Jump to content

Talk:Black Donnellys

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

Mess

[edit]

This article is a mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.116.197.97 (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to know who called them "Black," and why. No answer here.
It could be a lot better organised! Jgstringer (talk) 02:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

[edit]

Isn't the linking of "stormed" to Home invasion a little anarchronistic, not to mention unnecessary?

[edit]

So Charles Hutchinson was a prosecutor in the Donnelly case in 1881, yet the Charles Hutchison that the link leads to was born in 1879. A true child prodigy! NevarMaor (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relation?

[edit]

Well, my grandmother was of Black Donnelly Decent, she died about 10 years ago though. Do you think any relation Mom-*Smiling Nervously* "Nah, impossible!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prophicyofwiki (talk • contribs) 00:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Stagecoach?

[edit]

I was under the impression that the Donnellys owned a stagecoach at some point? Escheffel 04:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recall reading that they had a stagecoach company, perhaps with more than one coach, in a paperback book called The Black Donnellys. I'm not sure whether or not that was the book by Thomas Kelly, as cited in the main article. Josh-Levin@ieee.org 14:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that in a paperback book called "The Black Donnellys - The Outrageous Tale of Canada's Deadliest Feud" by Nate Hendley. So, if it's that book, it's not cited on the main page.Cookiedog 20:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell & Whiteboys

[edit]

The section on the origin of the term blackfeet is historically simplistic, often wrong and their is little or no evidence to support many of the claims made in it.


(1)"Cromwell's forcible injection of Protestants into a solidly Catholic society -- with the explicit intent of expelling the Catholics -- aroused strong anti-English and anti-Protestant emotions..."

Cromwell's forces were in ireland to continue the English Civil War. While Cromwell certianly had anti-catholic beliefs, his primary concern in Ireland was to rout the loyalists to the Crown and their allies in Confederate Ireland which he saw as a threat to the revolution. Protestant settlers had been planted many times before Cromwell's arrival, the actions of his troops brought the plantation saga to its apex (after the events catholics owned under five percent of Irish land).

(2) "...culminating in the formation of the Irish secret society called Whiteboys around 1761, named for the white robes they wore."

This is clearly not the case. The issue culminated in the battles of the Boyne, Aughrim and the Treaty of Limerick. The period after the Boyne was marked by the rise of the Protestant Ascendancy and the affect of the penal laws on the catholic majority. The Whiteboys and other groups like them more likely arose out of this reality. Much of the anti-catholic social order was quelled after Catholic Emancipation in 1778.

(3)"This split sections of Irish society into three classes: Catholic Whiteboys, Protestant Orangemen, and Blackfeet."

There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The major classes were the landowning Protestant Ascendancy. The Protestant tenant class and the Catholic tenant class and the Rising middle class.

(4)"Blackfeet were Irish Catholics who refused to adhere to the rigid Whiteboy code and were severely mistreated by the Whiteboys for their perceived treason."

The whiteboys were one of the more prominent secret societies in 18th and 19th century Ireland. These groups who were generally found in rural areas rebelled against the local establishment. Irish society changed rapidly during this period as pre act of union industrialisation began and the Inclosure Acts changed the fabric of rural society. Various taxes, tithes, penal laws, anti-British feeling and vindictive landlords helped drive many to arms. The so-called Whiteboy code was a reaction to this stratification of society, particularly the rise of the tenant classes, and which generally pushed for a return to the pre-inclosure system of commons. This agrarian unrest was not unique to Ireland and it is important to remember that the whiteboys were one of a number of agrairan anti-establishment groupings in Ireland of that period (others being the Defenders, the Peep O'Day Boys, .
As for the term Blackfeet there is no evidence to support that its use was widespread, if at all.

(5) "The term Blackfeet was often shortened to Black Irish, meaning Irish that were free thinkers and did not adhere to the strict Catholic v. Protestant didactic."

There is absolutely no evidence to support this. The "...strict Catholic v. Protestant didactic" was much reduced in late 18th century Ireland thanks to catholic emancipation and the rise of the United Irishmen.

I'm of black donnelly ancestory...and the story you've got is wrong wrong wrong!!! they're rolling in their graves!!!

original research

[edit]

In my opinion, the material that was added today, although no doubt thoughtfully put together; is unsuitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia in its present form. As was indicated in the edit summaries of the editor when they added it, the material appears to consist solely of original research derived by them from primary documents, which sadly enough in this case, is in violation of Wikipedia policy. Please see WP:PSTS. I was going to revert the material in its entirety, but decided to instead place the "original research" template at the top of the article for now; in order to encourage reactions from other editors. I would perfectly understand the reasoning, if another editor simply chose to remove the material instead. This is a good example of why well meaning contributors should carefully read a bit about policy before deciding to devote a lot of time to preparing materials for Wikipedia. WP:OR is a key piece of information. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Not original research.

  • This has been standing for a year now, does anyone agree?
  • I'm not sure the sources are "primary" or "secondary". Talman did the "primary" research, these are links to the primary research, so are therefore secondary.
  • Orlo Miller also cites Talman in his book, its a well known source.
  • It is probably "well known" that James D. murdered Farrell, so the "common sense" rule might apply. We aren't really debating the facts, just the attribution of the facts. Feldercarb (talk) 04:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of unattributed points in this article. Seems a pity to take down the ones that are attributed. Feldercarb (talk) 02:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Feldercarb (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


where would the revered encyclopedias be today, had it not been for the original research by their contributors?

Garbage

[edit]

This article is thoroughly worthless and reads like a 3rd grader's historical fiction assignment. Can we just delete it and start over? Telanis (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a radical rewrite to condense it, make it coherent and relate all of it to sources. I've been told that the "blow it up" rationale for deletion is not widely accepted: an article on a "notable" topic that isn't a libel or copyvio does not need to be deleted even if it does need to be totally reconstructed. A rewrite of this one would need access to the books & pamphlets cited, and possibly others, and would need attention by editors in that part of Canada, but I'm willing to help with organising the information. To start with I've eliminated the journalistic lead: Noyster (talk), 07:56, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Black Donnellys. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: split timeline to a new article

[edit]

As of today, this article is a little over 76kB, which isn't completely unreadable (per WP:SIZE) but it's getting close, and almost certainly will be over if/when proper sources are added to the article. I propose splitting the Timeline section in its entirety to a separate article, such as Timeline of the Black Donnellys. List of timelines shows some examples of the style I'd like to follow, especially under #Biographical timelines, and there are some more examples in Category:Personal timelines. Any objection, or thoughts on a better name? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Black_Donnellys&oldid=1200105650"