Talk:James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde

Jacobite leanings

An IP clearly believes that James Butler did not have Jacobite leanings. This discussion thread is being opened to encourage discussion on the point and avoid edit-waring. Dormskirk (talk) 12:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether he did or not is irrelevant. It is sufficient that the British government thought that he did for it to deserve mention in the article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I dont believe that he had jacobite leaning. But wats interest me most is if he hade and Lord Stanhope had som grudge between them. And as I se it if you read behind the lines they had.

Ormonde made a very grave error of judgement he fled the country before hi was prosecuted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.224.77.133 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

SMS-speak? Has Wiki really been reduced to this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I am also struggling to understand the SMS-speak. Please can you explain explicitly the nature of Lord Stanhope's grudge so we can consider whether it is relevant to the article. If we now accept that Butler was at least perceived by the British Government to have had jacobite leanings, then surely it was Lord Stanhope's job, as chief minister, to prosecute him? Dormskirk (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on James Butler, 2nd Duke of Ormonde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303044321/http://www.kilkennycastle.ie/en/TouroftheCastle/TheBuildingoftheCastle/Treason/ to http://www.kilkennycastle.ie/en/TouroftheCastle/TheBuildingoftheCastle/Treason/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Change of citation style

@Dormskirk: @Choess: @Chrisdoyleorwell: @Laurel Lodged: @Aricci526: This article is rated B-class and has many citations, as should be. However, I felt that the citation style was inconsistent and that many citations did not give enough information about the source. I therefore edited many of the citations. I replaced many of the <ref> tags with Sfn templates. I also added books to the list of sources using the Citation template. I realise that I should have asked for consensus before starting to do this as prescribed in WP:CITEVAR. I do it here and now, better late than never. Should no objections be raised within the delay of a month, I will consider that such a consensus exists and the proposed change in citation style is accepted. In the meantime I will continue to add new citations in the new style. I will correct all citations to conform to the final adopted citation style once consensus has been reached. With many thanks Johannes Schade (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Fine with me - Thanks for asking. Dormskirk (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nice work Johannes. Thanks. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

These things are fine with me in general—I tend to use Sfn on new articles I start anyway, and I'm comfortable navigating our usual citation styles if someone wants to overhaul it in the course of expansion. (In practice there's a very limited set of people who get quarrelsome about CITEVAR, but nothing wrong with being cautious.) Choess (talk) 04:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)