Talk:Cromwellian conquest of Ireland

message: Added that Cromwellians were Puritans, which worsened the anti-Catholic element of the war.86.42.206.28 12:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Puritans

message: I removed the paragraph about the confederates being responsible for the cromwellian episode by failing to resist him. While this may be true, it doesn't really have any bearing on the debate over the actual conduct of the campaign.
I'm also not happy with the tone that has been inserted into the debate section. In reality, the majority of modern historians of the period see Cromwell's actions at Drogheda and Wexford as being horrific but not that unusual by the standards of the day. Reilly is unusual in that he claims that Cromwell never harmed any civilians at all in Ireland and that this was entirely a royalist inspired fiction. It is this claim that most other historians do not accept.
Re the references claiming the campaign was a genocide; first of all I feel they are highly cumbersome and make editing this section very difficult. In addition, many  of them are asides from authors writing about other topics. Tim Pat Coogan, for example, has no specialist knowledge of the area and his comment seems to be an off-the-cuff remark. A few of the others are similiar and some of them contain basic and glaring errors of fact, for example, stating that, Cromwell's campaign was a respsone to an Irish rebellion of 1649 and that all the Irish had to live west of the Shannon. Both of these assertions are plain wrong. At most they show that Cromwell's campaign has lodged in the popular memory as a genocide. They don't tell us anything abotu the conduct of hte campaign itself. 
Some of the other sources are better, for example describing the Cromwellian settlement as, 'close to ethnic cleansing' and appear to be supported by more facts. This I could accept. 
Jdorney 15:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: Since the conquest is generally called (including history texts) the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, and not "The Rump's Conquest of Ireland", doing a search and replace on Cromwell and replacing it with "the Rump" is hardly reasonable.  It would also make WP the only place (at least that I know of) to present it in that way.  The role of the parliament should be expanded upon, no argument there, but this wasn't the way to do it. Hughsheehy 13:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Rump

message: Talk:Rapparee#private and public tories --PBS (talk) 09:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  private and public tories 

message: I have removed:
:"These policies in Ireland have led some historians to consider that Cromwell was guilty of war crimes during his Irish campaign."
The source "War Crimes" is not a reliable one and what are the war crimes that were committed? --PBS (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The text I wrote leaves the question of War Crimes "open", it refers to what some historians write. There is pleanty of scope for a whole paragraph on the subject, and on what is being written on that subject. PurpleA (talk) 20:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "These policies" needs a source that "these policies" were war crimes, "some historians" are weasel words. It is controversial and needs a reliable source and attribution in the text of the article. At the moment is is not clear which policies are alleged to be war crimes or who is making the allegations. --PBS (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Purple Arrow you wrote in the history "I think the slaughter and murder of children was always a crime, by Irish standards anyway,- undo"  Do you have a source that confirms that the killing of enemy Catholic women and children was a crime in the  opinion of contemporary European Protestants (or that the killing of Protestants by Catholics was a crime in the opinion of most Catholics at that time)? The sentence does not make that accusation, it make the accusation that  "These policies in Ireland", and the sentences in the rest of the paragraph does not say that the killing of women and children was policy, further once Cromwell left Ireland, who says what happened was his policy, who claims that the men left in Ireland still reported to him? (They may have done -- I don't know -- but he did not take overall power until 1653). --PBS (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This goes beyond Catholic v Protestant, and those old religious arguments I find quite tiresome. Should it be left to the crime-doer to cast final judgement on his/her own deeds? Does 'opinion' make one right? PurpleA (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It matters about the Protestant Catholic split because in Western Christendom before the reformation the summary killing of priests would have been a crime under all realms, but after the reformation the this was no longer the case. For example from the time of Elizabeth through to the end of the C17th Jesuits were less than welcome in England. Do you have any reliable sources that claim the policies followed by the English forces in Ireland were war crimes? Do you have any sources that claim that Cromwell was responsible for those policies.  --PBS (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Without the unprovoked 1641 rebellion there would have been no Cromwellian conquest. Both involved  lots of crimes. You can't get all queenie about Cromwell's bad behaviour and forget about, or try to justify, 1641.86.46.234.43 (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "unprovoked 1641 rebellion" is one point of view, but many would consider the plantations more than enough of a provocation. -- PBS (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: The war crimes theme really needs a specialist on the 1600s who is not British nor Irish, to avoid NPOV. And consider this: in 1649 The Cromwellians were rebels if you supported Charles II of England; the Irish were rebels if you supported Cromwell. Killing rebels was not a war crime in those days.86.42.205.254 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: War crimes

message: By all accounts Cromwell also laid siege to Gowran in Kilkenny, although neither this article nor Oliver Cromwell has a mention of it. It makes me wonder how many other places did the psychopathic bastard go to that aren't being mentioned. 109.77.98.167 (talk) 06:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Gowran?

message: A Google book search of  Islandmagee massacre returns lots of sources about whether the massacre happened or did not happen. I suggest rather than the IP address reverting each other that there is a debate here about how to include the debate in a NPOV way. -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islandmagee massacre? 

message: The above sentence has been deleted five times by Hughey. Why? 
For comparison see Sack of Magdeburg (20 May 1631) during the during the Thirty Years' War. -- PBS (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it the first time because the entry had just one dodgy reference. By dodgy, I mean that Tom Reilly is the only source, with his two books (that which makes it a circular reference of sorts). Tom has been accused of hero worship in reviews. He is classified as an amateur historian (of which we all are, so please don't think that I mention it here to denegrate him).
The next four removals were because it was reverted 5 times...
Hughey (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

text: Because, as far as I can see, any sentence which does not suggest Cromwell is the Antichrist is unacceptable. Pinkbeast (talk) 03:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that Cromwell is the Antichrist Hughey (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

text: I am hoping for a reply from Hughey to stop the edit war and start the jaw jaw. Pinkbeast your comment does not help us have a collegiate discussion please strike it. -- PBS (talk) 10:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

text: And implying that the Thirty years' war didn't horrify contemporaries in its savagery requires a perspective that completely ignores the people on the continent who fought and lived in it. All for the sake of exonerating a man who actually drew up plans for near complete irish genocide (the plantations were supposed to cover three provinces in their entirety) 173.176.137.97 (talk) 14:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  That what happened at Drogheda was not unusually severe by the standards of 17th-century 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Cromwellian conquest 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/20070928062053/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/civilwar/g5/cs2/s4/ to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/civilwar/g5/cs2/s4/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211163740/http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1649-52-cromwell-ireland.htm to http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1649-52-cromwell-ireland.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041211163740/http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1649-52-cromwell-ireland.htm to http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/military/1649-52-cromwell-ireland.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All links work, but last two are the same and should be combined. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have reverted this edit:
* 01:33, 19 March 2017‎ Wikimucker  (diff) (many reports of atrocities reaching Parliament were apropos Scottish Protestants in Ulster and we have no idea which were the most egregiously felt by Parliament save that they were all Protestants) 
because Cromwell made it obvious that he was concerned primarily about English people as he was working for the English parliament and was himself an English MP. While he would have had more sympathy for Scottish Presbyterian than any Roman Catholic, his primary concern and that of most other English people, was undoubtedly over the treatment of English people than for foreign protestants.
See To the Governor, and Mayor and Aldermen, of the City of Kilkenny:
See also A Declaration of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, For the Undeceiving of Deluded and Seduced People:
The historian Simon Schama write about this diatribe:
 
*
*
*
-- PBS (talk) 14:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well covered. Wikimucker (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  English Protestants 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cromwellian conquest 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/20081216141728/http://feature.ipfw.edu/faculty/profiles/lutz.html to http://feature.ipfw.edu/faculty/profiles/lutz.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) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Cromwellian conquest 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/20081216135450/http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/ to http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216135450/http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/ to http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/
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) 22:30, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I really detest this style of argument by intentional obtuseness which calls any self-evident conclusion "synthesis". Synthesis is a risk, but equally well, no page is constructed completely without reasoning on the part of the editors. It is well sourced that there _was_ a famine and that the English embarked on a campaign of destroying crops.
I should say it is just as much synthesis to look at these facts and presume that they must be unrelated; you are equally well drawing a conclusion, and the only difference is that it's an absurd one; even absent information about crop destruction it would be absurd to suppose the famine "just happened" as an unfortunate coincidence while the English army (who presumably all brought sandwiches?) was rampaging over the country (carefully not killing any farmers?) Pinkbeast (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famine 

message: Whilst the source for this is no longer accessible, digging further I note from other sources that:
- This is an estimate by Sir William Petty made in the 1670's.
- This is an estimate for the entire length of the war in Ireland, starting in 1641.
I have edited the relevant section to reflect thisFOARP (talk) 12:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  600000 excess deaths figure 

message: Why does Tom Reilly, amateur "historian" and Cromwell obsessive with neither academic credentials nor support,https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/26/irish-amateur-historian-on-lonely-mission-to-save-bogeyman-cromwell-from-genocide-charges receive pride of place in the "Historical Debate" section of this article? By making Reilly the first author mentioned by name in the section his works effectively get to set the tone for a debate that he is actually marginal to. He should be covered in the "Historical Debate" section because he's managed to get some media attention, but not so prominently and otherwise we should be wary of citing him. This is generally the standard Wikipedia treatment for nonacademics with fringe historical theories as I understand it.
Far worse is that this article cited Lukas Dregne's undergraduate thesishttps://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1187&context=utpp on Cromwell; I explain why that's a problem herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Oliver_Cromwell#Terrible_Sources_Used_vis_a_vis_Ireland. I've removed it and we need a new citation for the statistic if we're going to keep it. The fact that a sloppy undergrad thesis was cited in two distinct articles about Cromwell in relation to Ireland is indicative of a major problem for Irish Wikipedia, in which Anglophilic editors unscrupulously cite shoddy sources to force their opinion to the center of the articles. DuxEgregius (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems sensible to me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we not make Tom Reilly the center of this article? 

message: Aside from the Reilly stuff, this article makes some claims without backing them up using any sources. Additionally, the tone at parts can read fairly poorly, as though someone is making an argument or writing an essay. From this point on in the Wexford section  there isn't anything backing it up. Who is arguing it? It then goes on to talk about Cromwell's responsibility is disputed...who is disputing it? And then his critics. What critics?
Or this: 
The historical debate section says it was a mutually cruel war and mentions atrocities, but it doesn't say who is saying this or where these numbers are coming from. Is it from John Morrill? If so, why doesn't it say that? And even then, John Morrill isn't "some" in a plural sense. He is one person. An individual. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 18:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes