Talk:Society of United Irishmen

message: The Defenders could hardly be described as "a devout Catholic organisation", this is an excerpt from the link Aughavey provided;
"But the relationship between church and people was never under greater strain than in the summer of 1793, when priests involved in compiling lists for ballot attracted the popular wrath. Chapel doors were ‘nailed-up’ in Connaught, Cork and Kerry. At Athlone a priest was hanged almost to death and one newspaper reported ‘attacks on the persons of the clergy in many parts"
The Orange Order was founded in 1795, following the so-called "battle of the diamond" which was really a massacre of about 80 half-armed Defenders by the guns of Protestant extremists. The massacre was the culmination of a wave of ethnic cleansing of Catholics from mid-Ulster, and the Defenders activities stemmed from defence, hence the name "Defenders". 
Orangemen were only anti-Unionist in the sense that they wanted to maintain Protestant Ascendancy in Ireland and feared it's dilution by direct rule (much in the same way that Stormont was beloved by "Unionists" in 20th century northern Ireland. 
There are many examples of supposed blood-curdling oaths in circulation among the Defenders, most were complete fabrications by loyalists to encourage sectarian division.
84.45.131.142 20:45, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Our unsigned friend above is quite correct Squadnleedah - there is no English government. There hasn't been an English government since at least 1705 or so. --Mal 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defenders 

message: According to Sean Duffy's "The Concise History Or Ireland", the increase in sectarian tensions between Protestants and Catholics lies more with the English government spreading propaganda trying to turn nationalist Protestants into the oppisite and to split up the growing co-operation between them (the United Irishmen) and the Defenders.
There was no "English" government in 1798! Just as there is no English government now.
Dont let Tony Blair here you say that. Or any other member of the english parliament. Perhaps you could sign your stupid statement so we know who to laugh at?Squad'nLeedah 01:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our unsigned friend above is quite correct Squadnleedah - there is no English government. There hasn't been an English government since at least 1705 or so. --Mal 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Propaganda increased sectarism 

message: The Society of United Irishmen is part of the IRA WikiProject..? Didn't the IRA form in the early part of the 20th century, while the United Irishmen formed in the latter part of the 18th century..? That's at least a full century betwixt one and t'other.
Reading the banner of the WikiProject seems to inform me that Irish Nationalism and Irish Republicanism are both descendants of the IRA when, in fact, both Irish Nationalism and Irish Republicanism existed before the IRA and the IRA is therefore a descendant of those two ideologies. --Mal 19:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IRA Project..?

message: I've added the outbreak of war in Feb 1793. That changed things enormously; a lot of moderate support fell away. Those still in the UI had to contend with the military, and that is why UI leaders like Tone had to emigrate for a time. The army's coercion after 1796 were not just against the UI itself, but against the UI as France's local ally on the ground. The Defenders had been busy since 1791 in Louth and Armagh and tended to merge with the UI from 1796.Red Hurley 11:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: French war 1793

message: I shall take it upon myself to clean up this article as it is in a dire state needing citations, expansion, de-biasing and many other things. I've got a plethora of sources on the United Irishmen so shouldn't be tooooo hard... Mabuska (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why not, though maybe more applicable to his own article. Mabuska (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I've finally managed to get a lot of work done on this article expanding a lot of information on the organisation that has been left omitted whilst whoever previously worked on it seemed to focus solely on the Catholic equality aspect, which was only one aspect of the society. Some far I've used one main source, however once I'm done with it, I will use the others I have to further bolster the references. Mabuska (talk) 15:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland#Proposed mass reversion of two articles. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see Talk page for Irish Nationalism where my edits (which I no longer seek to have restored) have also been reverted. The discussion there provides the immediate background to the above proposals. This is living document: anybody has the right to revert edits, re-edit, or re-write. My hope for any discussion on the relative merits of a mass-revert is that (1) participants seek to be constructive by defining their terms: so that, for example, if they suggest that something strays from the proper encyclopedic subject of the article that they inform the Community what their understanding of what those boundaries should be; and (2) that given the proposal for mass reversion that the focus (in the first instance) be on the question of whether or not the article to be restored ON BALANCE better serves the Wiki reader than the revised article. Regards to all. ManfredHugh (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion to this article taking place 

message: I would suggest that this section be removed as it is not directly related to the topic of the article, which is the United Irishman. Yes there is a connection between these events but not enough to merit this very large section. All that is needed is a brief summary of the connection to the prior Volunteer movement and a "See also" or "For more information" link to Irish Volunteers (18th century). 
If there is information in this section not at that article, it can be worked in if relevant. Mabuska (talk) 08:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that might be better. But I do think some shorter reference to the Volunteer movement is important to understand the immediate background and origins of the United Irishmen. How the reduced section as it stands now?ManfredHugh (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Virtually all of 1770's and 1780s stuff in the section does not need to be in the article. As stated a simple "For more" or "See also" etc. would suffice for it. It does not involve the United Irishmen, and makes the article seem to be about parliamentary reform in late 18th century Ireland. A paragraph or two is all that might be needed for it. A simple paragraph mentioning how the United Irishmen evolved from the reformed (as in refounded) Belfast Volunteer company and linking to the Irish Volunteers (18th century) article is all that is needed. Mabuska (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Volunteers and Parliamentary Patriots 

message: Compare this edit with what you had and see the differences in how to make it more encyclopedic. It is not perfect but it helps a lot in removing irrelevant info, condensing info that is long-winded into something shorter amongst other things. I will also tidy the refs up for you in that section as it in itself is an impediment when editing. Mabuska (talk) 11:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is how you tidy up references and consolidate those from the same source so you don't need to continually insert the entire cite book each time. Mabuska (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you, Mabuska. This is much appreciated. It will take some time, but I will get back to this with your example in mind.ManfredHugh (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at some of what you have cut from the article it does seem that you are starting to realise what isn't needed. For example one thing I had noticed before your cuts which could be considered needless was the sentence , which I see you have now removed. Mabuska (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much for your practical help. Unfortunately my further editing somehow disrupted your referencing for this section. References were now "defined outside this section" so that I reverted clumsily to my former method. But I will try to get my head around referencing protocol. I have yet understood how to repeat a reference the same work but with a different page number. ManfredHugh (talk) 14:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Equal and liberal intercourse