Talk:Turlough McHenry O'Neill

Change of citation style

Dear eminent wikipedian Lord Cornwallis. You are the creator of the article and the only person who has added citations (a single one) before I came along. That single citation reads "<ref>Casway, Jerrold. Owen Roe O'Neill and the Struggle for Catholic Ireland, pg. 60. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984.</ref>" and fixes the citation style to the category "inline citations using ref tags" (WP:FOOTCITE) and perhaps more precisely to the variant "not using templates". You are therefore the owner of the citation style. I would like to change the citation style to use short citations (WP:SFN) where "short" descriptions in the text using ({{Sfn}}) are combined with source descriptions using citation templates (e.g. {{Cite book}}) in a list of sources like in the recent FA Frederick the Great. I have in fact added such a citation, which demonstrates what I want to do. You can easily revert it. As prescribed in WP:CITEVAR, I formally ask your permission.

In hope of further good collaboration, with thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible deletion for lack of notability

@User:Lord Cornwallis (creator), @User:Mabuska (subject matter expert). As the article stands now, notability is not demonstrated. Turlough, father of the famous Sir Felim, was no peer, did not sit in parliament, has no monograph written on him, he did not even own the land around Kinard, which beloinged to his father. It is possible that the intended biographical subject was not Felim;'s father, but Turlough, 4th son of Shane O'Neill. As a fourth son he had no claim to his grandfather Conn O'Neill, 1st Earl of Tyrone's earldom. What do you think? With thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 20:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@User:Johannes Schade Thanks for the notification and the compliment :-) The article had the wrong name for a start so I moved it. Turlough as grandson of Hugh O'Neill was a member of the clan derbfine [those eligible for the kingship]. It consisted of three generations from one who had been chief, with the sons of a chiefs daughters having as much a claim as the eldest son of a chief. Hugh O'Neill had been chief of Tyrone, thus Turlough McHenry was an eligible successor in Gaelic law if he could muster enough support. In English law he was quite far down the line of succession for the earldom. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mabuska. Thanks for your intervention and especially for correcting the name and for explaining derbfine to me. I had seen that word being thrown around but had not understood until now. However, I would not think that being a member of the derbfine gives notability. With Hugh O'Neill, Earl of Tyrone having been married at least four times, there must have been a big number of people in his derbfine (which might also include his illegitimate children). It seems Shane O'Neill (Irish exile), called "El Conde de Tyrone", followed him as 3rd earl (ignoring the attainder). But who followed him as The O'Neill? Perhaps it does not matter. I still think notability is not demonstrated. With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

It also included illegitimate children. Why do you think there were so many dynastic wars in Gaelic culture with so many claimnants lol? Unofficial 3rd Earl as the title was forfeited with Hugh's attainder. I don't know who successed that Shane as The O'Neill, but it's now held by Portugese descendants of the Clandeboy branch according to this pdf on the Portugese O'Neill's. Ironically it was the British College of Arms they applied to and got granted their petition to be head of all the O'Neill's, not Gaelic law.

In regards to actual notability, there isn't much on this guy is there? He died in battle and was the father of the 1641 rebellion leader Phelim O'Neill and that seems to be it. However, where else would this information be collected too out of curiousity? Mabuska ^(talk) 18:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Dear Mabuska. I am not sure I understand. I think you are telling me to refrain from nominating this article for deletion. It does not cause any harm. I do not enjoy destroying somebody else's work. My purpose is to improve Wikipedia, not to increase my edit count or my numbers of creations or deletions. My interest in deletion was triggered by the article George Hamilton of Greenlaw and Roscrea, which I created but which was marked as "... may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for biographies." by User:Onel5969, an eminent veteran new-page reviewer, who reviewed the creation. I found this article helpful in my efforts to resolve the confusion between "George Hamilton of Greenlaw and Roscrea" and "Sir George Hamilton, 1st Baronet, of Donalong". I will let things rest here unless somebody else brings this up again. With many thanks for your interventions and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 10:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

@User:Johannes Schade. On the contrary. I'm agreeing that there is nothing really notable about this person other than two things, to which I asked where would such information be incorporated in the event of this article being deleted? Maybe in the children section of his grandfathers article and incorporated into the "Birth and Origins" part of Felim O'Neill of Kinard? Mabuska ^(talk) 14:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to have this article deleted using the PROD procedure. It has been deprodded by User:Necrothesp, an administrator with 206,084 edits, seemingly because the subject has been knighted. I will accept Necrothesp's judgement. I lack experience in deletions and do not get pleasure from destroying other editors' work. As the article stands now, I have added most of the text. I drop the PROD. Johannes Schade (talk) 18:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)