catholic monarch, as King of Ireland, rather than an English or Scottish one. Fergananim (talk) 17:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

But you deleted a referenced paragraph on this point - need to show the ref is bad.Shtove (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I have replaced the family section but someone may wish to mine the old text for more information, so I am placing it here. NB the sources need to be checked against the text as not all of them are accessible.

-- PBS (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see the online link for his descendant Elizabeth II is still working. Easiest to cut them all out, eh? This is why so many people dislike wikipedia.78.16.22.229 (talk) 15:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

PBS, Please read WP:DUPCITES and WP:REPCITE before reverting again. To try and claim WP:SYN is a false claim: there is no sythesis in having two citations at the end of a sentence. SYN states "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources": there is no implication or conclusion in the statements in quesion. (see also Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not). - The Bounder (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a synthesis because the ODNB is a more modern rewrite of the DNB and placing its citations against information provided by the DNB implies that the 21st century source backs up the 100 year old source. However that is not so. It does not contradict the DNB but neither does it support it. Placing them next to each other does not allow the reader to discern without looking at the sources which source supports what text. -- PBS (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I do not know whether you are deliberately misconstruing SYN or not, but I shall AGF and assume that you are just mistaken. Two sources are providing two pieces of information that can be contained in short sentences. The two citations can both be placed at the end without breaching SYN. We are drawing no conclusions, simply repeating the facts. If you feel that there is a problem because of the sources, then new sources should be found that deal with any problem ares. - The Bounder (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
WP:REPCITE is from an essay and does not apply, as nothing that is supported with a citation is repeated.
The policy WP:V makes it clear that "the Burden" lies with the contribution editor "and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution". You are moving citations away from directly supporting the contribution. --PBS (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The end of the sentence is still directly supporting the information. As above, if there is a problem, another source should be located or used. - The Bounder (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Putting the citations at the end of the sentence when doing so distorts the support that the citations give as they no longer  directly supporting the information. As to date all you have contributed to this article is a rearrangement of some short citation are you going to follow you own advise "As above, if there is a problem, another source should be located or used", or do you expect others to do that for you? Personally I think it would be useful to have other sources, but until they are provided then the citations from the DNB and the ONDB should not be combined implying that the modern source supports information from the older one. -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think it appropriate to delve into someone's entire edit history because someone disagrees with you, but if you are prepared to go to those lengths to protect your article, then I am out. I suggest you read WP:AGF, because it is obvious that you have no idea what GF actually is. - The Bounder (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I asked you that question on your talk page and I do not think this is the forum to discuss that subject as it is not directly relevant to the content of this page. I have reverted you last edit because of the reasons stated in my last contribution to this talk page which you have not addressed. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Stop harassing me on my talk page. Yet again, you need to actually read WP:AGF and take on board what it says. - The Bounder (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807142408/http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/T100070 to http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/T100070
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807142233/http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E600001-002 to http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E600001-002
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110807142134/http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E590001-003 to http://publish.ucc.ie/celt/docs/E590001-003
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

An infobox was added by TadhgORuairc in December saying that Hugh was a disputed High King of Ireland, that his immediate predecessor was Edward Bruce, and that his immediate successor was somebody called Diolmhain Críostóir Ua Ruairc Lobley, Duke of Meath. I'm reverting as unsourced, but I'm curious to know how somebody who was born in 1550 could succeed someone who died in 1318. If Tadhg can produce a reliable source, perhaps he could tell us about it here on the talk page.  Scolaire (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Succession to the Irish High Kingship is not direct and is not always one-after-the-other. The history of Ireland's High Kings is riddled with interregnums and disputed claimants. Not to mention that the last undisputed High King of Ireland, Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair, died in 1198, then legitimate claimants are often far and few between, and would only be recognised often upon coming to great power and/or influence (usually in Ireland). As such, Edubard a Briuis technically has no successor. There is seldom a direct successor to such a title, and Edward himself could hardly be called a successor, save for Gaelic recognition and support. In any case, on of the many O'Neill Clan Association websites claims that Hugh was a self-proclaimed High King of Ireland. I will search for the exact webpage and post it here when I have found it. Tadhg Dómhnall  Ó Ruairc 17:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Family web pages do not count – you need to find a reference in a book published by a reputable publisher or an article in a reputable journal. As for Diolmhain Críostóir Ua Ruairc Lobley, Duke of Meath, he appears to be the same person as Dylan C. Lobley, an otherwise unremarkable person who claims to be the current High King of Ireland. Good luck finding a reliable source for that!  Scolaire (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
http://www.ronsattic.com/oneill.htm Tadhg Dómhnall Ó Ruairc 18:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by TadhgORuairc (talk • contribs) 
Did you read what I said? A family web page is not a reliable source. This one is particularly bad; it calls him "Red Hugh O'Neill", which nobody in history ever called him – obviously the author confused him with Red Hugh O'Donnell! And anyway, that web page doesn't say that Hugh claimed the High Kingship of Ireland.  Scolaire (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Your reversion makes sense to me, thanks. Pinkbeast (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Typically with biographical articles, I would put all the info about the individual's marriage/s and children into a Personal life section. However, in this case there is some crossover with the Career section, because O'Neill's marriages tended to have political motivations.

His marriage to Siobhán O'Donnell is important because it represents O'Neill formally allying with the O'Donnell clan.
The circumstances of his marriage to Mabel Bagenal had a major impact on his professional relationship with his "arch-enemy" Marshal Henry Bagenal.
So the question is, should this kind of information go into a Family/Personal life section or a Career section? Another option is to double up on this info by putting it in both sections - but I think that's unnecessary.
SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 04:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Most of the dates in this article are from the Old Style Julian calendar (I think) but Tyrone's death date of 20 July 1616 could be in the Gregorian calendar. The Annals of the Four Masters write his death date as 20 July 1616 (https://celt.ucc.ie/published/T100005F/index.html) and as far as I know the Annals use the Gregorian calendar. Then again, every source I have found on Tyrone tends to use Old Style for the English-recorded dates but uses 20 July 1616 as Tyrone's death date. Could someone please clarify this? SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: SkywalkerEccleston (talk · contribs) 14:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Gazingo (talk · contribs) 15:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I intend to review this article.
A few suggestions

I don't believe in the word "the" in "recognised Florence MacCarthy as The MacCarthy Mor" should be capitalized.
On the morning of 3 January [O.S. 24 December 1601] 1602 doesn't need both dates, especially with how far into the article it is, just pick one of the calendars and stick to it.
The sentence "Tyrone ruled Tír Eoghain as a sort of absolute monarchy." is given no elaboration on how Tír Eoghain's government usually worked or how Tyrone was a departure from this, if Tír Eoghain was normally an absolute monarchy I would omit this sentence entirely.
The phrase "genuine religious conversion" and the debate over Tyrone's political or religious motivations are mentioned several times in the article, I would either reword or remove one of these mentions.
I don't see the necessity of the "in media" level 3 header in the depictions sections, I would get rid of it and replace the level 4 headers with level 3 ones.
Overall the article was an interesting read and thoroughly sourced, these are the only issues that stood out to me. Once they are fixed I think this is a clear pass.  Gazingo (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Gazingo, I have amended the article based on your suggestions.
I have removed the "in media" heading. However, there is a difference between portraits of Tyrone, some of which are accurate and painted from life, and modern depictions of him in TV shows and movies. Should the "Depictions" section be split up into "Portraits" and "In media"? Or is this unnecessary? Let me know what you think. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 01:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessary to split the depictions section, the resulting sections would both be quite short. The two sections also overlap in time span. The portraits section describes two 19th century paintings and the literature section describe a 19th century poem. A section just on the contemporary portraits would be too short in my opinion. Either way you've solved my main issues with the article so I'm going to pass it. Gazingo (talk) 21:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
All good, thanks Gazingo. SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

@SkywalkerEccleston: Per Template:Sfn#Adding_additional_comments_or_quotes, you should use {{harvnb}} or {{harvtxt}} instead of {{sfn}} if you want to include a quote. Can you please fix? Snowman304|talk 02:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Done SkywalkerEccleston (talk) 03:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)