![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Reverted to the original. There are too many mediocrites involved in this whole project. Rcpaterson 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. Seamusalba ( talk) 13:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The following was recently posted on my talk page by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
“ | Thanks for contributing to these articles. You made some controversial moves, which I've reverted. You are under the impression that "Lord of the Isles" was a "royal title" in this era. This isn't correct, "Lord of the Isles", like "Lord of Galloway", was a title of unclear rank/standing. John and Alexander and the Scottish kings regarded the title of Earl as superior, and indeed Ross was wealthier than the islands under the Islay family's control. You are right that it might be described as "princely". A traveller to Scotland around 1500 listed the lordships of Scotland, and noted that along with its duchies and earldoms, there were two principalities in the kingdom, Galloway and the Isles (at that time both held by the king). In any case, using the "4th" and such forms to distinguish lords of the isles from each other makes the "lordship of the Isles" look like some kind of English peerage, which it definitely was not. The title predates the creation of the Scottish peerage system in the reign of James II. | ” |
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)
Giving both titles, and omitting numbers seem to me to be some sort of possible compromise here. Would it be acceptable to move this article to John of Islay, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, and similar with Alexander? I don't think anyone contests that they had both these titles - and that both these titles were and are more significant than f.x. "Sheriff of Innernys". Best regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are some sources we should all look for. Try searching for "Rí Innsi Gall" in them.
To start with. Will find more. DinDraithou ( talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Reverted to the original. There are too many mediocrites involved in this whole project. Rcpaterson 00:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. Seamusalba ( talk) 13:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
The following was recently posted on my talk page by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim
“ | Thanks for contributing to these articles. You made some controversial moves, which I've reverted. You are under the impression that "Lord of the Isles" was a "royal title" in this era. This isn't correct, "Lord of the Isles", like "Lord of Galloway", was a title of unclear rank/standing. John and Alexander and the Scottish kings regarded the title of Earl as superior, and indeed Ross was wealthier than the islands under the Islay family's control. You are right that it might be described as "princely". A traveller to Scotland around 1500 listed the lordships of Scotland, and noted that along with its duchies and earldoms, there were two principalities in the kingdom, Galloway and the Isles (at that time both held by the king). In any case, using the "4th" and such forms to distinguish lords of the isles from each other makes the "lordship of the Isles" look like some kind of English peerage, which it definitely was not. The title predates the creation of the Scottish peerage system in the reign of James II. | ” |
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)
Giving both titles, and omitting numbers seem to me to be some sort of possible compromise here. Would it be acceptable to move this article to John of Islay, Earl of Ross and Lord of the Isles, and similar with Alexander? I don't think anyone contests that they had both these titles - and that both these titles were and are more significant than f.x. "Sheriff of Innernys". Best regards, Finn Rindahl ( talk) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Here are some sources we should all look for. Try searching for "Rí Innsi Gall" in them.
To start with. Will find more. DinDraithou ( talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)