Talk:Barony (Ireland)

message: Most sources give a figure of 331 baronies, but some say 273.  I have consulted and compared a number of sources:
*rootsweb:  Source given is "Ordnance survey"
*ANHI:  Source given is "County boundaries, barony boundaries", scale 1:633600, Ordnance Survey of Ireland, 1938
*Mitchell:  Source given is  Quotes figure of 331 baronies.
*Ryan:  No source given, but Mitchell is listed in bibliography. Quotes figure of 273, thiough the maps show c.331!
The maps in these sources largely agree, and produce a figure of about 331. The following list enumerates these and highlights points of difference or uncertainty (my uncertainty, I mean, not the authors').  I've only noted the largest cases where baronies cross county boundaries, and I'm sure subsequent boundary adjustments have added even more. The lower figure of 273 could be got by merging most or all of the pairs/trios/quartets distinguished as North/South, East/West, Upper/Lower, etc; are these half-baronies? Also, I don't think the boroughs are baronies.  If this list can be reliably turned into 331 it can be added to the Article page; ideally, the 273 figure could also be accounted for.  I have reached the limit of my knowledge of these matters and bequeath this to those more knowledgable for further improvement. jnestorius(talk) 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See also User:Jnestorius/Baronies of Ireland for possible 331 and 273 enumerations. jnestorius(talk) 11:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List and number 

message: Any good reason why the sections below should not be removed from this page? RashersTierney (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: None. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the preceding section? If you still don't understand, say so and I'll try to explain. jnestorius(talk) 21:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read it. However, the paragraph gave all the info that was necessary further development. The list was entirely inappropriate to what is , after all, just a discussion page. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If they move things on in a systematic way then fine, but things have been very quiet around here for some time. Perhaps the are not achieving the desired result? RashersTierney (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I put the list on the talk page hoping someone more knowledgeable would explain things. When nobody did, I reluctantly added it to the article page. The list is still not definitive. Unfortunately, nobody knowlegdeable has come along in the interim to make it so. All of which is a prelude to the important point: the appropriate way to deal with obsolete discussion is WP:ARCHIVE, not deletion. jnestorius(talk) 11:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is not that the list was old or obsolete - the issue was that it ought never have made its way to a discussion page in the first place. From the outset, this was a curious and inappropriate decision. BTW, I removed the reference to the Baron of Clanwilliam which directed from South Tipperary. I think that it in fact relates to a barony of the same name in neighbouring county Limerick. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm happy to see the article is getting some attention at last after all these years. There are two baronies of Clanwilliam. The latter is related to Viscount Clanwilliam, who was made "Viscount Clanwilliam, of the County of Tipperary". Please cross-check with the references rather than relying on your own hunches. jnestorius(talk) 15:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - you're correct about Clanwilliam. Still, it seems to be just a name of convenience to him. Almost a case of sticking a pin in a map of baronies. I see no particular attachment on his part to the baronony ( or even the county). But ours is not to reason why....Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange format for Talk Page

message: No source is cited. I wonder if the word's etymology is linked to the Gaelic word "ceanntar" - centre or district (e.g. dail ceanntar)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly derived from  corruption of 'cent', as in Saxon 'hundred', according to this source. Not to be taken as definitive. RashersTierney (talk) 22:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: cantreds

message: What is the purpose of this section? Should it not be just another bullet point of the section "External links"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Section 6.2 Other

message: I note that Glenahiry is allocated to South Tipperary. Looking at the usual map, it appears to lie in county Waterford. A Google search shows that there is a parish (ABBEY, or INNISLONNAGH, or INNISLONAGHTY) in the barony that straddles both counties. This is possible for ecclesiastical units of land. However, for civil purposes, the barony almost certainly belongs to Waterford. I propose to move it soon unless somebody can explain to me why I should not.  Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The same is true, mutatis mutandis, for Upperthird. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

text: It's not that the double reference is misleading, it's actually completely erroneous. Let's not forget that a county of entirely composed of baronies. It is therefore impossible for a barony, unlike an ecclesiastical parish, to straddle two counties. The situation with half-baronies has been noted as an exception in the main article. The placenames database is usually accurate but not infallible. I've already noted other errors in the talk page on Eliogarty. The barony's name translates as "Glen of the (river) Nire". Searching for the following in Google Maps ("Nire valley") solves the matter beyond dispute: it is entirely contained within County Waterford. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly not impossible for a barony to straddle county boundaries. The Local Govt Board adjusted county boundaries after the 1898 Act, e.g. moving Ballaghadreen from Mayo to Roscommon, but ignored baronies as they were obsolete. BTW a county is not composed entirely of baronies; counties corporate were excluded. Google Maps does not represent baronies at all so I can't see how that proves anything.  Your deductions based on the Irish name of the barony violate Wikipedia:No original research. The OSI website allows overlaying of historical and modern maps, so you might play around there with more reliability. jnestorius(talk) 06:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors

message: I'm aware that inflamatory language should not be used. The same goes for biased language. In making my amendsments to the article, I thought that I had avoided the former and corrected the latter. So I was surprised to see your later amendments that excised large portions of what i had written. IMHO, the effect did not add to the understanding of the Creation section. I thought that it removed useful context setting. I also thought that it was overly careful in the use of language. The desired effect seemed to be to whitewash or sanitise the Norman invasion. i don't think that this is fair or accurate. To suggest that the invasion and the imposition of an alien concept - baronies - would not have been resisted by the natives, is disingenuous. I would be in favour of conveying this important historical fact and context setting, without resorting to inappropriate, inflamatory language in the article. Can a compromoise be arranged? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiable refs from reliable sources are always preferable to 'compromises'. There should be modern sources from respected historians out there that can indicate the turmoil and brutality of this historic period that accompanied the imposition of the new regime. RashersTierney (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Anglo-Norman invasion of Ireland and more generally :Category:Norman and Medieval Ireland are the places for most of that kind of information.  Most of it isn't really specific to the baronies. There's a history section in Counties of Ireland too. "In the Norman period most Gaelic chiefs were killed, expelled, or subordinated by the new Norman lord" doesn't seem like whitewash to me. "Once the Norman adventurers had conquored the túath, the chief was either slain or was expelled while the clan lands were usurped by the victorious barons" seems more POV. As RashersTierney says, sources would be good; x baronies, corresponded to y túatha, of which z chiefs were killed.  jnestorius(talk) 17:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Superfopp's introduction (at 18hr today) is superior and should stay IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

text:  I think that Rashers and Jnestorius are setting the barrier too high. Everybody knows that history is written by the victors. Can we expect the histories of conquerors to linger on the suffering of the conquored? Hardly. Does this invalidate folk, oral history? We know what went on. Let's avoid weasel words like "forfeit". The truth requires more plain language: stolen, dispossessed, driven out, forgotten, excised from the official versions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Wikipedia:GREATWRONGS. jnestorius(talk) 08:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I don't think that i'm guilty of it. I was not advocating a new crazy thoery. The Norman invasion is a fact. People were killed for their land. This is a fact. I agree with the policy that "Wikipedia is behind the ball - that is we don't lead". In starting this discussion, it was my intention that Wikipedia should be behind the ball, that is, acknowledging the above facts which everybody in Ireland knows to be true. To hide behind mealy mouthed expressions is to deny the truth of what happened. Again, my point above was that oral, living tradition has as much legitimacy as written hostory, especially when one considers that it is the victors of wars that get to write such histories, usually in their favour. I myself am of Norman stock, but that does not blind me to confessing that those acts, which in the 21st century we would now describe as atrocities, were committed by my ancestors. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias 

message: The new map is very beautiful, and one of the best maps I've ever seen.  And I used to collect maps. Claverhouse (talk) 02:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'm glad you like it :) XrysD TALK 18:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map