Jump to content

Talk:John of Islay, Earl of Ross

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nora lives (talk | contribs) at 00:21, 5 September 2010 (→‎Titles: various alternatives and musings). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Encyclopedic Standard

This is an interesting and informative article. The style needs to be cleaned up. Phrases like So far John had done rather well and many others of such a nature which permeate the text are unencyclopedic. This could be acceptable for a narrative historical treatment, where a distinctive authorial voice welcome; in an encyclopedia, however, it is inappropriate. Eusebeus 01:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couldnt agree more. siarach 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

I have always subscribed to George Orwell's contention that good prose should should be like a window pane, allowing a message to be conveyed with absolute clarity; there is nothing worse than bad English in the masquerade of pseudo-scholarship. I have made an attempt here to convey the essential facts on the subject with as much clarity and precision as I can. If anyone thinks they can do better by all means have a go-I will certainly not stand in their way. But what I do resent-and deeply so-are unconstructive and petty-minded tags. Those unhappy with the 'tone' of the present article are quite welcome to 'resurrect' the corpse in its original form. Rcpaterson 03:09, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to the original. There are too many mediocrites involved in this whole project. Rcpaterson 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of thing is bothering you so much you wanna leave? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at An Siarach (talk · contribs)'s tag of 22 August and then have a look at the comment he left on this subject some time ago on my talk page. Another of these tags has appeared on the Union of the Crowns page where most of the amended version was written by me. I really could not care less how people feel about my literary style; but there does not seem to be much point in continuing if this is how my work is to be received. I've now discontinued further work on Scotland in the Late Middle Ages, which I intend to put up for deletion. I must say we have had little in the way of direct contact but I have admired your work on early Scottish history. I think also-from the many comments of yours I have read on talk pages-you, like me, do not suffer fools gladly. It is, I must confess, a particular failing of mine, not good, I think, for an 'exercise in consensus.' Rcpaterson 00:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliments. I've been grateful that someone has been filling the gaps in later medieval Scotland and correcting the inaccuracies than the topic of medieval Scotland seems to attract to it. I'm sorry you and An Siarach have gotten on the wrong side of each other. An Siarach is actually a good guy, it just happens sometimes that people don't take a liking to each other sometimes. I'm actually contemplating leaving to. Just too many POV pushers, busy-bodies and disruptive vandals, few of whom ever actually add substantial content, but who in the wiki system have just as much power and status as knowledgeable contributing users. I think I spend most of my time these days chasing POV pushers, educating the ignorant and quibbling on talk pages and repeating myself over and over to people who have either no intention or no ability to listen. It gets frustrating, and I lose my temper so often that I'm probably getting a reputation as someone who's not very nice. Really, I'm a nice guy, but few on wiki would ever realize it. All I really wanna do is write articles, increase my own knowledge by processing information, and help others increase theirs. Can I ask that you take a few days off or something. There's no rush to leave, is there? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I eagerly await enlightenment with regard to how the praise i left you on your talk page has somehow contributed to your current bout of petulance. If i might comment upon your allusion that yourself and Calgacus are perhaps similar in attitude to 'fools' - I have witnessed Calgacus become irate. However i have never witnessed him become so without having first put forward well thought out, cogent and highly educated arguments in favour of whatever stance he may hold on whatever subject is being debated. You, on the other hand, have in this page alone reacted to a very minor, well meant edit from a user with whom you have had nothing but decent relations by a)vandalising the page b) bad mouthing the user c) announcing your decision to cease efforts within the wiki project much like a child takes away his football if he doesnt get his own way. Both yourself and Calgacus have tempers - he, however, knows how to deal with his and how to deal civily with other people. siarach 19:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just come back from a weeks road trip of Scotland and been astonished to find the rather ridiuculous series of edits on this article. I wasnt aware that myself and RCPaterson had gotten on the 'wrong side of each other' - indeed what little contact we have had has been entirely amicable - as Calgacus seems to think but his ludicrously petty and petulant reaction to my adding the tag to this article speaks volumes about his personality - especially when taken in consideration with his own deeply unconcstructive and consistently bad attitude in terms of bad mouthing the well meant efforts of others even if they often leave something to be desired in terms of the standard we would wish to see on Wikipedia. I added the tag simply because the article, as it had been re-written by RCPaterson, was not entirely written in the style of an encylopledia entry and indeed i find the first sentence of his initial post here quite ironic as if he had always added to the article in the way he claims to write there would be no reason to complain over the tone of the article. As it is while he has added a tremendous amount to it it is also filtered occasionally with some statements which vary from (doubtless the disclaimer 'IMO' is necessary here) awful prose "but now that it was contracting all of the latent tensions came forth like boiling lava," to those which smack simply of POV "pompously referred to as the Treaty of Westminster-Ardtornish" when they could easily have been stated in a forthright, uncomplicated matter with which none could take issue. Examples such as these do not dominate the article which, as i have already stated, has had a vast amount added to it by mr Paterson but they are not what i would expect to find in an objective, encylopedic article - by all means if i am strange in thinking this im happy for everyone to say so.

Im very disappointed that mr paterson has decided to withdraw from this project but given his childish reaction over such a small issue i cannot but wonder how compatible his personality is with a project which depends so much upon co-operation and friendly relations as wikipedia. Any vaguely mature, competent, contributor should be capable of taking part in the wikipedia project and putting forward valid arguments without resorting to the totally unnecessary bad mouthing of other users and vandalism of pages in response to legitimate edits with which they may not agree. When the user in question is actually a published author the inability to behave maturely is frankly incredible. siarach 19:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

I've removed the Template:Inappropriate tone tag as it's worse than useless: it advertises at the head of the article the editor's vague personal opinion that the style isn't right, and links to Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles which only mentions tone once, in the context of the option (NOT requirement) of using News style, which itself gives little or no guidance about "tone". There's a case for listing articles for cleanup to draw in help, and this can usefully be done with tags on the talk pages of articles, but this tag on the article itself is at best an irritation and insult to editors who have put considerable effort into improving the article. If you see faults in the article, the best things to do are to edit it, or draw attention on the talk page to exactly what problem you find. ...dave souza, talk 11:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Far from intending the tag as an "insult" to any editor i placed it because, having witnessed the major editors exasperation with other users and edits previously on other articles, i thought it might be less antagonistic to place the tag and then allow some discourse on what might be done to improve the tone rather than wading in and changing the bits with which i disagreed. As it turned out i shouldnt have bothered as RCPaterson has conveyed his opinion that any disagreement with his edits - be it with content or style - is a heinous crime. I cant recall being more dispirited by anything on wikipedia than the nonsense and behaviour which has gone on around this article over the last week ive been absent. siarach 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:An Siarach. The same thing happened at Union of the Crowns. As far as I know, I never had any Wikipedia contact with any of the people posting or mentioned above. I simply happened upon that article, and noticed that it contained some unencyclopedia language, including such florid phrases as "Parliament may very well have rejected polygamy; but the marriage, if marriage it was, between the realms of England and Scotland was to be at best morganatic." After adding the tone tag, I was immediately personally attacked on my talk page by User:Rcpaterson. I don't buy the logic presented above about this tag. There are dozens of such tags on wikipedia that are placed in articles. They don't usually provoke outbursts such as this. They are a useful way to call attention to articles that need work. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Having only just noticed it, i may as well belatedly point out RCPatersons response in my case was also to post personal abuse upon my talk page. siarach 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Titel

In wiki convention, the title should go by his highest title, which was Earl of Ross. It's also a good way disambiguate him from John of Islay, Lord of the Isles. So I'd suggest either John MacDonald, Earl of Ross or John of Islay, Earl of Ross (of Islay was their standard family name at the time, though MacDonald became grew in use later). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well I'm going to move the article later today, probably in the evening, unless anyone objects. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was his Gaelic name?

shouldnt this be at least mentionned in the aricle. I mean thats how he would have been referred to in his own day. presumably he was known as Iain Donnalach? Seamusalba (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is called "Eoin a Ile" in the infobox. His dynastic name is "a Ile" and kindred name "MacD[h]omhnaill". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seamusalba (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Titles

The following was recently posted on my talk page by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim


Funny. While this sounds awfully impressive, Googling "John of Islay, Earl of Ross" pulls up over 29,000 results, but only around 10 of which do not lead back to Wikipedia. Try searching in Google books http://books.google.com/bkshp?hl=en&tab=wp

I went with "4th Lord of the Isles", alleged to be "controversial". Now try searching for it in the same places. And if you really want an answer also try "Lord of the Isles and Earl of Ross", just like that. You will find at first that it produces many but still less results than "Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles", but once you filter out -Scott (Sir Walter Scott) and -poem then it all gets more realistic.

In each case there are not actually thousands of results. "earl of ross and lord of the isles" -poem -scott actually gets you around 330 in Google books, and less than a hundred in the main search with a number still leading back to Wikipedia. The reverse gets you around 240 and again less than a hundred. Burke's is inconsistent but I note that the MacDonald websites themselves appear to favour putting "Lord of the Isles" before "Earl of Ross".

The point is that I was doing nothing "controversial", or anything close to new. "4th, 3rd, 2nd, 1st Lord of the Isles" each pull up plenty of academic results. The one you insist on here, and the one you insist on for his father, pull up pitifully few. DinDraithou (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ODNB is inconsistent, describing Alexander simply as earl of Ross on his first appearance and then later calling both him and John lord of the Isles and earl of Ross. The index to Boardman's The Campbells has Alexander and John as earls of Ross first and lords of the Isles second. That was all I could find before my attention span was exhausted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to find a compromise when I just searched for "John II of Islay" but that is virtually unknown. All I wanted to do with the numbering was make it consistent and as unconfusing as possible. Since regardless of also being Earl of Ross he is most famous for being the "last" Lord of the Isles, that is what I think he should be. That is how the Clan Donald appear to remember him. This was basically the end of their semi-sovereignty.
In any case he really should not be "John of Islay". "John, 4th Lord of the Isles" and "John II, Lord of the Isles" are both good choices. Also see [1]. But other alternatives might be "John, Lord of the Isles, Earl of Ross" or "John, Earl of Ross, Lord of the Isles". The second pulls up a surprising number of results but the first also does respectably. Clearly there is great confusion about which is not only "superior" but the most proper. It still depends on who you ask. In Ireland we more often see the "lineage titles" used for dynasts of this sort... in real Irish sources of course. These MacDonnell princes lived half in the greater Irish world, while others did almost entirely, like Sorley Boy MacDonnell, who still lives there. DinDraithou (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_of_Islay,_Earl_of_Ross&oldid=382967096"