User talk:Oz MH

Welcome!

Hello, Oz MH, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Djegan 18:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chronicon scotorum[edit]

What's up with chronicon scotorum? You blanked it, do you want it deleted? Kappa 23:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The title should have a capital 'S' at the beginning of 'scotorum' but I do not know how to edit titles. Edit only seems to allow changes within the body of an article. Without the capital 'S' other articles cannot link to this one. This problem really began with the article entitled 'Chronicum Scotorum' which is a mis-title as 'Chronicum' should read 'Chronicon'.Oz MH 02:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've moved Chronicum Scotorum to Chronicon Scotorum and redirected Chronicon scotorum too. I guess your account is too new to have a "move" button, but it shouldn't take long, then you'll be able to move pages yourself. See Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page for more information, although it's out-of-date. Kappa 07:48, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Kappa. Much appreciated and have a nice Christmas.Oz MH 12:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sinking of RMS Leinster[edit]

I'm afraid my view is somewhat anticlimactic. I gather you're referring to the edit I made at Unterseeboot 123 (diff), in which I claimed it has sunk the RMS Leinster. I added this having read the RMS Leinster article, whose first paragraph - not written by myself - contains: "Having departed the Dublin ferry port at Kingstown (now re-named Dun Laoghaire) she was sunk by the German U-Boat U-123 just outside Dublin Bay at a point four miles east of the Kish light." Other than this chance reading, however, I know nothing of the subject. If you believe my edit to be in any way wrong, feel to revert or modify. I know this isn't very helpful, but I really have no further special knowledge. (I could Google for information if you wish for my assistance, but you seem to be more interested in this.) — Itai (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Itai, I was wondering if maybe you could tell me the source of your information regarding the running aground of the U-123 in 1921 because (if my sources are correct) the U-123 never returned to her home base in 1918 and was never seen again. The other point I would like clarified concerns the designation U-123 as opposed to UB-123. Are these two different submarines and could this be the origin of the current confusion?Oz MH 17:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (courtesy of Roy Stokes) , UB-123 sank the Leinster, not the U-123 ClemMcGann 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on the Leinster follows the 'official line'. At some stage I might alter the tone a little. By that I mean questions such as:'who broadcast the sos', 'why was an escort not provide', 'why was it painted', why was the Evening Herald closed, 'soldiers & lifeboats', 'RN in Dun Laoghaire stayed in port'; but not yet, I'm a bit short of the time required, regards ClemMcGann 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel O'Connell[edit]

Hi Oz, I created a page Daniel O’Connell, over at WikiQuote. I then remembered the letter you produced in our last discussion, and thought you might like to create a page over at Wikisource, I think it would be ideal. Just in case you were interested? Regards --Domer48 12:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irish beheadings[edit]

The standard books on 16thC Ireland refer often to the Irish beheading of slain enemies, but it's hard to find a reference because the practice isn't listed in the indexes. Nothing on google except this reference to 'dicheannu' (para 3):

http://www.irelandseye.com/aarticles/culture/talk/irishguide/histir.shtm

The English reciprocated the practice - John Perrot hung the market cross of Kilmallock with the heads of slain rebels, there is an account of supplicant rebels in Munster having to walk an avenue lined with severed heads to reach the English commnader's tent, plus Derricke's the Image of Ireland has a print of English soldiers returning from battle with rebel heads stuck on their sword points. The English also paid head-silver in return for the delivery of rebel heads. And of course it was common in the towns to see the heads of executed traitors stuck on spikes.

But that doesn't provide the necessary reference for the article, so the comment should remain out. Shtove (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What standard books? Your 'dícheannu' is a Celtic folktale motif and refers to Irish Mythology not 16th century Ireland. At best it is relevant to ancient heroic society. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the notion that the Irish practiced decapitation of their enemies. You say: 'the English reciprocated the practice'. Again, what is the evidence?Oz MH (talk) 19:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my dicheannu - just the only remotely relevant reference I could find online.

There's plenty of evidence for both sides practising this, but I don't have specific references to add to the article, so the assertion shouldn't be included. Wikipedia 101. No argument with you on that.

Here's a well known image of English soldiers returning from battle with heads on sword points:

http://www.lib.ed.ac.uk/about/bgallery/Gallery/researchcoll/pages/bg0057_jpg.htm

The rest of what I said is commonly known, and the state papers are full of descriptions but you'd have to dig around because the index doesn't help. Shtove (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC) [edit: I pasted the wrong link - the original is kind of funny!][reply]

The 'dícheannu' is entirely irrelevant. 'The rest of what I said is commonly known' - no. it is not! 'The state papers are full of descriptions' - no, they are not! There is evidence of the English forces decapitating Irish heads - you've supplied some of it yourself - but there is none to show that the Irish did it. You say you will not argue the point because the evidence is not easily accessed. I am familiar with the state papers and I know of no mention of the Irish decapitating heads. It is not good enough to imply that you cannot be bothered to find the references and leave your original assertion in place. I ask you again to substantiate it by giving references.Oz MH (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, relax! Wikipedia is a long term project, and I'm satisfied that someone else with access to the sources will in time add the proper references. Bear in mind that the calendars contain a fraction of the information in the state papers. If you want to take it up with someone else, jdorney may be of help - he wrote the overview articles on Irish history in this period and studied under Nicholas Canny in Galway. It may be that I'm making unjustified assumptions, so I'm interested in your challenge, but I don't have the access to the SPI that I used to. Anyway, I've added evidence to the Gilbert article about his practice of decapitation (of corpses, not heads).Shtove (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Jdorney doesn't agree with me, but he doesn't disagree either! I've noodled around and found a quote from Falls (Elizabeth's Irish Wars ISBN 0094772207 p.345), who's a straight up SPI historian: "These wars were merciless. The Irish in revolt were nearly always treated as traitors to their sovereign and, if they fell into the hands of the royal troops, whole or wounded, killed on the spot. On the other side the kerne made almost a ceremony of beheading prisoners and wounded on the battlefield". That is a reliable source, but it doesn't cite any evidence, so our argument isn't over. I am like the Borg and will return to it. Actually, I find it interesting that most information on this topic comes from English propaganda (look at the last line of the Derricke inscription), so I'm certainly questioning my assumption. Are you questioning yours?Shtove (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am prepared to question my own assumptions but I think jdorney's equivocation is indicative of the problem concerning this issue. You cannot equivocate with primary evidence when presented with it and I've seen none that supports the notion that the native Irish practised beheading as a matter of course in warfare and that the English 'returned the compliment'. Fall's statement is very sweeping and general. If he fails to reinforce it with primary source references he cannot be taken seriously. It appears gratuitous. A recent publication 'Age of Atrocity' (edited by Edwards, Lenihan & Tait; Four Courts Press, 2007) refers to beheading and gives references. The book is subtitled 'Violence and Political Conflict in early Modern Ireland' and represents a new departure in historical research of the period in that its stated aim is to confront the worst excesses of violence in the warfare of the sixteenth century. In the whole book it offers three examples of beheading, only one of which is irrefutable and exclusively Irish in context - the decapitation of James Oge McCoghlan by Ceadach O'Melaghlin in 1540 at Feddan in Offaly. It also mentions Ulick na gCeann Burke whose soubriquet indicates that he was a renowned decapitator of his enemies but the reference, which confirms his nickname, does not support that explicit assertion. For the third example we have to return to the McCoghlans again eight years later, 1548, when the heads of 20 of their number were put up on spikes as trophies during a civil war between them that involved hired soldiers and crown forces who were trying to take their territory on behalf of the King. These heads were brought to the commander of the crown's forces, Edmund Fahy (or White). One wonders if they were needed for proof in order to secure payment. Oz MH (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference - I hadn't heard of that book. Used to know Padraig Linehan. I don't think it's right to dismiss Falls - probably still the standard narrative on the wars, and he undoubtedly was deeply read in the state papers. Still, the problem remains that there is no evidence of widespread practice, but I reckon that's down to the fact nobody seems to have done a survey of the sources with this criterion in mind. I overlooked the most notorious incident, which occurred on the wreck of a Spanish Armada ship in Mayo - "there is another great ship cast away in Tirawly, 72 of her men are taken by William Burke of Ardnerie [Ardnerry], and a bishop and a friar, and of the said number there be three noblemen, and most of all the rest of the men of that ship are either slain or drowned, for as it is written to Sir Richard [Bingham] they were so miserably distressed coming to land, as one man, named " Melaghlen McCabb," killed 80 of them with his galloglas axe": p.xx of the preface to the CSPI - http://www.archive.org/stream/calendarofstatep04greauoft/calendarofstatep04greauoft_djvu.txt It's not certain that it refers to beheading - maybe he paunched them, like the English did to the prisoners at Smerwick - but seems a fair inference.Shtove (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a great link, but it looks to rely on the Ulster Journal of Archaeology, relating to the Battle of Carrickfergus: "There were at least two shipwrecks near Dunluce in 1558 [1588?]. One occurred at the place since called Spanish Port, very near the Castle. The name of this vessel is unknown, but it was from this wreck that the MacDonnells recovered three pieces of cannon, which were subsequently claimed by Sir John Chichester for the Government. These cannon could not have been recovered from the Gerona, as she had thrown overboard all her cannon at Killybegs to lighten her. Sir James MacDonnell (son of the renowned Sorley Boye) had mounted these three cannon on his Castle of Dunluce, and sturdily refused to hand them over to Chichester. This disagreement was one of the reasons for the subsequent meeting between MacDonnell and Chichester at Altfracken, near Carrickfergus, when Chichester treacherously tried to capture MacDonnell, but the wily Scot foiled him, inflicting a disastrous defeat upon the English forces, who fled in all directions. Chichester was killed, and his head cut off and sent to the camp of O'Neill and O'Donnell in Tyrone." http://irishgenealogy.net/cp/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=105 Falls doesn't mention this in his account p.208, but the story goes that Chichester's head was kicked about like a football - not the only story like this, so maybe more propaganda. Shtove (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any news? Well, if you can't be bothered ...!Shtove (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Oz MH. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]