Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:01, 26 January 2013

Archives

Archive 1: Sep. 2005 - Mar. 2007 Archive 2: Apr. 2007 - Dec. 2007 Archive 3: Jan. 2008 - Aug. 2008 Archive 4: Sep. 2008 - Dec. 2009 Archive 5: Jan. 2010 - May 2010 Archive 6: Jun. 2010 - Dec. 2010 Archive 7: Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012

1769 sovereign states

I thought the Kingdom of Ireland was a sovereign state, up until the 1800 Act of Union took effect January 1, 1801? GoodDay (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you understand by sovereign? The king of Great Britain was also king of Ireland. Ireland had a parliament, but the parliament was subordinate to the parliament of Great Britain, and had been since Poynings' Law of 1495. So no, not a sovereign state. The Irish Volunteers won legislative independence in 1782. In theory, you could say that Ireland was a sovereign state for the following 18 years, but as the Act of Union showed, its sovereignty was fairly illusory even then. Scolaire (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Still couldn't be considered truly sovereign during those 18 years as the Irish parliament gradually lost much of the legislative independence it had gained especially with the dwindling of the Volunteers as an effective "pressure-group". Mabuska 22:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Matthew Nathan

Not sure why you undid my edits. I was trying to separate his personal life (retirement etc) from his career stuff, in particular so I could bring out his Governorship of Queensland as a separate section in preparation for expanding upon it. Kerry (talk) 04:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The page is on my watchlist. I'll be happy to discuss the article structure there. Let's just say there was no disrespect intended. The diff shows that there were three increasingly short one-sentence paragraphs, which is not considered good practice, and that his retirement and death were at the beginning of the article instead of at the end, which is also quite unorthodox. I look forward to seeing your edit of the Queensland part of his life. And, as I say, I'm always happy to pitch in on the talk page. Scolaire (talk) 09:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

No disrespect? No presumption of good faith, reverting a good faith edit rather than rewriting, no attempt to communicate with me, and claiming to be enforcing some "orthodoxy" not mentioned in Biographies. MN spent two years in Ireland (your home) and your preferred structure gives his time there a lot of prominence, sandwiching the rest of his career including 5 years in Queensland (my home) under "Later career" between pensions and retirement. The Queensland section that I created had 4 sentences (from the existing article, not the one sentence you claim) and there would have been more if you hadn't been so quick to delete everything I did in preparation. Communicating with me would have clarified my intentions; even reading my user page would have probably made it clear what my intentions would be since I indicate my interests as being Queensland history including biography, which have an obvious intersection with the Matthew Nathan article. If you didn't intend disrespect, how did you expect me to feel as a result of your actions? Valued? Welcomed? Respected? Well, I didn't feel any of those things; I felt only disrespect; I felt I was wasting my time; I felt angry. I had been intending to spend the day contributing to Misplaced Pages, but stopped and walked away in disgust. Kerry (talk) 05:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm genuinely sorry that your feelings were hurt. I didn't expect you to feel valued or welcomed as a result of my revert, but I certainly didn't foresee that you would feel angry or disgusted! I didn't look at your contributions at the time I did the revert, but I see now that you've been editing for slightly longer than I have. It's hardly a case of "biting the newbie"! On the other hand, when I said above that I would be happy to discuss it with you on the article talk page, and that I look forward to seeing your edit of the Queensland part of his life, I did expect you to feel valued and respected. I am shocked and hurt at your response. Please read Misplaced Pages:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. It's a very important essay. Your edits were bold. I reverted them because, as I said in my edit summary, I didn't see them as an improvement. There was no presumption of bad faith, only a difference of opinion. The next step is for you to go to the article talk page and discuss the article structure there – the article structure, mind you, not my actions or your feelings. I have no ill-will towards you, and I will gladly engage with you in the proper forum. Scolaire (talk) 09:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

PS I don't understand what you mean when you refer to "my claim" that there was only one sentence in the Queensland section. I can only guess that it was my reference to "three increasingly short one-sentence paragraphs". That referred to the "Personal life" section. It had four paragraphs: a short three-sentence paragraph, a shorter one-sentence paragraph, a still shorter one-sentence paragraph, and a still shorter one-sentence paragraph. Looking at The diff shows that up very clearly, which is why I included the diff. I deliberately did not comment on the Queensland section, because my user talk page is not the place to do that. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

10 shilling coin

Hi Scolaire.... Errrr, not sure if the description of the 10-shilling coin as a commemorative coin is right. I don't have the sources to hand, but as far as I know, it was planned as a replacement for the 10 shilling note; 2 million were minted, but as the coin proved so unpopular, most weren't issued and were melted down for the silver content. (I seem to remember that only about 200,000 made it into circulation) I have a history of Irish coinage somewhere in the house if I can find it. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 19:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

(PS) Online sources seem to differ on this alright. The Act introducing the coin does say commemorative alright, so I'll have to hit the books. As you were :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 20:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem :) Scolaire (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Had a look for the book, just to satisfy my curiosity and make sure that I wasn't imagining the explanation but I can't find it; there are one or two non-reliable sources online suggesting that they were planned as a replacement in the run-up to decimilization, but nothing official. (And I shoud have read the article to get the circulation figures right) Having another look for a source for this idea, but mostly because I just want to make sure that I wasn't suffering some sort of brainstorm brought on by over-indulgence over Christmas. :) I did however find my 1988 Aluminium 50p while looking for the book, so the search wasn't entirely in vain :) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Since OR is allowed on user talk pages, I can tell you that I was around in 1966 (I have one of those coins myself) and that there was no intention of ever replacing the 10s. note with a coin. Think about it: if you were going to issue the first of a new coin, would you do it in silver? No way. It was designed and issued as a commemorative coin. Given the extent of 1916 fever (Pearse was venerated in Ireland, along with Pope John), the lack of uptake was all the more surprising. The explanation offered in the article—that the ten-bob note was too much a part of Irish culture—is the most likely, I'd say. Scolaire (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Similarly antique and also in possession of a Pearse ten bob bit. You were right, of course, about Pearse Street before Square in Patrick Pearse#Commemoration, but didn't I do well with gathering them all up? Brocach (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You did :) Scolaire (talk) 08:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

More renaming of GAA content

Just noticed a vote going on here that may be of interest. (Another here ). Brocach (talk) 21:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And - God help us - here. Brocach (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)