Talk:Jacobite rising of 1745/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Quote by O'Sullivan: punctuation and old spelling

At the very end of the Background section, there is an extended quote by Col. John William O'Sullivan. As an extended quote, this paragraph needs to be doubly indented, that is, completed indented on both the right and left sides. I moved the portrait of Louis XV to the right, so that the "blockquote" command would be able to indent the first few lines of the quote.

Further, because the quote has obsolete spelling, it might be advisable to include bracketed explanations for those words in which the old spellings do not lend understanding to modern readers. For example: "... & finding yt [that] the French Ministry had no real design ...". After the first of explanation for the word 'yt', readers should understand what it means in the remainder of the article. Vereverde (talk) 02:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Jacobite Risings - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

It would be of interest to give, say in the info box, details of overall casualties from the battles and skirmishes in the rebellion which saw the last land battles on British soil, and for perspective how much casualties were sustained in Scotland compared to England.Cloptonson (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

"Romantic"

Some editors have raised quibbles about the "romantic" nature of the "45" - apparently in the aftermath of the recent referendum and in the light of the general rise in Scots nationalism. It has to be stressed that the political aims of the Jacobites had absolutely no connection with either modern preoccupation. The Stuarts and their supporters wanted to regain the crown of Great Britain, not re-establish a separate kingdom in Scotland - and they most probably wanted a return to Catholicism, enforced by the authority of an absolute monarchy. Certainly these last two aims were feared by the many Britons (on both sides of the border) who were opposed to another Stuart restoration, and as fervently desired by many supporters of such a restoration.

The "romance" of the situation was largely sentimental and came AFTER the fear of the reinstatement of "popery" and the return of royal "tyranny" no longer applied. The sentimental "romance" of the much more colourful (not to mention technically "rightful") "Scottish" royal family over their unattractive, very boring "German" usurpers (especially in parts of Scotland and England where support for the actual rising had been notably lacking) gave rise to a sentimental, and largely retrospective, "Jacobitism".

No need, perhaps, for any of this to be directly alluded to in the article, but it must be bourne in mind if we are tempted to apply Jacobite sentiment to modern or recent political movements.

"Romance" is the very embodiment of subjectivity, and it may seem a little odd to mention it at all here, given that objectivity is so important in an encyclopedia - but of course the '45 IS "romantic", if anything is. Anyone who has read much Sir Walter Scott or Robert Louis Stevenson or has otherwise actually heard of the events surrounding this most recent of British civil wars is at the very least aware of this, even if not at least just a little bit swept up by the romance of it all themselves (go on, admit it!). While it is obviously not the main point of an encyclopedia article on the subject we probably do need to give romance a very brief mention. But the reference must be as simple and objective as possible. Jacobites are people who want to restore the royal Stuart line to the throne of Great Britain. I dare suggest this has not been a widespread political position in either Scotland or England (or, for that matter, Ireland) for many, many years. If the "romance" of the excursion of the Bonnie one to the Scottish highlands has little objective connection with the recent referendum it has (at least at this point in time) much less to do with any passionate desire for dynastic purity in the British royal line. Come on now! If you are to (objectively) tie it in with even an anachronistic "sympathy" with such a political position you at the very least need a suitable reference... but of course we are getting thoroughly silly at this point. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

True Jacobites (ie those who would bring back a Stuart claimant to the throne[s]) may be thin on the ground these days, but by 'Jacobite sympathisers' I mean those who romanticise Jacobitism. There are plenty of those, as you appear to appreciate (eg, in his very popular book 'The '45', Christopher Duffy went so far as to label a woman who expressed a fear of rape by the rebels as 'frustrated', which goes to show the depths to which Jacobite sympathisers will sink). However, the notion that Jacobitism was romantic is far from universal. Within the History Faculty of Oxford University alone, Bob Harris ('Scotland: Expunging the Memory of the '45 in his 'Politics and the Nation', Oxford [2002]) and Hannah Smith ('Georgian Monarchy', Cambridge [2006]) would hotly dispute that idea. There's also Jonathan Oates's 'Sweet William or The Butcher The Duke of Cumberland and the 45' (2008) as a counterblast to the popular, romanticised view of the Jacobites, the introduction to which addresses the bias of most previous authors. So, if we must mention 'romance', we should acknowledge that it's a partisan opinion held only by one historiographical 'side'.91.85.208.0 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course not everyone finds the idea of Bonnie Prince Charlie (or his Highland followers and their loyalty against all hope) "romantic"! But I think we are bringing in partisanship here where none should exist - I am an historian by training (i.e. my first degree was mostly history) and my own "sympathies", so far as this period is concerned, are strongly Whig rather than Tory. And yet I have to admit that the Bonnie one is more romantic (even to me) than boring old German Georgie. Are we muddling "romance" and "sympathy" here? Both are more subjective than the topics we generally consider in a general reference encyclopedia, but I would still rather have the "romance" of it all go without any mention at all than have it tied to political sympathy, which I think we would probably agree is another matter altogether. Should we just expunge the whole sentence, do you think? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

That would probably be best! I'd especially recommend Smith's 'Georgian Monarchy' book as a counterweight to the 'boring German' take on the early Georges, though it's as much about British Whigs as about the Hanoverians themselves. My fave bit is a quotation from a Scottish writer describing George I as having 'our own native Scotch blood running in his royal veins'!91.85.208.0 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Confusion about first skirmish

"Captain John Scott was marching his 1st Foot to Fort Augustus". So why did heecide to "retreat back to Fort Augustus"? Surely he was already going there? And the 1st Foot was a regiment or battalion, several hundred men strong. So how could it have been surrounded and defeated by 50 rebels? The account is clearly wrong in several ways.Royalcourtier (talk) 03:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Fate of the Young Pretender

It's inaccurate to say that the Young Pretender 'sailed into permanent exile in France' after the rebellion. he was expelled from France in 1748, his return to Britain incognito c1750 is well attested (e.g. mentioned in the Gentleman's Magazine, and 'exile' is the wrong term because the Pretender wasn't British in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.208.0 (talk) 17:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Just give us a reliable source that says this. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Charles' entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that Charles arrived at Dover on 13th September 1750, entered London on 16th and met leading English Jacobites including the Duke of Beaufort, Lord Westmoreland and William King. He toured London and departed from Dover on 23rd September.--Britannicus (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

So if this is the case, why is it STILL uncited? He went into permanent exile - although you could add a properly cited note about his supposed very brief incognito visit to London in 1750 this does not change the (important) information that has been repeatedly deleted, even if it is accepted that it might qualify it. He spent the rest of his life on the continent, first in France, and then Italy and ended up a bloated alcoholic, from my recollection. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

If he returned to London in 1750 how can he have "spent the rest of his life" after 1746 on the Continent? A reliable source proves that he visited London in 1750.--Britannicus (talk) 13:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to cite an absence of information, and this is not the place to include details of the 1750 visit to London (it's covered on the Charles Edward Stuart page, where it belongs). What's more, the suggestion that the Young Pretender's going back where he came from constituted his going into 'exile' is an historically insupportable, pro-Jacobite POV.91.85.208.0 (talk) 13:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations

The citations on this page a mess. It would benefit readers if short citations were linked to the long citations. Also the long citations are missing details such as ISBNs and either publisher of location. The entry for the ODNB is not using the usual template {{ODNB}} which include the template about subscriptions. -- PBS (talk) 10:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Description of this as 'British' Victory Needs to be Reconsidered

The summary box describes this a 'British victory' which is wrong. This was a Civil War - arguably the last in a series going back to the 1640s, as many of the principles eg absolutism, freedom of religion, rule by Parliament etc were the same (and re-appeared thirty years later in the American War of Independence). So this isn't a minor point, it is a fundamental link in a on-going political struggle that lasted nearly two centuries and was seen by contemporaries as such.

The presence of Hanoverian troops and assorted German mercenaries in Cumberland's forces do not make it a 'German victory;' in the same way, the fact that the Jacobite forces included some French troops (mostly from the Irish Brigade and not French at all) and French government backing doesn't change the underlying principle that this was a war fought between different British political factions.

The significance of the 45 Rebellion was that it ended a dynastic struggle - the Jacobite cause died at Culloden. Thereafter it was a parliamentary struggle - and that matters because it marks the beginning of modern party politics.

In the Wikipedia entry for 'English Civil War' it is described as a Parliamentary victory, so there's no reason why something similar can't be used while for the reasons listed above, describing it as a 'British Victory' is misleading.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:45, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this issue could easily be resolved by changing it to "British Government victory". It was the government of Britain who won.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrites of the Background and Additional

I've been doing some non Wikipedia work on the Glorious Revolution in Scotland, which takes account of developments both before and after (eg Jacobites etc), which means I'm looking at this as a whole and so I see it slightly differently from doing separate articles.

Background; I think this is both over detailed in what it covers and also misses out large parts of vital context; so we have considerable detail on English political changes but no reference to the ejection of the Stuarts from France after the treaty of Utrecht, the relevance of developments in Scotland and Ireland during the period - it essentially jumps into 1743 but with no mention of the political developments affecting the Jacobite cause in that era. That matters because in 1714, the throne was James III's for the asking if he'd turned Protestant but the failure of the 45 was because 30 years later, there was almost no real support in England (apart form the romantic 'King over the water' stuff) and it's almost impossible to understand why that was so based on this article as written. In addition, it undersells the boldness of Charles' plan because it omits how French policy towards the Stuarts changed between 1715 and 1745.

So the context needs to be expanded but then we have huge amounts of detail on the back and forth of the negotiations - for example, more detailed than the coverage it receives in Jacqueline Ridings recent book 'Jacobites.' I'm not suggesting removing but simply tightening this section up and adding in the political developments - otherwise, it's almost impossibly long.

I don't see that the article is too long, but I am all for you adding the additional information you have detailed above. Please discuss any particular sourced information that you do not feel is necessary. Also, please do not remove any important links, for example like the link to the English Jacobite Manchester Regiment that you removed in your last edits of the article. One other thing I should point out is that you need to learn how to write a proper reference. For example the reference should start with the author's surname, then christian name, the year of publication of the book in brackets, the title of the book in italics, and the page numbers. Also, the ISBN if available.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Expansion of later sections

I'd like to expand the Aftermath eg Retreat and Aftermath; unless there's any objection to that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robinvp11 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Please go ahead and expand that section but make sure it is properly referenced in the manner that I have explained above.QuintusPetillius (talk) 17:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Invasion of England

My objection to this article as written is that it provides massive detail in certain areas, while missing out important ones like the tactical situation; there is not a single reference in this entire section as to what the Government was doing. For example, missing out the entire tactical background in favour of long lists of muskets and powder.

First paragraph; No mention of why their invasion wasn't opposed (ithe split columns), why Murray chose Carlisle, when the assumption was they'd miss it out, the Jacobites did not besiege Carlisle (they sat outside it because they did not have enough siege equipment and the town councillors panicked) and how does the terms of the garrison's surrender add to this discussion?

Second paragraph; this misleads because the dates are wrong. Saying Lord Derby abandoned Manchester on 23rd, then announcing Preston on 26th. Preston, then Manchester; that's the timeline.

The rest of it; most of the remaining four paragraphs is a detailed recital of the conversations in Derby (and Dudley Bradstreet was not English nor an employee of the 'English government' and he is the only source for Charles' alleged comment, which would be worth putting in). My edits essentially summarized the key points and added others that were left out (ike the fact this topic had been raised at Edinburgh, Carlisle, then Preston, then Manchester, the decisions' disastrous impact on the relationship between Charles and George Murray, why Charles wanted to keep going and his Scottish officers didn't - all of which are way more important then 17 lines n exactly who said in what order) in about a third of the verbiage.

Clearly the author ran out of interest, which why the article was left like this; I can see why because frankly I get bored reading it.

I'm trying to make this article better, update it to include stuff from recent works like those by Jacqueline Riding and Trevor Royle - I even include references to original documents that I read online like Lord Elcho's Memoirs all of which have now been removed Robinvp11 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Just go ahead and edit. But please take into consideration what I have already mentioned and make sure that it is properly referenced: no references to original historical documents which violates: Wikipedia:No original research. Ideally you should have a reference for each sentence and not just each paragraph. You should be quoting from published books, and, if those books are available online then verifiable links should be made to them online.For example, many books out of the 100 year copyright period are available through the Internet Archive: [1]. Likewise, many modern books can be accessed through Google Books: [2]. What you add will surely not be any worse than how the "Defeat" section is at present. QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'll get started on thisRobinvp11 (talk) 16:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Background Segment

Does anyone mind if I edit the Background so that it fits in with the other sections that I've updated? Is there a protocol for that?

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't mind as long as it is equally well sourced as the existing Background segment. By the way did you mention previously that you wanted to create an article for the Jacobite rising of 1689 ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Failed verification tag in Aftermath section

The article content that cites Clanship to Crofters' War does not match the content of this book. It does not help that the page number given in the article reference (p 118) appears to be a typo, as this just takes you to the last page of the references at the end of a chapter - and most of that is blank space. Hence it is a little difficult to work out the intent of the original editor.

Whilst it is right that the collapse of the clan system started before the '45, Devine attributes it to commercial factors, the elimination of the tacksmen from the social system (originating with the Duke of Argyll's actions from the 1730s) and the much earlier actions of JamesVI, with the Statutes of Iona. (I suspect that my summary of Devine's account of the demise of clanship is incomplete: a big chunk of this referenced book covers the subject.) However, it seems wrong to state that the decline of the clan system was due to "...crop failures, disease, and economic downturn."
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Devine's central argument is that economic (or commercial) changes loosened the links between the chiefs and their clansmen; those were a combination of a decline in the economic value of the traditional methods of managing Highland properties (ie crop failures, depopulation caused by the effects of the wars, particularly disease) and increasing profits elsewhere. The overall impact was to reduce the value of clansmen tenants and changing from a largely barter economy in favour of commercialised rents and farming; in that context, the elimination of the tacks men is more effect than cause. I think describing my original comment as 'not matching the content of the book' is overstating the case but I'll change it.

As below, I'm happy to address specific issues so let me know if you have others. I will remain polite, assume good intent and be open to corrections - I'd appreciate the same in return.

Robinvp11 (talk) 00:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Thank you for raising this issue. I am suspicious that the said editor may not be including information in the article that is as per source. He does not quote many sources, sometimes having one source per paragraph and in many cases having whole paragraphs that are completely unsourced. He claims to have a PHD, but that counts for nothing when it comes to the community of Wikipedia.QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Looking into this further, the problem text arrived here[3], and the reference seems to be messed up. There is an additional page number (272), for a book that only has 258 pages! I had originally hoped that this was an error that would reveal the original intent - instead I don't know what it indicates. Regarding your point about the PhD - surely if that is relied upon for edits it is an open and shut case of contravening WP:NPOV.

It might also be relevant to say that the originating editor presumably does not have this article on their watchlist - they have been quite active on Wikipedia since I added the tag, but as we can all see, there has been no attempt to address the matter raised.

I also note that many of the edits by this user in other articles are marked as minor edits, but it is easy to find examples[4][5] where that seems to be a questionable categorisation.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, there seems to be quite a lot that is not written from a neutral point of view. I also have my suspicions that the editor could be a SockPuppet of a previous banned user, but to trawl through all the backlogs to make a case is another thing.QuintusPetillius (talk) 21:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this is the fourth time a reference has been made to my PHD, which I raised once only to request Quintus cease treating me as a slightly backward schoolboy who'd never studied history before. And if you're interested, its in Alsace-Lorraine 1870-1914, has ZERO application to this topic and is in no sense whatsoever being relied upon to validate anything in this article. Which would be really stupid. I could speculate as to why you keep raising it but clearly not my issue.

Again, you've used the 'sock puppet' accusation on a number of occasions. No doubt you're really busy so let me assure you I am not a 'previous banned user.' Either do the work of 'trawling through the logs' and confirming your suspicions or stop accusing me of being one. That doesn't seem unreasonable.

'...there seems to be quite a lot that is not written from a neutral point of view.' I'm more than happy to correct or debate specific points; so why don't you raise them?

'In many cases having whole paragraphs that are completely unsourced;' well, I'll take the Pepsi test on providing sources but again, tell me which ones you'd like additional sources for?

Re the specific issue raised here; one of the challenges of providing sources is that the page numbering varies between Kindle and print, plus while I'd love to buy every book I refer to, sometimes you have to rely on Google books which again numbers differently. So I will check.

I freely admit that I'm not clear on what constitutes 'minor edit' so point noted but I've been actively discouraged from asking an experienced editor for help when I'm not sure because so far my experience with Quintus has been wholly negative, even when I've tried to take responsibility for errors and to assume good intent (have a look at other threads if you'd like to contest that).

I don't have these pages on 'Watch' because nearly every single comment I've had previously on this and others is not on facts but this sort of petty five year old school playground stuff and I can't afford the time. Case in point; valid point on the reference but rather than correcting it, I've wasted 30 minutes and a lot of emotion on this.

I've put a lot of work into various pages because I'm genuinely interested in the topic; what exactly is your objective? Why are we wasting so much time and energy on this? How does that help Wikipedia?

Why don't you either put up ie tell me what exactly what points you disagree with and why or shut up ie treat me as a colleague rather than an opponent?

Robinvp11 (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the world of Wikipedia - it can be a bruising place, as many editors have found. This remark is meant to be helpful - I know it will sound otherwise. When you think other editors are being mean or childish, you need to have in mind some of the stuff they have had to put up with. Most recently I have been exposed to a rogue editor who was a "sock" (that's short for "sock puppet", someone who uses an additional identity to hide who they are) - it was a complete nightmare, he was twice banned by a supervisor after a lengthy struggle from me and others to explain why he was rogue. (Without close involvement in that drama, I guess it would be hard for you to understand what it was like.) The point is, this is why you will find people who are touchy about the behaviour of editors who act in a way that might raise suspicion.

This all originates from your understanding of Clanship to Crofters' War, versus the read I put on the book. I have a copy of it beside me now - I do not have an electronic copy of it. (It's not available on Kindle, nor as far as I can tell, on Google books.) Therefore I do not quite follow your answer with regard to the original problem. As far as I can determine, there is only one version of this book, in a hardback and a paperback edition - but I would be surprised if the page numbers differ. If you wish to substantiate the view (in the article) of why the clan system collapsed, you're going to have to spell out exactly what material in the cited work you have relied upon. If need be, you will have to go by chapter numbers and some measure of how far through the chapter one needs to read. In refuting the view that you have put in the article, I would immediately point to the beginning of chapter 3, "The Transformation of Gaeldom". The first two paragraphs of this chapter are full of words like "commercialisation", "commerce", "commodities", etc. I would also point you to chapter 1, section III, where there is an extensive discussion of the roots of the demise of clanship, going back to the Statutes of Iona in 1609. To my mind, Devine's main thrust in this book is that clanship declined due to political forces working to reduce its influence and economic forces which incentivised clan leaders to adopt a new (economic) model. (There is the point that clans always operated as economic systems to some degree.) Of these two, economic forces seem to be the major influencer. (I note that Devine's career as a historian was probably made by his analysis of the Highland Potato Famine - wherein he used a lot of detailed analysis, almost a "forensic accounting approach" to history. That suggests that he might give undue weight to economic factors, but his views do seem to be accepted by others - see the preface to the later edition of "the Creation of the Crofting Community" (James Hunter) for a reasonable assessment of the historiography.)

If you think Devine has made the point that "The clan system had been in decline even before Culloden due to crop failures, disease, and economic downturn." you are going to have to be pretty precise about where exactly he has said this, because I can't find it.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, welcome to the world of Wikipedia; first, what a depressing statement to make and second that's not an excuse here. If you look at previous threads with this specific editor, I've tried hard to be positive, not take offence the first couple of times and comply with requested changes. This isn't the Wikipedia page on Israel v Palestine but an article that hasn't changed in years, even QP agreed was 'Poor' and I asked if I could edit.

Despite my PHD (Warning - Joke) I'm not psychic; I've received zero feedback until now. If people disagree with statements or as here want corrections to sources, tell me. I can't figure it out otherwise.

Every action is a reaction; the issue of new editors being put off by the negative attitudes of existing ones is a well documented reality that Jimmy Wales himself has identified as a key threat to the future of Wikipedia. I've avoided escalation, bit my lip, let various snide insults go and I thought we'd reached a mutual accommodation. Apparently not since this is the first piece of feedback I've received in four months of doing a lot of work; it's hard to lower the temperature when the page editor keeps twisting the heat control higher. How would you interpret or respond to this statement;

Thank you for raising this issue. I am suspicious that the said editor may not be including information in the article that is as per source. He does not quote many sources, sometimes having one source per paragraph and in many cases having whole paragraphs that are completely unsourced. He claims to have a PHD, but that counts for nothing when it comes to the community of Wikipedia

If I didn't know better, I'd say the continual reference to a PHD I mentioned once in relation to an entirely different issue stems from insecurity but I'm not a psychiatrist.

He does not quote many source; seriously? Ok, I'll happily compare the number and range provided either with the original article or any other. I've spent a lot of time chasing down sources because I'm interested in the topic; when you provide 76 separate references, the occaisional mistake happens and I'm happy to correct it but the implication this article is less well-sourced than previous versions (unsourced paragraphs, lack of neutrality etc) makes me spit my cornflakes because it is utterly untrue.

I didn't research this specific query because I first had to waste time dealing with the personalised invective that appears to be the default setting. My bad - the reference to page numbers doesn't apply here but does elsewhere.

The issue is differentiating between a general trend and specific page quotes; yes, Devine's argument is primarily commercial but commercial drivers are both negative and positive. Negative ones are arguably more important in terms of loosening the ties of clanship hence my reference to the hungry 90s, crop failure, disease etc and because opposition to the perceived economic impact of Union was a key driver for Jacobites in 1745.

Its a stretch to claim the original reference bears no relation to Devine's thesis but fair point on the direct quote so I've changed it; however I'm not in the habit of making stuff up and I want that on record.

Correcting statements of fact and references - no problem, any help gratefully received because I'm not perfect and Wikipedia is a collaborative environment. I've spent time on this because I don't want this to resurface; it's a subject I'm interested in and I'm going to continue interacting with the editors. I pick topics I know of but not much about so I research as I go and try to avoid preconceived bias; I'm a grown up and its not unreasonable to request others behave in the same way

Robinvp11 (talk) 07:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I note the change to the section on Aftermath - thanks for this and it does help to have page numbers on a ref. Looking at this section again now, I note that Roy's survey is described as an "Ordnance Survey" - I've made a small change to the text there.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

'In many cases having whole paragraphs that are completely unsourced;' well, I'll take the Pepsi test on providing sources but again, tell me which ones you'd like additional sources for? - and the answer is - all of them that are currently unsourced. Ideally each sentence should be sourced in the article body, not just each paragraph, let alone having many paragraphs completely unnsourced. Since my last visit there have been some changes to the opening lines of the article that I had issue, with e.g the line about "Papal based invaders".QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Time spent answering and correcting specific factual issue raised by Thoughtidretired; ten minutes.

Time spent answering and correcting specific factual issues raised by Quintus; zero minutes.

Time spent dealing with non-specific personalised issues raised by Quintus; sixty minutes. I'm no expert but if it were me I'd be questioning the value of my editorial input.

Papal based invaders; I didn't write that but as I've frequently confirmed, I'm happy to correct or validate points you disagree with. To assist that process, I even posted my suggested rewrites on this Talk page, asked for input and the only feedback I've had from you is gleefully jumping on someone's else's input. Just a thought but have you considered the faint possibility I might not be the problem here?

Ideally each sentence should be sourced in the article body Ideally = classic copout. If that's the standard you should be taking down 99% of Wikipedia articles, including the original version of this which apparently you were happy with for years and told me was 'well-sourced.'

I've had various articles reviewed; so far I've been asked for two additional citations, which I've provided. It's possible you're correct and everyone else is wrong but the balance of probabilities is against it.

...let alone having many paragraphs completely unsourced. Looking at this article, specifically which paragraphs are 'completely unsourced?' I can see one, which is a summary of Scott's novel Waverley; other than linking to the Wikipedia page (which I've done), I'm not sure what you want a reference to or how that would improve it.

I've been extremely polite under the circumstances and I've stopped trying to figure out why you're so hostile since its clearly not my problem but I will happily submit our previous discussions to mediation if you like. I refuse to stop doing something I find interesting and where I believe I'm adding value simply because you can't admit fault. I can insist you stop hiding personal animus behind generalised statements and back them up. So;

(a) Either 'trawl through the logs' and prove me to be a liar; or stop using the Trump method of claiming I'm probably a previously banned user' or 'sock puppet without any actual proof (an apology would be nice but I'll try solving world hunger before attempting to get you to do that);

(b) I'll provide references or corrections for specific points, not some vague 'all of them' statement. I'm happy for the articles to be reviewed by a third party if you like.

Otherwise, Wikipedia is for everyone, not just the editors; I have significantly improved the articles I've worked on (you disagreeing with what I've written doesn't change that) and I'm not wasting time on any more of these pointless conversations.

Solution; I'll keep writing, answer or correct specific queries while you can keep telling yourself how no one appreciates you and we'll both be happy. Result.

Robinvp11 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The idea is we should be improving the standard of Wikipedia articles.Yes, there are many that lack sources, but that is not a good thing. Take note of Wikipedia:GLAM/Beginner's guide to Wikipedia#Your first articles which clearly states: "6. Start writing the body, based only on what is in the sources you have, and provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go.." (That is the beginner's guide to editing). Also take note of Wikipedia:Tutorial/Citing sources which clearly states that ".... statements added to existing articles may be deleted by others if unreferenced....".QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I've done my best to let stuff go and reset this relationship several times but as I've previously observed even then you can't resist snide digs. I assume I wasn't supposed to have seen this thread; no doubt there are others. I don't need a response or your good opinion but it's a topic I enjoy learning about, I'm going to keep editing and I'm not having this conversation again.

If you want to use Wikipedia guidelines to beat me over the head, it's reasonable to ask you do the same. I'm not sure why I need to remind an experienced editor of this but let me refer you to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, specifically the need to assume good faith and the distinction between Conduct and Content disputes.

It also seems foolhardy to accuse me of manipulating sources and do the same yourself; one small positive is I am now throughly acquainted with editing protocols and being generous, you've used extremely selective quotes from what Wikipedia:Citing sources actually says.

Any editor can remove unsupported statements and unsubstantiated articles may be deleted. Pretty unsubtle and the page where that appears says these are neither policies or guidelines so I'm not sure how that works but ok by me.

Whole paragraphs unsourced; I'm struggling to find exactly where that's stated as a requirement but again I have no major objection.

Provide an inline citation for each sentence as you go. Interpreting that as every single sentence needs an inline citation is patently absurd; Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. Not the same thing or anywhere near it.

I fully support better sourcing because recycling old prejudices without proof is one of the weaknesses of Wikipedia; compare the original version of this article (which you described as 'well-sourced') to the current one or indeed any that I've worked on. Or this page on Jacobitism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobitism; it's about the same length, has a total of 16 separate references (versus 76) and I stopped counting completely unsourced paragraphs once I got past 15.

That needs improving (which is why I was looking at it) but the editor has handled it by reading it and putting flags up, not saying nothing. Accusing me of 'lacking neutrality' without challenging anything I've written and when I've even put drafts on the Talk page before publishing it is the Boris Johnson approach of liking to eat cake and also having it. I've asked repeatedly that you tell me exactly what you'd like 'corrected' or 'sourced;' 'All of it' isn't an answer.

This entire thread originated in a query raised by someone else which I corrected without argument and we have thus improved the article; that's collaboration. Wikipedia uses Graham's hierarchy which categorises the lowest level as Ad Hominem, defined as 'attacking the characteristics and authority of the author.' Which is a good description of this discussion; when and if you'd like to move up the pyramid into the green levels (or even the grey), let me know.

Robinvp11 (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

You are ignoring the points that have been made perfectly clear to you and talking like an immature child. (Until now I have not made this personal but seen as you seem to be obsessed with saying that is all I do then I thought I should let you know). Yes, when the beginner's guide to editing Wikipedia says that you have to add a citation for each sentence, it means every sentence and that is exactly how it should be interpreted. The way you have left the article so lightly sourced that it warrants a Tag to be added to the article for a lack of sources as well as a large number of "citation needed" points. The result of that is that it could all be reverted back to the original version from before you started editing it, especially as another editor has already confirmed that you have added a false reference. I am not saying that the original version was much better sourced, but it was written by a reliable editor who has not been found at fault. All I am trying to do is make sure that the articles are kept to a good standard.QuintusPetillius (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to take your 'points' on board but I'm not sure what they are. So far all you've done is to accuse me of being a sock puppet on four different occasions, lacking neutrality (without proving an example), failing to provide sources (without specifying which ones require it) and generally being a crap editor. Until you do that it's not unreasonable for me to ascribe your actions as 'personal.'

...citation for each sentence, it means every sentence and that is exactly how it should be interpreted.'

Interesting to discover you consider your interpretation to be more binding than the guidelines provided by Wikipedia but ok. Please help me improve this article by;

(a) Providing one or two examples of articles for which you act as editor and consider satisfactory in terms of (a) having an attributed source for every single sentence and (b) are not 'lightly sourced.' I'll use them as a template.

(b) Identifying and tagging points that require additional verification or sources.

I've now asked you to do that on more than seven different occasions.

In the interests of both Wikipedia and ourselves, I'm happy to submit this entire conversation to Mediation and have a third party review this article. Please let me know if you'd like me to do that and I'll set it up.

Robinvp11 (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

(a) Two articles, both of which were started by me, and written in their entirety by me, but which other editors have made minor adjustments to over the course of time: Independent Highland Companies and Sutherland of Killipheder. You do not need inline citations for the opening lines of the articles but do for each sentence of the article body. The opening lines should however be reflected in the article body. (b) I will Tag the article in due course if no improvement is made regarding sources in good time. You said: "In the interests of both Wikipedia and ourselves, I'm happy to submit this entire conversation to Mediation and have a third party review this article. Please let me know if you'd like me to do that and I'll set it up". As if I can trust you to do that! QuintusPetillius (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that - very useful. I realise you've invested a lot of effort and I'm almost sure you're got better things to do so I want to maximise your investment of time and energy.

He does not quote many sources, sometimes having one source per paragraph; my article (which does not quote many sources) has 76 separate references from 33 different sources. The one on Highland Companies has 78 references from 6 sources, over 60 of which are from one specific source ie Peter Simpson. (The Sutherland article is really too short to be a fair comparison).

Based on that comparison, I'm not clear as to what qualifies as enough sources or why yours on Companies passes that test but this doesn't. If you can clarify what I need to do to correct that criticism ie 'he does not quote many sources' I will do my best.

As if I can trust you to do that! That comment seems odd as you've previously assured me this isn't personal and that your only motive is improving Wikipedia (indeed, pointing out that thinking otherwise makes me an 'immature child') but no problem. I'm happy for you to request Mediation; please do so on our behalf.

In terms of third party review, how about the individual you thanked for raising the query on this reference; they're a Wikipedia expert on the use of sources and have written an extensive policy essay on the topic (which I've read - curiously, there are a number of variances from what you've told me repeatedly is Wikipedia policy). I'm comfortable with them addressing the specific issue of sources and I assume you must be as well. Why don't you ask them to review this article and I'll make any changes they request. Simple.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

In terms of my saying you do not quote enough sources, I'm afraid that you appear to have mis-interpreted it. I do not mean the number of separate sources, but the number of sentences that you have written that are completely unsourced and do not have an inline citation. Sure the greater variety of sources you use is good, but you can use the same source, i.e different pages from the same book, many times in the same article as well. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

There still seem to be significant sourcing problems here. I just noted an assertion "the castle defences were in poor condition and manned only by 80 elderly veterans but it should have been held since the Scots had minimal siege equipment". Should have been: this is phrased as opinion, yet is unsourced. Similarly "is unlikely to have changed the result" re. Culloden. This is a particular concern as the article seems to have been gutted of a large amount of mostly useful, referenced material over the past few months in the name of 'clarity'.

Note also that while Duffy is a principal source, his most recent assessment of the viability of the invasion is quite different to that ascribed to "most historians" here, which paints failure as inevitable.Svejk74 (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

'Superior government forces' in lead section

I note my edit in the lead to clarify that the Jacobites retreated because of the number of troops ("superior numbers") they believed to be in the field against them has been (silently) reverted as part of this morning's editing.

Stating that the Jacobites were forced to retreat because of "superior government forces" makes it sound rather like they were physically driven back by better quality government troops.

I'm not sure what the intent of the edit was, but one of the main reasons for the retreat was the belief of Jacobite commanders that they were outnumbered, possibly encouraged in this belief by a government agent who exaggerated the numbers in the field against them (as detailed in Duffy, Fight for a Throne etc). It may be that this is the sense intended but as in several other cases I've seen on this page the desire to cut the wordcount is introducing ambiguity. Perhaps another wording can be found before I start re-editing?Svejk74 (talk) 08:14, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I wasn't aware I'd done that without noting it. I find it quicker to write stuff and then make changes rather than discussing theoretical edits, so if I seem to be ignoring, its not intentional.

I personally don't think 'superior forces' has the meaning ascribed - it's common in the military and this is the lead paragraph; how about outnumbered? I'll make the change and if you still think it needs clarifying, please do so.

Re the 'government agent stuff' or 'That man will ruin me;' I wanted to explain that a bit more. Its often mentioned eg Jacqueline Riding says it is 'suggested' someone 'allegedly' arrived late in the evening (ie after the decision had been taken) with news of Ligonier's force of 8,000' but I've yet to find a (reputable) historian who suggests it had any bearing on the decision to retreat - Murray had already prepared the orders. There's no evidence at all he burst into the Council as he describes. The only contemporary source is the individual concerned, when suggesting the government might want to reward him.

The Jacobites had not received a single recruit from the English nobility; that absence was a significant factor in their decision. So his appearance would have been mentioned but it doesn't appear in any of the Jacobite accounts of the Council (Lord Elcho, Murray - or even that of the Chevalier Johnstone, leading exponent of the 'Black Friday' panic story).

This matters because it is crucial to understanding why the 45 was both the most successful but last Jacobite rising because the Scots no longer trusted Charles.

I know I also changed the English support - it may seem overly detailed but English support didn't 'stay quiet,' it had evaporated. That matters because it demonstrated how out of date Charles was in his attitudes (divine right) and assessments (all the soldiers will react like when Napoleon returned from Elba). Another reason for why 45 was the last.

I appreciate your help - even if we don't agree, understanding why we don't agree helps improve the article which is the purpose of Wikipedia. If there's anything you'd like to clarify, I'm happy to do so.

Robinvp11 (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for responding.

'Outnumbered' sounds good; whatever sounds best. I realise that 'superior forces' is standard in military terminology

but I think we need a little more clarity to establish the key sense that the Jacobites turned back without engaging the forces ahead of them, partly as they believed those forces were larger.

The 'agent' angle is fleshed out somewhat in the 2015 book by Duffy (who I think counts as a reputable historian), although his overall conclusion is that the differing aims of the leadership were a bigger factor in the decision to retreat.Svejk74 (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I think the existence of an agent is generally accepted but not that it had any influence on the decision-making process; I envisage a mid-18th century version of Donald Trump with a more obvious wig. :)

If anyone resembling an English noble had been anywhere near Derby, Charles would have broadcast it all over the place. And logically, if I was Cumberland sending an agent to Jacobite HQ, I'd have got them to say the road to London is wide open lads, everyone's just waiting to cheer you. That being the worst choice for the Jacobites (per the Duke of Richmond).

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Bits needing expansion in future

Other than your proposed additions on "that man will ruin me", I think one thing the article still needs, assuming a readership new to the subject, is a very brief explanation of why the Stuarts still commanded a degree of support in 1745 from Highland landowners in particular, giving Charles the nucleus of an army (albeit one much expanded with northeastern Episcopalians).Svejk74 (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Fair point; Szechi & Sankey's 'Elite Culture and the Decline of Scottish Jacobitism 1716-1745,' claims Non-Juring Episcopalianism is the single greatest predictor of Jacobite engagement in 1745. The problem is the more you look at it (eg the general WTF? from the Scots when Charles turned up on Eriskay), explaining why it happened at all is harder than explaining why it failed. So keeping it clear but not running down too many rabbit holes needs some thought.

I want to make sure its consistent with the article on Jacobitism, which is pretty good but needs clearer structure and sourcing. I'll come up with something and then you can take a look.

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

IIRC a few of those who (in some cases literally) dragged their tenantry into it at the early 'WTF?' stage, e.g. Keppoch, had contacts with the exiled court, or as the article currently hints were largely following Locheil's lead. A few were Catholics but not all by any means. I'm sure their motives can't just have been Stuart loyalty though, there must have been more to it than that.

Their presence requires explanation, I think, as without them the thing would have gone no further than Glenfinnan. Svejk74 (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

See restructure - let me know what you think.

Btw :) - I've never bought into the 'Stuart loyalty' line. Charles I only visited Scotland three times; Charles II never forgave the Scots for 1651. The terrible tragedy of James was how bloody English he was - Louis having to point out how inappropriate it was for him to be watching with his French supporters at La Hogue in 1692 and dancing in joy as 'his' English navy destroyed the French and his hopes of an invasion.

One or two (like Murray or Lochiel) were genuine but in general the Highland chiefs liked being left alone. I read an article that says the reason Lochiel and the Camerons were so influential was because unlike the larger clans which were spread out and often feuded among themselves (enemy of my enemy etc), they controlled a solid bloc of territory, could mobilise far quicker and thus had an impact far greater than their actual numbers. Duncan Forbes said 'keep Lochiel away from the Prince because his heart will rule his head.'

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, loyalty in the sense depicted by Victorian historiography wasn't really an issue. The matter of the 'clans' was mostly, I suppose, about the preservation of old patterns of local power based on a remnant quasi-feudal tenure.Svejk74 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes and Content

I'm a little concerned the Footnotes are growing like weeds and perhaps reflect a compromise between different (and entirely valid) perceptions versus what users need. Some of this also reflects a lack of coverage in the main article on Jacobitism. Actions;

(1)I'll look at Jacobism and suggest what content might be moved and discussed in more detail there.

(2) Can we rationalise the footnotes; my suggestions for removal (including a number of my own :)); b, c, d, e, f, g, h, n.

Thoughts?

Robinvp11 (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The Jacobitism article does need a lot of work. Some of the background material would help it - though I think everything on the immediate pre 45 background and context, international and domestic, very substantially adds to the value of the 1745 article.

As far as the footnotes go I would get rid of b, c, d, and e; f seems to be an important point (possibly important enough for the main body of the article); g could go, though more on that in a second; I would defend h as I think most people would naturally want to know who the 'Council' was after several mentions of it; n could go, I'd also add o, perhaps reinforcing the point in the body of the article.

In reality I think there are actually a couple of extra separate articles in all this. Footnote 'g' reminds me we could do with one on the 'Highland Army' itself, which could detail its composition, tactics and recruiting methods (eg the observation that numbers of rebels had been brought out by force, through paid substitution or that Malt Tax opposition was a powerful recruiting tool amongst farmers) and perhaps another on the changing historical and cultural presentation of the 45.

I would add that there are still parts of the main article that could do with a bit of expansion. The 'aftermath' should note that from a French strategic perspective the Rising was pretty successful since it facilitated a string of Saxe's victories at very little cost: job done. By way of balance the inevitable 'in popular culture' section could be hived off to its own article (where it could be joined by more serious and useful material on Victorian and later interpretations and their deployment in the service of various conceptions of national identity).

Svejk74 (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Totally agree with these points - new articles are better than too much in one. One of my (many) hobby horses is editors don't think about the User experience. We design e-learning and 'bite-sized' is a well-known concept that increases use. Additional content undermines that and while I enjoy the research, my obsessive editing is to maximise use.

I've removed the footnotes we both agree on but left those where there's a query to remind me to incorporate them elsewhere.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Unionism

I think it's important to remember that the anti-Union Scottish element in 1745 had no particular issue with proposals for a Stuart 'personal' Union. While their priorities were different to those of Charles (hence Derby) I'd disagree with the suggestion that they were fundamentally opposed. I realise that some commentators in recent years have chosen to depict the Rising as a fundamentally proto-Nationalist project but that is I think an argument as much of its time as much as the Victorian myth of the doomed, loyal clansmen was.

Irish Jacobitism is even more of an unknown quantity...partly as several generations of historians there were concerned to downplay its Jacobite elements and partly as a focus on only English-language sources led to a misapprehension that popular support for Jacobitism evaporated by 1700.Svejk74 (talk) 07:57, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine with the edits and its an esoteric point but I'd argue Charles and his Scots supporters were indeed fundamentally divided on Union; one of the misconceptions about Union was that every single previous attempt between 1603 - 1690 was Scots-inspired (Bruce Lenman could only make his 'Bloody English' thing work by simply leaving out the Covenanter-inspired Second and Third 'English' Civil Wars). Anne viewed the achievement of Union as proving her legitimacy by carrying out what James I tried to do and her grandfather died for. The November Council demonstrated the Scots view Charles should become King of Scotland and not bother with England, otherwise what was the purpose of the Rising?

It matters because the implausibility of such a scenario became blindingly obvious, even during the Rebellion and for me, that's the real outcome of the 45. Not the end of the Stuarts, because they were done long before, a miracle Charles got as far as he did - but the acceptance of Union.

There is a reference to Irish Jacobitism post 1745 elsewhere in the Aftermath section - I come from a mixed family in Belfast and the motives of the United Irishmen are not well understood, nor is the complexity of the Irish Jacobite make-up even pre-1700.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:12, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't read Irish, but I believe Ó Buachalla's Aisling Ghear has a huge amount of useful material in it. Éamonn Ó Ciardha's book is a good one.

I suppose my feeling on the Union is that Charles and Murray et al were no doubt aware of their differences but did not see them as insurmountable - there had been plenty of fudges before, after all. Charles also did seem to be willing to undertake the sort of bridge-building exercises his father was temprementally incapable of. Whether Charles would have maintained this attitude if the Rebellion had succeeded in triggering a French-backed civil war in England (which I'd suggest was their 'best' possible outcome, rather than a triumphal entry into the capital) is another matter.Svejk74 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

We'll just have to disagree on that :) because I don't think the literature supports the 'Charles as bridge-builder' view; he didn't care about religion as much as his dad but thats different. The Princes Council was established in September precisely because Charles expected everyone to shut up and do what their King told them, the first accusation Murray was a traitor happened before they left Perth. The differences between the Scots and Charles were not simply about the Union and far too divergent to be fudged. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree only partly as I think Charles's Declaration of early October was a definite 'bridge-building' exercise particularly regarding what it calls the "pretended Union". It may not have represented Charles's personal opinion and certainly not that of James but was a concession. The depiction of Charles as an autocrat fixated entirely on regaining the united crown comes mainly from the diary of Elcho, who despised the Irish and had his own axe to grind (I think he said Charles was happy to treat the Scots as his "slaves").

Religion might have been more of a problem as I doubt non-juring piskies would have been disposed towards tolerance for Dissenters, in the unlikely event they got back into a position of power :) Svejk74 (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Well...I personally don't see the October declaration as anything other than a temporary concession; neither did the Scots. 'Charles as autocrat' was not based mainly on Elcho; there are numerous references from others, including the Marquis d'Eguilles. Both these concerns matter because they were a huge factor; the loss of Elizabeth on the way out with its 700 Irish professionals changed the dynamic completely and if you read the various back and forth, the Scots were extremely anxious to ensure the French sent Scottish regulars in future.

I've added a new section below, can you take a look please. Robinvp11 (talk) 07:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

btw, I don't think the impact on the Scots of the presence of Irish troops (even the 300 odd in 1689) is really appreciated. Charles' preference for his Irish advisors was yet another reason why his campaign was doomed from the moment he landed. And if he'd turned up with the 700 on Elizabeth as planned, I personally doubt he would have got further than Perth because the Scots hated the Irish more than the Union. My (Catholic) Northern Irish mother owned "And No Quarter' by Maurice Walsh a highly sanitised perspective of Montrose's 1644-1645 Highland campaign from the perspective of its Irish participants. 300 years later, in 1956, when working near Inverness in the Highlands, my (Protestant) Irish father and a friend went into a pub and were told by the owner 'We don't serve murdering, thieving Irish here;' he specifically referenced Montrose's campaign. Imagine how the Scots felt in 1745. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes the presence of the Irish would have been a problem - it is easy to forget that Aberdeen and Kilsyth were only only a century earlier.

Some of my own family were northern Catholics so I understand how these things retain a sort of emotional existence, at a collective level .Svejk74 (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Welsh Jacobitism

Once again I think we've improved this - I really hadn't given this area much thought (neither have most others eg Monod 'Jacobitism and the English People, 1688-1788).

I hate removing references but I don't think Murray is accurately reflecting the reality and Watkyn escaped prosecution because unlike many others, including the Duke of Beaufort, he never wrote anything down, so I'm sceptical of the source. I've found Murray has to be read with care :).

I think we can expand on this area when I update the main article on Jacobitism; not saying we shouldn't include Murray's perspective but I don't think his conclusions on Watkyn or the reasons for 'Jacobite riots' are correct (doesn't appear in other Sources).

Robinvp11 (talk) 09:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite a few southern squires getting involved, Welsh Jacobitism was very much based in the north-east, i.e. Denbighshire, and like so much else was a hangover of Civil War politics. W W-W's local town, Wrexham, was an island of Parliamentarian supporters (mainly religious Independents from the town's mercantile class) in the middle of a rural area with an unusually large number of strongly Royalist small gentry. It was in that sense the frontline of an ideological clash, heightened as it sat on the roads towards the Irish Sea ports. After 1688 the Stuart interest locally was headed by Griffith Jeffreys (yes, he was a near relation of the judge) and Wynn later took over the role.

W W-W's main interest was consolidating his grip on local politics, which he did very effectively, against the Middletons of Chirk. As part of this he was quite happy to 'encourage' (i.e. probably actively organise) rioting and intimidation, most famously when a lot of (his) miners ran amok in the town at George I's accession; the town also had its own Sacheverell riots in 1710. Jacobitism was I think for Wynn a matter of patronage and local networks of influence. And yes, he never put anything in writing, with the exception of that much debated and carefully worded message that supposedly arrived that Derby, although marching via Denbighshire was one option apparently considered by the Council.

The one thing to recall about Wynn is that unlike many English gentry he could, to an extent, draw on a pool of manpower and had demonstrated it in the past, which is probably why the government kept an eye on him. Part of the problem is that most of the material on Welsh Jacobites is contained in studies on Welsh politics rather than on Jacobitism (such as Garner-Thomas's Politics in Eighteenth Century Wales).

As far as the issue of rioting before and indeed after 45 and what Pittock calls the 'carnival' aspect of English Jacobitism (i.e. popular Jacobitism rather than that of the gentry and above) goes this would certainly be worth discussing in the wider Jacobitism article, if we are not going to here. There are a range of facets to it and what we perhaps need to avoid is the sort of thing whereby Google currently answers the question 'who were the Jacobites' with 'the Jacobites were mainly Scottish' (I paraphrase here). (The 'Highland Army' was mainly if not wholly Scottish, as well as only partly Highland, but that's another matter).Svejk74 (talk) 12:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to the above but the NGS has digitised a superb portrait of Lord George Murray circa 1746.Svejk74 (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Monad says WW and his colliers was a Mayoral contest in 1733, not the Coronation - not me being picky (well, a little :)) but makes the point about an instrument of local politics. I read somewhere else that through his mother's descent from Llywelyn the Great he claimed to be the Welsh Stuart equivalent.

Do you know how to use this portrait of Lord George on Wikipedia? The current one is too young. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I've heard both 1733 and 1715 cited; there may be confusion of two incidents or more likely colliers from the rural hinterland were involved in both (they had a reputation for this sort of thing at the time). WW himself was only a young man in 1715 of course. I do recall that rioters in 1715 (which included some of the same men involved in 1710!) later said things along the lines of 'my boss made me do it' which does show there was an organised element. Wynn encouraged presentation of himself as the 'Prince of Wales' and was a paternalistic figure in the old Tory mould so the main thing to take away is that he could whip up popular sentiment easily; yet in 1745 - nothing.

The portrait is CC by NC, non commercial reproduction allowed, not sure where Wikipedia stands on that. This reminds me, I also have a miniature of O'Sullivan, reproduced in the 1894 neo-Jacobite journal The Royalist. Would be great to have an article on the Jacobite army illustrated with portraits of him and Murray, along with some of the Penicuik drawings (already digitised here). Svejk74 (talk) 14:44, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Just laid my hands on a souce for the George I accession riots. The Dissenting meeting houses got smashed up (again) followed by the miners continuing things for a fortnight, with the young WW being called on to 'use his influence with them' to stop it. There were demonstrations on the Pretender's birthday the next year - a Whig moving to the town was shocked to see his neighbours "impudently and in Publicke drink the Pretender's health", behaviour apparently designed to "awe and tyrranise over the lesser Gentry". My impression is WW exploited this atmosphere to the full, for his own reasons.Svejk74 (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

O'Sullivan

If you have time, this might be a good article to work on :). I've explained my thoughts on the Talk page - the bones are there but needs balance and rewording as a lot of it is not a neutral POV. I'm not sure I've got time but we can do the same thing as here, only roles reversed. And you can include that portrait :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 06:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I will have a look at. A comprensive article on the Jacobite Army is also in the pipeline.Svejk74 (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I've expanded the article on Williams-Wynn and I'm updating that on Jacobitism.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

All looks a great improvement, though I suspect Sir Watkin would have fiercely objected to the sentence "In common with other English Jacobites [...]" (!). Article on the Jacobite army in 1745 coming soon. Svejk74 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Changed it :). Robinvp11 (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Rewording suggestion

I wonder if "Divisions between the Scots and the Irish exiles became increasingly visible during the 1745 Rising and help explain why it was both the most successful and last Jacobite rebellion"

should be replaced by something like

"Divisions between the Scots and the Irish exiles became increasingly visible during the 1745 Rising and help explain why it was the last Jacobite rebellion, despite being the most successful"

...if that's the sense we mean anywaySvejk74 (talk) 14:07, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Fine by me, so I've put that change through, although I'm now challenging my own preconception on the monolithic nature of Irish Jacobitism :) I'd like to understand better why they never tried another landing in Ireland. There's an article in this somewhere.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Wars of Scottish Independence

Is anyone here interested in collaborating to revamp the Wars of Scottish Independence article and associated battle and personnel articles ? QuintusPetillius (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit before the period I'm interested in but I'm happy to work on a couple of the battles if that helps.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)