![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Most sources give a figure of 331 baronies, but some say 273. I have consulted and compared a number of sources:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Quotes figure of 331 baronies.The maps in these sources largely agree, and produce a figure of about 331. The following list enumerates these and highlights points of difference or uncertainty (my uncertainty, I mean, not the authors'). I've only noted the largest cases where baronies cross county boundaries, and I'm sure subsequent boundary adjustments have added even more. The lower figure of 273 could be got by merging most or all of the pairs/trios/quartets distinguished as North/South, East/West, Upper/Lower, etc; are these half-baronies? Also, I don't think the boroughs are baronies. If this list can be reliably turned into 331 it can be added to the Article page; ideally, the 273 figure could also be accounted for. I have reached the limit of my knowledge of these matters and bequeath this to those more knowledgable for further improvement. jnestorius( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Any good reason why the sections below should not be removed from this page? RashersTierney ( talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No source is cited. I wonder if the word's etymology is linked to the Gaelic word "ceanntar" - centre or district (e.g. dail ceanntar)? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this section? Should it not be just another bullet point of the section "External links"? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I note that Glenahiry is allocated to South Tipperary. Looking at the usual map, it appears to lie in county Waterford. A Google search shows that there is a parish (ABBEY, or INNISLONNAGH, or INNISLONAGHTY) in the barony that straddles both counties. This is possible for ecclesiastical units of land. However, for civil purposes, the barony almost certainly belongs to Waterford. I propose to move it soon unless somebody can explain to me why I should not. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems User:Brpellis added these when adding the Irish names; and even when, as with Leitrim barony in Co. Clare, it's already listed in a footnote. I agree that it's misleading here to list a single barony twice. I suggest adding further footnotes for the relevant cases.
The placenames database (from which those Irish names were presumably taken) lists baronies separately per county, which means you can't tell whether it's the same barony twice or two different ones. (It also invalidates my earlier use of the same source with reference to the two Clanwilliam baronies; however in that case the Database of Irish Historical Statistics makes clear they are indeed distinct.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the usual map". I suggest replacing the existing 4 references with reference to Database of Irish Historical Statistics; the other four take single points in time as their references whereas the last notes variations over time. jnestorius( talk) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Barony of Shrule in Longford links to Shrule Mayo, which obviously makes no sense. 2winjustonce ( talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware that inflamatory language should not be used. The same goes for biased language. In making my amendsments to the article, I thought that I had avoided the former and corrected the latter. So I was surprised to see your later amendments that excised large portions of what i had written. IMHO, the effect did not add to the understanding of the Creation section. I thought that it removed useful context setting. I also thought that it was overly careful in the use of language. The desired effect seemed to be to whitewash or sanitise the Norman invasion. i don't think that this is fair or accurate. To suggest that the invasion and the imposition of an alien concept - baronies - would not have been resisted by the natives, is disingenuous. I would be in favour of conveying this important historical fact and context setting, without resorting to inappropriate, inflamatory language in the article. Can a compromoise be arranged? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The new map is very beautiful, and one of the best maps I've ever seen. And I used to collect maps. Claverhouse ( talk) 02:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
Most sources give a figure of 331 baronies, but some say 273. I have consulted and compared a number of sources:
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) Quotes figure of 331 baronies.The maps in these sources largely agree, and produce a figure of about 331. The following list enumerates these and highlights points of difference or uncertainty (my uncertainty, I mean, not the authors'). I've only noted the largest cases where baronies cross county boundaries, and I'm sure subsequent boundary adjustments have added even more. The lower figure of 273 could be got by merging most or all of the pairs/trios/quartets distinguished as North/South, East/West, Upper/Lower, etc; are these half-baronies? Also, I don't think the boroughs are baronies. If this list can be reliably turned into 331 it can be added to the Article page; ideally, the 273 figure could also be accounted for. I have reached the limit of my knowledge of these matters and bequeath this to those more knowledgable for further improvement. jnestorius( talk) 23:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Any good reason why the sections below should not be removed from this page? RashersTierney ( talk) 21:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
No source is cited. I wonder if the word's etymology is linked to the Gaelic word "ceanntar" - centre or district (e.g. dail ceanntar)? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
What is the purpose of this section? Should it not be just another bullet point of the section "External links"? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I note that Glenahiry is allocated to South Tipperary. Looking at the usual map, it appears to lie in county Waterford. A Google search shows that there is a parish (ABBEY, or INNISLONNAGH, or INNISLONAGHTY) in the barony that straddles both counties. This is possible for ecclesiastical units of land. However, for civil purposes, the barony almost certainly belongs to Waterford. I propose to move it soon unless somebody can explain to me why I should not. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
It seems User:Brpellis added these when adding the Irish names; and even when, as with Leitrim barony in Co. Clare, it's already listed in a footnote. I agree that it's misleading here to list a single barony twice. I suggest adding further footnotes for the relevant cases.
The placenames database (from which those Irish names were presumably taken) lists baronies separately per county, which means you can't tell whether it's the same barony twice or two different ones. (It also invalidates my earlier use of the same source with reference to the two Clanwilliam baronies; however in that case the Database of Irish Historical Statistics makes clear they are indeed distinct.)
I'm not sure what you mean by "the usual map". I suggest replacing the existing 4 references with reference to Database of Irish Historical Statistics; the other four take single points in time as their references whereas the last notes variations over time. jnestorius( talk) 18:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The Barony of Shrule in Longford links to Shrule Mayo, which obviously makes no sense. 2winjustonce ( talk) 20:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm aware that inflamatory language should not be used. The same goes for biased language. In making my amendsments to the article, I thought that I had avoided the former and corrected the latter. So I was surprised to see your later amendments that excised large portions of what i had written. IMHO, the effect did not add to the understanding of the Creation section. I thought that it removed useful context setting. I also thought that it was overly careful in the use of language. The desired effect seemed to be to whitewash or sanitise the Norman invasion. i don't think that this is fair or accurate. To suggest that the invasion and the imposition of an alien concept - baronies - would not have been resisted by the natives, is disingenuous. I would be in favour of conveying this important historical fact and context setting, without resorting to inappropriate, inflamatory language in the article. Can a compromoise be arranged? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 16:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The new map is very beautiful, and one of the best maps I've ever seen. And I used to collect maps. Claverhouse ( talk) 02:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)