Talk:History of Ireland

message: I am hazy on the details, but I understand 5th C emigration from what is now Ireland formed a large part of the mixture that is modern Scots. This seems to be missing from the article. Does anyone have some good sources? Rumiton (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there is no historical or archaeological evidence to suggest there was ever any large scale migration or invasion from Ireland to Western Scotland. Other than the spread of the Gaelic culture/language. However this is quite simply a case of cultural assimilation. People in the western isles of Scotland were isolated from the Picts and Brythons by the Cairngorm mountains. It was far easier to trade with Ireland just 30 odd miles across the sea than it was to navigate the Cairngorm mountains to deal with the mostly hostile Picts. Naturally as centuries of trade took place cultural values would be adopted from the Irish. So no it wouldn't be wise to add that into this article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.199.128 (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaelic scots 

message: Though it may be literally correct, and has 2 ref (no page numbers though), to just say "The period between the start of the Iron Age and the historic period (AD 431) saw the gradual infiltration of small groups of Celtic speaking people into Ireland..." with no context is misleading.  An imported upper class is only one explanation for the arrival of "Celtic" La Tène style material culture, and many specialists believe that Ireland had already been using a Celtic language well before any putative arrival in this period. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, as has been discussed in the past, there is no real evidence for the arrival of Celtic peoples as such, but merely of Celtic artefacts. We have lots of evidence of trade but not of significant migration.  It is a 19C error that has become enshrined in "ev'ry skool boy no". --Red King (talk) 15:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is now more generally agreed that instead of a large migration of Celtic people or upper-class - it was more the migration of Celtic culture that was introduced via numerous methods. Just like how Americanisms have made their way across the Atlantic and can be found ever more across these isles. Mabuska (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the very newest school, not even a decade old but rapidly growing, is that the Atlantic peoples already were Celtic or proto-Celtic speaking, or that variety of Indo-European which became it, as early or before those in Central Europe, no Iron Age migrations required. This would appear to be supported by the most recent genetic studies, which show that the earlier theory that the peoples of the Atlantic and British Isles were of Paleolithic descent is wrong (and politically motivated). They probably arrived in/with the Neolithic and were Indo-European speakers. I'm working on some other things right now but will try to remember to get back to you. But have a look at the contributions I made to Irish people#Genetics a few months ago to start. DinDraithou (talk) 16:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The linguistic aspect of the theory is older than that. Changes need to be carried through to Prehistoric Ireland and Prehistoric settlement of the British Isles, & I hope someone will do it. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Arrival" of the Celts   

message: A proposal has been posted to WikiProject Ireland to create a task force for History of Ireland articles as a part of WikiProject Ireland. Comments welcome. --RA (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History (of Ireland) task force 

message: If the topic of this article is history of an Ireland as geographical phenomenon or state, then it should not be categorized in History by ethnic group?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I have removed it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History by ethnic group 

message: ===Take the lead... or not.===
I have moved the method of migration out of the lead section and into the prehistory section because I don't think it adds anything to the lead and it can be covered later in the article. Personally I find the lead for this article to be a bit cluttered so to me this was an easy way to make it a little less so. Either way I think this point can be considered independently from the other point. Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the edit is no longer in dispute I have just received a copy of The Course of Irish History so I thought I'd add this for completeness. While it does say a land bridge may have existed up to 6000 BC the only thing it specifically says about the way in which the first inhabitants arrived is, "...and at about 6000 BC, or perhaps a little earlier, they moved still farther west, probably across the narrow straights of water towards the highlands of Antrim and Wicklow as these could be clearly seen from the British shoreline.” (p32) Which is at odds with the way it was cited. Jamie (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is now generally accepted that Ireland has been an island for much longer than had previously been thought and became separated from the continent before 10 000 BC. Therefore, if the earliest modern humans arrived after 8000 BC they would have had to come by crossing sea. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

text: New evidence shows humans were in Ireland around 12,500 BC. These people's ancestors could have come to Ireland via the Cornwall land bridge which may have existed until after 14,000 BC. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The bear bone indicates Modern Humans entered Ireland during the period between 17,500 and 12,000 years ago, a warmer period referred to as the Bølling-Allerød that allowed the rehabilitation of northern areas of Europe by roaming hunter-gatherers, long before the Younger Dryas took hold. DunmoreTom (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bear bone? Where? and according to whom? (aka, citation needed). --Red King (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Method of the arrival of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers 

message: I have moved the method of migration out of the lead section and into the prehistory section because I don't think it adds anything to the lead and it can be covered later in the article. Personally I find the lead for this article to be a bit cluttered so to me this was an easy way to make it a little less so. Either way I think this point can be considered independently from the other point. Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Take the lead... or not.

message: While I haven't read The Course of Irish History (I have a copy being shipped to me currently) even if it does say the earliest hunter-gatherers probably arrived via a land bridge it is just one source, there are other sources that are pretty adamant that there were no land bridges by the time Ireland was being settled as well as other sources that recognizes there are multiple positions. Having a source saying the land bridge was probably how Ireland was settled followed by another source saying Ireland was obviously colonised long after any land bridge had been severed would be confusing to read; having a third source stating that the means of migration is still debated would clear things up but then it would make the first two sources redundant. As such I removed the statement saying the migration via a land bridge was probable and replaced it (in a different section) with a sourced statement saying the way people first came to Ireland is still in debate.
Here's a few relevant references to the issue:
Jamie (talk) 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though the edit is no longer in dispute I have just received a copy of The Course of Irish History so I thought I'd add this for completeness. While it does say a land bridge may have existed up to 6000 BC the only thing it specifically says about the way in which the first inhabitants arrived is, "...and at about 6000 BC, or perhaps a little earlier, they moved still farther west, probably across the narrow straights of water towards the highlands of Antrim and Wicklow as these could be clearly seen from the British shoreline.” (p32) Which is at odds with the way it was cited. Jamie (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is now generally accepted that Ireland has been an island for much longer than had previously been thought and became separated from the continent before 10 000 BC. Therefore, if the earliest modern humans arrived after 8000 BC they would have had to come by crossing sea. AlwynJPie (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

text: New evidence shows humans were in Ireland around 12,500 BC. These people's ancestors could have come to Ireland via the Cornwall land bridge which may have existed until after 14,000 BC. AlwynJPie (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The bear bone indicates Modern Humans entered Ireland during the period between 17,500 and 12,000 years ago, a warmer period referred to as the Bølling-Allerød that allowed the rehabilitation of northern areas of Europe by roaming hunter-gatherers, long before the Younger Dryas took hold. DunmoreTom (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Which bear bone? Where? and according to whom? (aka, citation needed). --Red King (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: By "boot" or by boat

message: I removed the extended comment about Iberian origins in the second sentence because, although it was a popular view in the early part of this millennium, it was based on a sample of a small amount of data (6 DNA points). The larger amounts of data that have become available since 2008, involving 27-111 such points and certain mutations (like L21) unknown earlier, point to a different conclusion, as is summarized in extensive online articles like "Genetic Ancestry" found at http://thecampblogbymike.com/genetic-ancestry/ and "The Neolithic Advance and the Success of Genetic Y-DNA Marker R1b" found at http://rokus01.wordpress.com/2010/09/14/the-neolithic-advance/. While the scientific advances represented in this new data are too small and recent to have merited broad publication, it would be a shame to let a view that is generally agreed to be inaccurate remain in the introduction. It is a small point in any case that is better left to more substantive discussion later where the fact that the "origins" probably differ by gender in any case can be included as well.CSProfBill (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-Of-Date Genetic Views 

message: :Category:1st-century Irish people, and other categories regarding 1st-century->4th-century Irish figures, are within the scope of this WikiProject, and have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the categories' entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 15:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:1st-century Irish people

message: It seems like a very long lead and it still doesn't mention the Hunger. I was about to add it but then I decided it might be better to cut the rest down instead. Or both. Any thoughts? Gob Lofa (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lengthy lead 

message: Distortions in the writing of Irish history
The history of Ireland as commonly taught is a propaganda version of Irish history. As Napoleon is reputed to have said, 'L'histoire n'est qu'une fable que l'on accepte, which has been translated as history is lies which are no longer contested.
Irish history was largely invented in the 19th century. With regard to it one can confidently say:
There never was a Celtic race to which Irish Catholics belong
The never was a race-specific Gaelic culture distinct from that of the Anglo-Saxons or other Germanic tribes
There never was a Norman invasion of Ireland comparable to that of England.
Ireland was never conquered by the English
Ireland was never occupied by the English
Ireland was never a feudal possession of England
Ireland was never held in subjection for several hundred years
There never was an unending struggle for freedom if only because the Irish chiefs and lords could never agree who should replace the king of England
Ireland was always a personal possession of the king of England, who was at the same time Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy, Count of Mortain etc.
There was a separate government of Ireland composed of Irishmen from 1171 until 1921 through which the lord and later king of Ireland had to govern Ireland. This Irish Government governed Ireland in its own interest not that of the king or lord
There never was an English policy of repression in Ireland or indeed any policy with regard to Ireland. English armies were only sent to Ireland if there was a danger of invasion by the Spanish or French.
All reputable Irish historians know these facts. But in more popular publications in the media and indeed in Wikipedia Catholic nationalist propaganda continues to surface. These are minor irritations individually, but in body contribute to a serious distortion of Irish history.
Recently I was doing research into Irish history in the 18th century and in particular the tiny French invasion in 1798. Different articles in Wikipedia dealt with the various battles, the numbers involved, the number of casualties and the actions involved and with a little flag over each.The Irish insurgents were marked with a green flag, and the Government's forces marked with the Union flag of England and Scotland. In only one case was the flag of Ireland given in addition to the Anglo-Scottish Union flag, though the vast number of contestants were from the Irish militia and yeomanry. The little flags, put in doubtless inadvertently gave completely the wrong impression. Needless to say it was never mentioned that Wolfe Tone the Irish leader of the rebellion was bent on setting up a quisling republic to be supported by France, and the French were to be paid by seizing all the gold and silver plate of the Government's supporters. French support did not come free or cheap.
Similarly, though in a different context I was watching a programme on television on the wreck of ships of the Spanish armada on the Irish coasts. The presenter said that the 'English' ordered that surviving Spanish soldiers should be killed. That was true as far as it went, but as far as I can see there was only one Englishman in a position of importance in Ireland at the time, the Lord Deputy.The massacres were carried out, where they were carried out by the soldiers of Gaelic chiefs. Other Gaelic chiefs saved to to see what money they could make from ransoms.
I have little hope or indeed little time to correct all the minor points of error that crop up in the numerous articles on Ireland, but at least I hope that the editorial board will try to eliminate distortions.
Newryensis (talk) 15:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You are so right! But regrettably, there is no such editorial board or responibility in wikipedia, and every pupil can revert every article of a specialized professor.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3569:93D8:FD04:EB7B (talk) 14:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heading text 

message: Please edit the sentence here "Ireland in some ways was the first acquisition the British Empire." 
I'm sure it's meant to say "Ireland in some ways was the first acquisition of the British Empire." 
I'd do it myself but people here seem to get annoyed if you correct grammar and spelling issues without running it through talk first.
:There's no page number given on the citation and I have no way of checking if this is an accurate quote. Can someone find where the book in question is referring to Ireland being the "first acquisition"? -- HighKing++   11:37, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a roughly equivalent statement on the first page though that "Ireland has often been described as both the first and the last colony of the British Empire". -- HighKing++   11:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I've no idea what you're trying to say but there's an implication that I didn't understand what you were requesting in the first place. Just to clarify, I understood perfectly that you were pointing out a simple gramatical error. The point I raised calls into question the quotation in its entirity (the quote of a citation?) and especially the use of the word "acquisition". What page number is the quote taken from? The reference does not provide a page number and it is rather difficult to check without one. I ran a quick check and could not find it. So rather than simple "fix" the grammatical error and potentially propagate an incorrect reference/quotation, it is best to "fix" the meaning to keep it in line with the given reference. In my response I tried to make allowances for the fact that there is a chance that somewhere in the book there *is* a reference, which I missed, that states that Ireland was the first acquisiton of the British Empire, hence the reason I asked for another person to check. If this sentence is not supported, I suggest that the sentence should read along the lines of "Ireland has often been described as the first and last colony of the British Empire". -- HighKing++   16:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relations with Britain 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Ireland. 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/20120308225201/http://insideireland.ie/2012/03/07/cso-figures-reveal-unemployment-levels-59631/ to http://insideireland.ie/2012/03/07/cso-figures-reveal-unemployment-levels-59631/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060502020945/http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html to http://www.1916rising.com/timeline.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have begun a rewrite of the introduction to this article which is in a terrible state. The overview is both incoherent and biased, perhaps unintentionally, but enough to be seriously misleading. There seems to be serious confusion between the different groups of medieval irelanf and numerous other problems. I will do what i can, but it may take some time,  and hopefully people see an improvement. Article is c-class which is disappointing for something so important.
Kodai (talk) 23:08, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No doubt a good idea, but I have reverted the change of BC/BCE date styles per WP:ERA, and the lead is now waaaay too long - see WP:LEAD. Aim for 4 longer paras. Johnbod (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite

message: Someone has to fill this period, there is a gap of about 150 years of Irish history here. I Iamdmonah (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Period 1014-1166 

message: "humans crossed a landbridge during the warm period" > You completely confuse the effects of warming vs. cooling: In warmer periods, the Ocean lever rises ("transition"), while in colder periods (e.g., the glacial) it falls!!!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3569:93D8:FD04:EB7B (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You aren't allowing for the effects of glaciation. Johnbod (talk) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Landbridge

message: What about all the megaliths of middle neolithic "Megalithic Ireland" listed in Sanchez-Quinto (2019)??? Poor knowledge!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3569:93D8:FD04:EB7B (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor knowledge 

message: The lead section contains the statement, 'The Norman invasion in 1169 resulted again in a partial conquest of the island and marked the beginning of more than 800 years of English political and military involvement in Ireland'.
This makes no sense at all.  The Normans invaded England in 1066 and, after subjugating the English, went on to use England as a base from which to invade.  It what way is this the English invading Ireland? Elvis Plasterboard (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is the conventional way of putting it; the King of England was ultimately in charge, sort of. In fact it was Wales used as a base, & the first Norman forces were probably all French, with Welsh in the lower ranks, and very likely not an English-speaker among them. But myths die hard. Nobody likes to be invaded by the Welsh.  Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Norman invasion

message: I should like to ask two questions concerning the history of Ireland at the end of the 19th and in the beginning of the 20th century: 
1) I read in Leon Uris' Redemption there was gunrunning from England to Ireland in this period. Is it true, please? And if so, in which area of Ireland were the arms hidden? 
2) Which police did suppress the Irish independence movement? I know there existed the Royal Irish Constabulary, but the majority of its members were Catholic.
Thank you for your answer. --Henriku (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suppressing Irish independence movement 

message: The article makes reference to the Bronze Age having arrived in Ireland by 2000 BC, although it passes over Ireland's transitory copper age, which commenced with the mining operations around the lakes of Killarney around three centuries earlier. 
It is a something of a surprising lapse, given that the archaeological evidence indicates that the mining of copper in the south-west kicked off the metal mining industry in both Ireland and Britain. Inchiquin (talk) 01:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland and the Metal Ages 

message: Would the potential trade with the Roman’s earlier in the article, as well as cultural and potential exchange of goods with Celtic cultures on the European continent not have already counted as international trade centuries earlier?  216.232.4.205 (talk) 16:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viking introduction of Ireland to international trade 

message: a Google question that asked " Who did ireland originally belong to?" The answer is highlighted as the "United kingdom". 
This isnt true. The highlight needs to mention the "Tuatha de Dannan" and the "Sidhe", they were originally the inhabitants and owners of Ireland.
They are only seen as mythological people because invaders chose to name them so as a means to wipe them from the slate of history so to take control.they were very real original tribes of Ireland and the rightful "owners". Celtgal (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't run google. The article is clear enough, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  False information on Google question