Talk:John of Islay, Earl of Ross

Encyclopedic Standard

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)

Couldnt agree more. siarach 06:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The style has a narrative cast that suggests plagiarism from something written fifty years ago or more. e.g. "John would however prove to be the last of the Lords of the Isles, overmighty subjects of the Stewart Kings of Scotland and virtual kings in their own right in the Western Isles." It's over-subjective. If a value-judgement "over-mighty" is going to be said, then it needs to be justified. This was not a period where the kings of scotland had done much, if any, governing of the isles. They had not set up a system of governance or done the isles any other particular service. Arguably, their authority, then, was still little more than a claim they chose to make, one that had little established basis other than the fact that Scotland was geographically the nearest kingdom and that the islanders were a nuisance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.187.219.217 (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Prose

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)

What kind of thing is bothering you so much you wanna leave? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:31, 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)

Thanks for the compliments. I've been grateful that someone has been filling the gaps in later medieval Scotland and correcting the inaccuracies than the topic of medieval Scotland seems to attract to it. I'm sorry you and An Siarach have gotten on the wrong side of each other. An Siarach is actually a good guy, it just happens sometimes that people don't take a liking to each other sometimes. I'm actually contemplating leaving to. Just too many POV pushers, busy-bodies and disruptive vandals, few of whom ever actually add substantial content, but who in the wiki system have just as much power and status as knowledgeable contributing users. I think I spend most of my time these days chasing POV pushers, educating the ignorant and quibbling on talk pages and repeating myself over and over to people who have either no intention or no ability to listen. It gets frustrating, and I lose my temper so often that I'm probably getting a reputation as someone who's not very nice. Really, I'm a nice guy, but few on wiki would ever realize it. All I really wanna do is write articles, increase my own knowledge by processing information, and help others increase theirs. Can I ask that you take a few days off or something. There's no rush to leave, is there? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I eagerly await enlightenment with regard to how the praise i left you on your talk page has somehow contributed to your current bout of petulance. If i might comment upon your allusion that yourself and Calgacus are perhaps similar in attitude to 'fools' - I have witnessed Calgacus become irate. However i have never witnessed him become so without having first put forward well thought out, cogent and highly educated arguments in favour of whatever stance he may hold on whatever subject is being debated. You, on the other hand, have in this page alone reacted to a very minor, well meant edit from a user with whom you have had nothing but decent relations by a)vandalising the page b) bad mouthing the user c) announcing your decision to cease efforts within the wiki project much like a child takes away his football if he doesnt get his own way. Both yourself and Calgacus have tempers - he, however, knows how to deal with his and how to deal civily with other people. siarach 19:22, 30 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)

Tag

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)

Far from intending the tag as an "insult" to any editor i placed it because, having witnessed the major editors exasperation with other users and edits previously on other articles, i thought it might be less antagonistic to place the tag and then allow some discourse on what might be done to improve the tone rather than wading in and changing the bits with which i disagreed. As it turned out i shouldnt have bothered as RCPaterson has conveyed his opinion that any disagreement with his edits - be it with content or style - is a heinous crime. I cant recall being more dispirited by anything on wikipedia than the nonsense and behaviour which has gone on around this article over the last week ive been absent. siarach 19:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with User:An Siarach. The same thing happened at Union of the Crowns. As far as I know, I never had any Wikipedia contact with any of the people posting or mentioned above. I simply happened upon that article, and noticed that it contained some unencyclopedia language, including such florid phrases as "Parliament may very well have rejected polygamy; but the marriage, if marriage it was, between the realms of England and Scotland was to be at best morganatic." After adding the tone tag, I was immediately personally attacked on my talk page by User:Rcpaterson. I don't buy the logic presented above about this tag. There are dozens of such tags on wikipedia that are placed in articles. They don't usually provoke outbursts such as this. They are a useful way to call attention to articles that need work. --JW1805 (Talk) 19:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Having only just noticed it, i may as well belatedly point out RCPatersons response in my case was also to post personal abuse upon my talk page. siarach 21:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Title

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)

OK, well I'm going to move the article later today, probably in the evening, unless anyone objects. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What was his Gaelic name?

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)

He is called "Eoin a Ile" in the infobox. His dynastic name is "a Ile" and kindred name "MacD[h]omhnaill". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Seamusalba (talk) 13:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles

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)

The ODNB is inconsistent, describing Alexander simply as earl of Ross on his first appearance and then later calling both him and John lord of the Isles and earl of Ross. The index to Boardman's The Campbells has Alexander and John as earls of Ross first and lords of the Isles second. That was all I could find before my attention span was exhausted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to find a compromise when I just searched for "John II of Islay" but that is virtually unknown. All I wanted to do with the numbering was make it consistent and as unconfusing as possible. Since regardless of also being Earl of Ross he is most famous for being the "last" Lord of the Isles, that is what I think he should be. That is how the Clan Donald appear to remember him. This was basically the end of their semi-sovereignty.

In any case he really should not be "John of Islay". "John, 4th Lord of the Isles" and "John II, Lord of the Isles" are both good choices. Also see [1]. But other alternatives might be "John, Lord of the Isles, Earl of Ross" or "John, Earl of Ross, Lord of the Isles". The second pulls up a surprising number of results but the first also does respectably. Clearly there is great confusion about which is not only "superior" but the most proper. It still depends on who you ask. In Ireland we more often see the "lineage titles" used for dynasts of this sort... in real Irish sources of course. These MacDonnell princes lived half in the greater Irish world, while others did almost entirely, like Sorley Boy MacDonnell, who still lives there. DinDraithou (talk) 00:21, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On wikipedia a noble is referred to by their most senior title except in exceptional circumstances (e.g. Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley), which in this case as in Alexander's case is "Earl of Ross". I've no idea if he is better known as a Lord of the Isles (this office attracts a lot of romanticizing pseudo-history, so wouldn't surprise me if he is), but he's clearly not sufficiently so. While holding the title, Alex and John always refer to themselves primarily as "Earl of Ross" (even in charters concerning territory in the Isles lordship), while they sometimes omit the title "lord of the Isles". John is not the fourth Lord of the Isles anyways, the Islay family taking it from their Mac Ruairidh predecessors. Regarding their name, "of Islay", this is the name they use in contemporary documents (see Munro and Munro, Acts of the Lords of the Isles) and distinguishes them from future families accurately. FYI, three random examples:

• Omnibus hanc cartam visuris vel audituris Johannes de Yle comes Rossie et dominus Insularum eternam in Domino salutem (no. 51, his earliest).
• John of Ile, earl of Ross, Lord of the Isles and sheriff of Innernys to John M'Culloch, bailie of the girth of Sanct Duthowis ... (no. 69)
• Omnibus hanc cartam visuris vel audituris Johannes de Ile comes Rossie et dominus Insularum salutem in Domino sempiternam. (no. 87)

Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I came across the same, but they don't prove anything. Your POV. Those were his and his father's circumstances but they did not change their lineage. My POV. And your belief that on Wikipedia the "most senior title except in exceptional circumstances" is the rule is interesting. Exactly what you mean by that isn't clear. Explain further. Maybe we should just rename Hugh O'Neill, 2nd Earl of Tyrone to Hugh O'Neill, O'Neill (Mor) then? But it would be genuinely Gaelic and we can't have that, right? Definitely not on Wikipedia where Tudor England still feels powerful. Oh and you're going to need a source clearly stating it was Earl of Ross for our man here. DinDraithou (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Why is the title "Earl of Ross" not Gaelic? It's older than the lordship of the Isles title, and was started by Gaelic-speakers rather than Norse speakers. The fact that "earl" is used is just a convention of modern English ... the actual term was properly mormaer or morair ... c/f the "earl of Sutherland", who was called morair Chat ("mormaer of the Cat people") by 19th century Sutherlanders. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:22, 5 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)

Don't see the sense in it. Only one title is necessary to disambiguate. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the sense would be to accommodate those who feel he (they) are better known as Lord of the Isles - from the discussion above I get the impression that this is more about how we present the man than how we disambiguate. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Though perhaps appealing for resolving difficulties with editors, disrupting normal Wikipedia naming practice is unlikely to produce a stable name. In this case we have a stable name adhering to Wikipedia naming practices. Altering this to please one editor might produce short-term stability, but the first naming nerd to spot this will move it. If there's a title, it really has to be one or the other. DinDraithou's main reason for unhappiness is that the title "Lord of the Isles" is "more Gaelic". I am trying to persuade him this is not the case. While the title Earl of Ross is rooted in the history of Gaelic Scotland, "Lord of the Isles" is an Anglo-Norman derived [debasing] "translation" of a Norse-Gaelic/ Hiberno-Northumbrian style (c/f Lord of Galloway, the rí Gall Gaidhel AU s.a. 1200.6). But though being translated as "Lord" in the 12th century debased them ... in the 15th century it is a more junior lordship and not even islanders regard the title as "royal" ... the power of the lords came from their control of Islay and kindred chiefs there and their position as earls of Ross (with the title "sheriff of Inverness" giving them de facto control of much of northern Scotland in the crown's name, in including much of the Moray Firth breadbasket). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Complete OR, and also pretty wrong. The proper title, Rí Innsi Gall, which I suggest you Google, is, translated or not, known from the 1st millennium.[2][3] You don't know your Irish sources. And I believe there is Gaelic praise poetry in which the kindred of the last lords are described as rí, for which I will look. They were also inaugurated with the White Wand. DinDraithou (talk) 20:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to point out what I've gotten wrong, please do so. Anyways, yes, in praise poetry the title king is often used for people who aren't kings. The earls of Lennox are styled "Kings of Balloch" in their praise-poetry, doesn't mean they themselves literally regard themselves as kings (if you know Irish sources as well as you boast, you'd be familiar with such conventions). If they did so, they would do so in their charters (which they don't); some of the earlier kings of the isles did (as did Fergus of Galloway)... these guys (John and Alex) don't. They never do so, and we have more than a hundred of their charters, written in Latin, English and Gaelic. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

How pretentious of the Lemnaig. Or maybe they were really Eóganachta (Byrne, Irish Kings and High-Kings. 2001. pp. 194, 291)? Back to the Rí Innsi Gall? DinDraithou (talk) 20:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Here are some sources we should all look for. Try searching for "Rí Innsi Gall" in them.

• McLeod, Wilson, and Meg Bateman (eds. & trans.), Duanaire na sracaire. Birlinn. 2007.
• McLeod, Wilson, "Rí Innsi Gall, Ri Fionnghall, Ceannas nan Gàedheal: sovereignty and rhetoric in the late medieval Hebrides", in Cambrian Medieval Celtic Studies 43 (2002): 25-48.
• McLeod, Wilson, Divided Gaels: Gaelic cultural identities in Scotland and Ireland, c.1200-c.1650. OUP. 2004.
• Kingston, Simon, Ulster and the Isles in the Fifteenth Century: the Lordship of the Clann Domhnaill of Antrim. Dublin: Four Courts Press. 2004.

To start with. Will find more. DinDraithou (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)