Talk:Protestant Ascendancy

message: There was already an Irish Parliament before 1782. 
FDR May 22 2:03 PM 2006 (UTC)
In name only, it was totally subservient to the English one.See Poynings Law --Damnbutter 16:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Parliament

message: Did any writers pursue this theme? Colin4C 18:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ascendancy In Fiction 

message: Not one source cited. Unbelievable.
William 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: When was the phrase first used, anyone? I think it was 1790s / not sure.Red Hurley 16:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PA / when first used?

message: Sorry but Miler Magrath is too early for this period.86.42.223.141 12:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed M Magrath

message: I've added a reference section and hope it enlightens many. I will shortly strip down much of the later sections that are OK but a bit wordy.Red Hurley (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref section

message: While the entire section is already tagged as needing more references, I've placed some specific tags in the text where it is particularly sloppy and could use some targeted help as a start. Shoreranger (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The first half of the first sentence is tagged "weasel words", "when?", "dubious – discuss", "citation needed" and "original research?". Are these five separate issues? Because five is a lot of issues to have with just eighteen words! What specifically is the problem? Is it simply that you don't accept that the Ascendancy had lost political influence long before independence? If that's it, then maybe we can work on finding sources for that. But if there are four other unrelated problems besides that, we really need to be informed what they are, or they can't be addressed. The final sentence, which is sourced, has had a "clarity needed" tag added. This is useless unless it is specified what is unclear, and how it might be clarified. None of this article was written by me, by the way, so I'm not taking this personally. I just think that if somebody is so adamant that a section needs to be improved, there is an onus on them to do a certain amount of work themselves, instead of just firing on tags with a scatter-gun.  Scolaire (talk) 10:09, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, the section is about artistic and literary figures anyway, and really just looks like a list of writers. All of this tagging of "weasel words", "when?", "dubious – discuss" isn't really necessary because that part of the text isn't useful. It's enough to say that Lady Gregory and William Butler Yeats, Hubert Butler, etc. were members of the Ascendancy and what they did. There's no need to set it all up in terms of decline. The rest of the article explains the economics and politics of the group over time sufficiently.Flyte35 (talk) 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Good edit, Flyte. Shows what can be done in a quick edit with a minimum of drama.  Scolaire (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Once it catches editors' attention.  This section has been a mess for a long time and still needs additional attention.  None was given until the tags, so I believe they've served their purpose well. Shoreranger (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And if I hadn't got you to open this discussion? Those clumps of tags would have stayed on the article until doomsday, along with the 100 others that you are obviously proposing to add. Why don't you do something constructive instead. Real editing isn't that hard. If that's beyond you, go to the talk page and say what is missing, what's incorrect or what's unclear.  Scolaire (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Act of Union and Decline-is  in particular need of attention 

message: This is a terrible and inaccurate article. I have Scottish family who were in the Plantation in several counties in both what is today the Republic and in Ulster. They were Presbyterians. I could give you a list of other Presbyterian estate owners. I could go on an on but I really do think if this is going to be some raving Irish Republican propaganda exercise then I am off. I think there are limits to my patience. 81.131.84.234 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And as such would have been excluded from many social and political opportunities open to those of the Church of Ireland. Being an estate owner does not mean you were at the top of the pile, or had the opportunity to get there. This is not controversial, if you are seriously suggesting otherwise that's a big claim counter to conventionally accepted history and I fail to see how it boosts or diminishes anyone's propaganda. Mutt Lunker (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph of the lead does seem to confuse the plantations and the ascendancy. The plantations of the 17th century generally involved soldiers, many if not most of whom were Non-conformist; the ascendancy consisted of the older families, who were noble and Anglican. The article in general is a bit muddled, and I can understand how somebody might see it as biased, even if it's not.  Scolaire (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

text: So go ahead and rewrite it. Flyte35 (talk) 02:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Neutral

message: The word Chinsealacht is modern Irish, and not the spelling that would have been used in the 1700s. Could we have the right spelling(s) or make clear that this is the modern term?78.16.95.58 (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find the reference in the #7 citation An Introduction to the Architectural Heritage of County Laois - the google link is unhelpful, and the search result in this PDF version comes up empty: https://www.buildingsofireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/10/Laois.pdf Shtove (talk) 09:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irish version - too new 

message: I wonder if there's any material comparing Whig influence on this class to that on landowners in England and the American South. The parallel progression of capital punishment statutes with the Waltham Black Act 1723 would be informative. Shtove (talk) 09:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political ideology 

message: Insert citations for this claim please. 
In general, the privileges of the Ascendancy were resented by Irish Catholics, who made up the majority of the population.
Is this really suggesting that the Ascendancy from inception and conquest was actually a Catholic one? 
Request scholarship with multiple  citations to confirm this oddity and relevant timescales V penal laws. Ireland has had  quite enough of colonial victim narratives thanks. 86.152.149.220 (talk) 10:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timescale and citations 

message: "While a relatively small number of Catholics would convert to the Church of Ireland between the 17th and 19th centuries, more often than not these "conversions" amounted to the alteration of paper work, rather than any changes in religious beliefs or practices. With job prospects and civil rights for Irish Catholics having grown quite grim since the mid-17th century, for some, converting to the Anglican Church was one of the few ways one could attempt to improve their lots in life. A handful of members of formerly powerful Irish clans also chose to convert, learn English, swear fealty to the King, and perform roles on behalf of the Anglo-Irish of The Pale in exchange for lands and other privileges. Records of these conversions were tracked in "Convert Rolls", which can be located through various online resources. Interestingly, early 20th century census records inform us that a fair number of Irish men and women who'd converted to the Anglican Church between the mid 17th and mid 19th century actually returned to their original Catholic faith by the early 20th century."
I shouldn't have to explain why this all needs to be sourced and done so neutrally. And in fact, the "handful of members" who converted and took English titles did not "perform roles on behalf of Anglo-Irish", they were Anglo-Irish. Anglo-Irish is not a blood group as this article insinuates. Please read the main Anglo-Irish article that's covered far more neutrally than this page.
While I got barked at the last time I raised a similar issue, I will say it again that there is a problem on this encyclopedia with Irish editors who purport to be covering history when what they are really doing is polemic. There is no reliable sourcing that talks about the number of conversions over 3 centuries and who was or wasn't a faithful Protestant. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The following text is completely unsourced