This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Mid-importance). Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism Mid‑importance Daniel O'Connell is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Catholicism task list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see Draft articles Assess : see Category:Unassessed Catholicism articles; Category:Unknown-importance Catholicism articles Cleanup : Blessed Virgin Mary (see the talk page) Collaborate : Invitation template needed, see Category:WikiProject invitation templates Copyedit : Cuthbert Tunstall Expand : Angelus; Roman Catholicism in Kosovo; Bishop Adolph John Paschang; Cum sæpe accidere; Altar Society; American Board of Catholic Missions; Bernard Häring NPOV : Americanism (heresy); Ensoulment Photo : see Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of Catholicism Stubs : see Category:Stub-Class Catholicism articles; Category:Catholic Church stubs Update : Peer review; John Aloysius Maguire Verify : Archdiocese of Glasgow; Archbishop of Westminster; Bishop; Saint Mungo; Sanctification; Westminster Cathedral Other : Watch recent changes for Catholicism articles Irish republicanism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Irish republicanism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Irish republicanism and Irish nationalism related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Irish republicanismWikipedia:WikiProject Irish republicanismTemplate:WikiProject Irish republicanismIrish republicanism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Benjamin Disraeli, 1st Earl of Beaconsfield article has the phrase "the right honourable gentleman" when talking about Daniel O'Connell who had (rather oddly given earlier battles) raised the issue of his religion in the British Parliament. Was he a member of the Irish Privy Council, and did this continue after he had been Lord Mayor of Dublin? --Henrygb 22:58, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think this article needs some organising (breaking into sections) and probably expanding.

Anyone know enough to do it? --Paulc1001 22:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. At present, a casual reader might get the impression that O'Connell was a famous duellist rather than politician. I'm going to put a clean-up tag on it and bring it to the attention of the Irish Wikipedians group. --Ryano 12:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Demiurge why do you keep deleting entrys that i add about O'connell rejecting Sharman crawford's call for the complete abolition of tithes in 1838. If you want me to reference it, it can be found in Robert Kee's 'The green flag: a history of irish nationalism'

• I reverted your edit because you also (inadvertently I presume) deleted a large section of the article. Demiurge 18:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connell's body and head did not part ways! It was his heart that was embalmed and buried in the Irish College in Rome. His body was otherwise returned intact to Dublin.

I believe it was Robert Emmitt whose head was seperated from its corpse.

"The Association was funded by membership dues of one penny per month, a minimal amount designed to attract Catholic peasants. It was so successful that the Association raised several million pounds in its first year."

where is the source of this. how on earth did the raise that kind of money from a penny a month, even with patronage from the odd rich person —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.95.153.4 (talk • contribs)

• A few quick sums (8 million people in Ireland, 12 months in a year, 240 pennies in a pound) gives a maximum of £400,000 even in the unlikely event that every man, woman and child on the island gave money. I've amended the article to remove the "several million" claim, good catch. Demiurge 13:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the Repeal Association should be removed as it is a disgraceful article. The article Repeal (Ireland) should be merged with this article. The reason for the citations is to provide the opportunity to address the misconceptions relating to Young Ireland and there relationship with Daniel O’Connell. The O’Connell article is very sanitized. The disputes with Young Ireland would give a much fuller picture of O’Connell, and greatly enhance the page. --Domer48 16:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement that "The Dublin Corporation had always been reactionary and bigoted against Catholics" is POV and itself bigoted. The language is unencyclopaedic.203.184.41.226 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

De-POV'd and referenced. RashersTierney (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very poor article in facts, I hope users will agree. --Phoblacht 16:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phoblacht - I wrote the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs in the section entitled 'Early LIfe' - the bits about O'Connell's quandary as a student at King's Inns at the time of the French Invasion of Bantry Bay in 1796 - and I also wrote all of the section entitled 'O'Connell Quotes'. In order to substantiate what I wrote I gave the name of the first three books listed under the section entitled 'References' and also some of the 'Links'. I certainly do not agree that the parts I wrote are lacking in facts or references. What exactly do you want here? [PS - Why is your name, 'Phoblacht', aspirated? Should it not just be 'Poblacht'? In Irish the aspiration does not make grammatical sense. Just curious] Oz MH 20:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs citations/references. I know a bit about O’Connell, for every citation, I will put forward an alternative view of his career. Without citations, this article will be edited. I would like to see some referenced comments on the veto controversy, the tithe war, the chartable bequest act, the colleges bill, and the celebrated “peace resolutions.” Possibly some information on the O’Connell tribute, or his U turn on federalism. What about O’Connell not producing any accounts for the money of the repeal association. A lot of information there that should and will be added. --Domer48 20:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2 of the section entitled 'Early Life' is based on the two references already supplied. If you keep inserting requests for references in this paragraph I will insert the text of the entire letter.Oz MH 21:36, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so his uncle told him not to get involved in any militia activity? When did he give these instructions, and how? Why would his uncle instruct him in such a way? What was the quandary he found himself in, disobey his uncle, or relent to peer pressure? Is that it, that the quandary? Reference it and I will look it up. Why would I have a problem with you inserting the whole letter? I have been at the end of some rough editing, not with citation tags, but with the information being removed altogether, for lack of references? Citation tags are just a prompt, one I would much prefer, to the more ruthless edits! I would point you to my earlier contributions on the discussion page? I will be adding more material to this article, you a free to challenge the information I put forward, at least we will have some balance! --Domer48 20:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Domer. I HAVE referenced it! If you don't have access to this letter which was written shortly after the French fleet entered Bantry Bay and is dated 3rd January, 1797, then I have offered to quote it more fully. In it O'Connell asks his uncle what he should do given that all of his fellow students are feverishly enrolling themselves in militia. He asks his uncle to decide on the line of conduct to be observed and advises him of the cost of entering any militia should his uncle consent to it. Oz MH 00:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Oz, Would I be right in saying that the first two lines, in the second paragraph on “Early Life”, would have the same reference as the one used below it marked 1? If that is the case, well ok, just put the same reference after it. Below is a paragraph from Dennis Gywnn’s, Daniel O’Connell The Irish Liberator, Hutchinson & Co. LTD. Which should illustrate my confusion.

“But events were approaching quickly which were to rouse him [O’Connell] from his loneliness and morbid self-reproaches. The French expedition to Bantry Bay had produced a profound sense of alarm; and early in January he followed the example of many others in enrolling in the Lawyers’ Corps of Artillery. He had not anticipated that Hunting Cap would refuse to send him the money for his admission; and the news threw him into an hysterical state when it came. But a week later Hunting Cap sent the money with almost as great harshness as he last week refused to permit me.” I have added some information to supplement your edit. --Domer48 20:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Domer, judge for yourself how you would interpret the letter that the young Daniel O'Connell wrote to his patron and sponsor from Dublin on the 3rd January 1797. Here follows a transcript of all of its content relevant to the current discussion:

My Dear Uncle,

You may easily judge of the disturbed state into which the momentous transactions of the last week threw this city…I cannot avoid saying something of my own situation. While the state of affairs remains in suspense the greatest alacrity is shown on all sides. Every man capable of bearing arms has taken them up. In the midst of the general fermentation you must not be surprised if my inclinations tended to run with the current. But I hope you will at the same time do me the justice to believe that I was not unmindful of your express commands. I am now the only young man as far as I can learn of the body of lawyers or students of the law who has not entered into some corps. … It is for you to say what I am to do. It has been industriously propagated that such men as did not enter a corps would be marked by government. … For my part I am young, active, healthy and single. What excuse can I possibly make? None but your commands. They will serve with my friends and those who know me. But those who see me only at King’s Inns or in court cannot perceive the reason why I am not on parade. You will conceive an idea of my situation. You will hence decide on the line of conduct to be observed. I need not add that your decision will be religiously obeyed. Yet I must suggest the necessity of my quitting Dublin should your decision be contrary to my wishes. If I remain here I may perhaps incur the disgrace of being forced to march as a common soldier in the extraordinary portion of the militia for which they are going to ballot. But the whole of my conduct rests with you. Should you consent to my going into any corps it will be necessary to inform you that I could not afford the expense attending it out of my allowance, and that the corps into which I should wish to enter would be the lawyers artillery as the best regulated and least expensive. … If I should have expressed myself with too much ardour on the subject of taking up arms I hope, my dear Uncle, you will pardon me. Surrounded as I am with young men whom the moment has inspired with enthusiasm, with the blood of youth boiling in my veins, you will not be surprised that I should be more than usually animated. I thought to write to you last week on this subject and it was with difficulty I was able to prevent myself. But now I am not capable of resisting the temptation.. Indeed, I have persuaded myself it is my duty I should write. When you gave me your former directions an invasion was an unforeseen event. … [P.S.] I could quit any corps I now entered as soon as the danger of invasion was over and, the coat of the artillery corps being blue, by taking off the facings it would be serviceable. Oz MH 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Oz, as to interpretation, that is open to discussion. Was he asking for permission, or mitigating his decision. Anyhow interpretation some would suggest is a POV, and with my limited experience having been on the wrong end of the stick since I started would advise caution, that interpretation dose not end up on the article. Thanks for that, kind Regards --Domer48 18:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All these books discuss Daniel O’Connell, his actions and motivations. For those who wish to see O’Connell in a more positive light I would suggest the books by Dennis Gwynn. --Domer48 20:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be referenced. The information is incorrect and misleading. Once a reference is applied, regardless of the accuracy of the information, the citation tags can be removed. --Domer48 19:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be referenced, edits to unreferenced material, needs to be referenced. The recent edits of material, by O’Donoghue suggesting that the source of the references were “blatant POV from one slanted source” is not a justification for removing the material, considering that O’Donoghue did not reference the material they added, or substantiated their claim. If O’Donoghue has an alternative source which can balance, these statements by all means add them, but do not remove referenced material, unless you can illustrate your views on the discussion page. --Domer48 18:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request I have provided the references to "intimidatory and majoritarianist form of Irish nationalism", which were removed for lack of a reference. Hopefully this clears this up.

And yes, I believe an over-reliance on any source (Daniel Gwynne, for example) needs review. Yours, O'Donoghue 01:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, re the reference. Very questionable though, as a source that is, should get someone more experienced to look at that i.e. ATT. For example, it says “He detested violence as a weapon of reform, respected religion and the rights of property…,” which dose not sit well with your presentation of the information, another example would be “From 1812 to 1817 the Irish Government was little else than a long-sustained duel between O'Connell and the new chief secretary, Sir Robert Peel,” the Irish Parliament had been abolished since the Act of Union in 1800, hardly reliable. No were in the source dose it mention that a lot of liberal Protestants supported emancipation, you would think that it would. It would be my opinion, that you are putting your interpretation of the information you are using into your edit (NPOV). No matter, I have added additional material, just for a bit of balance. I will put together some more background information i.e. what drove O'Connell, such as the effects on Ireland as a result of the Act of Union, the famine of 1817, and 1822, the destruction of Irish industry, how the Act of Union was passed with blatant bribery, intimidation, and how emancipation had been promised by the British Government to the Catholic bishops, if they supported the union, and then left them waiting 30 years till they got it. I’m glad you pointed out that site for me, I like to address misconceptions, distortions, and in some cases lies. Regards --Domer48 16:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User O’Donoghue, The Fenian’s where not founded till 1858, in America, by the remnants of the Young Irelanders, not in 1829. So you have added material, into a referenced source, which is blatantly incorrect. You have again removed referenced material, and have in no way attempted to justify this with comment. You have shown little regard to the layout of the Article, and how it is presented, and have placed tags only over the sections of which I have placed material, material which is verifiable and categorised as both Primary and Secondary sources. You have placed material which I have found questionable in relation to source, and I have illustrated with examples, to make you aware of the questionable reliability of that source. Your recent edits is showing extremely bad fate, and should not be continued. I will allow to the opportunity to revert your recent edit, or I shall have to do it myself, which is not how I would wish to proceed. Regards --Domer48 20:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to the Fenians, you could have do so yourself. I thought of them automatically when a reference was made to secret societies. James Stephens, O'Donovan Rossa, etc. were not Americans, but I am not going to quibble.

As far as the rest goes, I don't know what else you want. I only re-edited because you dismembered my quote (in the first paragraph) and I fixed it.

I am assuming good faith and I hope you do as well. Also, NO OFFENSE, but please use spell check, you would be surprised how poorly your messages read.

Yours, O'Donoghue 20:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. remember O'Connell was not an Irish Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The actions he took bordered on extortion, no matter how laudable the goals and regardless of what John Mitchel may have written. That needs to be clear in light of the historical consequences and repercussions, even to the present day.O'Donoghue 20:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they were Americans, read what I said, and check your own message, and see how it reads. You olny re-edited because you think I dismembered your quote! That is not a justifiable reason for an edit. In fact that is disruptive behaviour. On the discussion page I justified my edit. If you question my reason for it, the discussion page is the place to raise it. You on the other hand did not, so if I’m reading you right, all your edits were based on the fact I edited a line out of your quote. What I now want, is for you to Replace the material you have edited, that is the referenced material I added, place the tags above the page, that is what I would like you to do. On O’Connell, what ever you think about him, doses not interest me in the slightest. As long as its referenced and a reliable source. (it dose not even have to be true). You do not know what my view of O’Connell is, so do not assume to tell me, editors have to assume a NPOV. You on the other hand have expressed an opinion, and will be judged on all future edits in relation to O’Connell. P.S No Offence taken re spelling, I would not be that petty. Regards --Domer48 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the neutrality, unreferenced tags as per your request. The reason I removed those tags is because I had already added POV tags to the sections in question which I viewed as POV, which are still there and which comprise some/most of your contributions, which may be why you are upset. If so, sorry.

As far as "referenced material" you claim I removed, I do not know what you are talking about, so fix it yourself, I am not your servant. Just don't dismember my first paragraph quote as you did before.

Also don't threaten me because I hold an opinion - anything I added to the O'Connell page I provided a reference for. However I removed some of the unreferenced tags which littered the entire article because they averaged one per every two lines or so - THAT IS OVERKILL and a misuse of the unreferenced tag.

Regards,O'Donoghue 21:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Primary and secondary sourced referenced material is not POV, the source of your material is questionable, the reliability of it I have shown to be dubious, and the only thing I removed was a POV which was not even in the quote you used. In relation to unreferenced tags, I much prefer them, to cutting out unreferenced material. I like to provide editors the opportunity to reference their material. Changing your original message, was a bit silly, the history of it is there so now I do not know which one to answer [[1]]. What is the POV which compromises all my referenced material? Is it the source, is that the POV? I have used three, which one of them do you have a problem with? As to threatening you, what are you on about? As to the referenced material you removed, the second reference by Michael Doheny. The section tags are placed on referenced edits by me, and unreferenced sections you leave, and remove citation tags? Your tone and attitude is argumentative, and doses not assume good fate, your use of tags is selective, sort out the material you have removed, and remove the selective tags. If you persist with this behaviour, I will ask for an administrator to review all the pertinent material. Regards--Domer48 22:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tags because I considered them selective, see above discussion. I replaced the edit which was removed. Regards --Domer48 12:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of the page has been greatly improved with the recent formatting by User:One Night In Hackney. The removal of the citation tags, and their replacement with a section tag, was innovative, and one I did not consider. The merging of references is definitely something I will use in future. If the contents box could be placed in the top left hand corner it would enhance it further, I unfortunately lack the know-how. Regards --Domer48 14:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help. The contents box is currently in the right place, underneath the lead. I realise you're still learning, so I'll explain further. The lead is designed to give a summary of the entire article, so anyone who reads just that will get a decent idea about the subject. The table of contents and the main article comes after the lead. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats great thanks, good job on formatting, Regards --Domer48 15:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider this to be POV. O’Connell represented the majority of the Irish population, with a ratio of at least 5-1. (I stand to be corrected, and probably will) . That he never intended to use physical force to achieve his questionable goals i.e. Repeal, to then describe his tactics as one of intimidation shows a lack of knowledge of the subject. While I can understand the point that is being made, the references below certainly dose not illustrate it. If that reference is to be used, then it is one of interpretation. An editors interpreting information to make a point is POV. Regards--Domer48 18:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attempts at censorship re O'Connell are not appreciated. If you persist I will take the matter to the Administrator's Noticeboard. You came to Wikipedia with an agenda:

The period of history covered by the Young Irelanders, or correctly titled Irish Confederation, is deeply interesting. In it we find the origins of the Republican physical force tradition. Through their writings we see the evolution of Irish Nationalism forged into a coherently articulated force. While they have left us a boundless spring of primary sources, the misconceptions created around them by unscrupulous writers, who believe they can shape the present by manipulating our understanding of the past is a challenge to all right thinking people who believe that history belongs to us all. A start must be made to address this; therefore I will place my axe to the root, and would invite you to do the same.

However, if you think you are going to impose your views on this page or any other you are mistaken. Your rv of my edits (for which you cited "see discussion page" in the edit summary although there is nothing there regarding this matter) is neither more nor less than an attempt at censorship. You can deify John Mitchel all you like, but keep it in your private writings, not a public access encyclopaedia. Jill Teed 18:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the discussion page on the Daniel O’Connell Article, you will see the reason for the revert. And hands up, I have an agenda! An agenda which I spell out on my user page, which you helpfully provided. To correct the information on Young Ireland, and back it up with referenced material. Your accusation against me assumes bad fate, and is against wiki policy. You should address the edits of a user, and not the user, and not engage in this type of behaviour. I will now point this matter to an administrator, should you continue to engage me in such a hostile manner. Regards

I have referred the matter to an administrator for advice. If I might suggest, you should place your notices on the appropriate discussion page, it allows other Users to review the information provided. Just trying to be helpful, and hope you will assume good faith. I will not revert until I hear from an administrator, and will move all related discussions to the appropriate page. Regards--Domer48 19:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,User:65.18.60.71. Re the duel between O'Connell and John D'Esterre. I noticed you did not reference your contribution to the article, and really you should in order that other editors can see were the information came from. I have left some information on your user page which can help you with this. In relation to your recent edit, I was not aware that D’Esteere was French. Also in relation to the duel, O’Connell wounded D’Esteere, and at the time no one considered him to be mortally wounded. For a very detailed account I would suggest Dennis Gwynn’s Daniel O’Connell The Irish Liberator pg 138-145 (see book list at the end of article. ) I will not revert your edit for the time being, but references should be added. Good Editing, Regards --Domer48 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware D’Esteere was French, especially considering the family's original surname was Dester. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Night In Hackney₃₀₃, I was just assuming it was a "good faith" edit. I was going to change it, but thought I would wait a bit.I also noticed a tag placed on the User's discussion page, how would this edit be considered. The section of the Article is covered with a tag, so editors should/would keep this in mind. Regards --Domer48 18:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment…. Mary O’Connell is my 4th great aunt. Her father is my 5x great grandfather. Mary O’Connell was a 3/4th cousin of D’Esterre, up though the Darby line of Leap Castle. The D’Esterre were French Huegenot. So, Daniel O’Connell killed his wife’s distant cousin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.108.45 (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you got the Dester name from. It’s all well recorded in genealogy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.108.45 (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unreferenced text by User:65.18.60.71 and replaced it with referenced text. Regards --Domer48 21:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the source of this reference a number of times I find it to be inconsistent and unreliable. It was also being used out of context, to put forward a POV. Regards --Domer48 17:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the article on Daniel O'Connell, I felt it needed cleaning up on some issues. I have noticed that someone has deleted my extra information on Daniel O' Connell's contribution to the Gaelic langauge. By reading this, the user would have been informed of the background of why O'Connell thought it would be better for people to learn English rather than Irish when Irish emigration was so high. The reader would have also understood that it brought him into disripute. I do not know who has deleted this but i feel they have deleted it unwisely and not even edited it. --lukeoprey 14:21, 27 April 2007

• • Hello User:Lukeoprey,I left a message on your talk page and outlined that any material that is added to Wikipedia that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source, as do quotations, and the responsibility for finding a source lies with the person who adds or restores the material. Unsourced or poorly sourced edits may be challenged and removed at any time. Sometimes it is better to have no information at all than to have information without a source.
  • If you click on the history page of an article, you will see the edits that have been made, and by whom. I you provide me with the source of the information, I would be only to happy to put it on for you, and show you how. Thank you for taking the time to contribute to Wikipedia. See this page for more information about Wikipedia's policy on sourcing. Thanks, Regards--Domer48 15:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think we'd be better off shipping them across to WikiQuote, and leaving an icon here instead of the current lengthy list? I know Domer48 has been active over on WQ recently. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ and I would be willing to do this, if there is agreement from editors. --Domer48 08:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Why would it be better if these quotes were buried as Wikiquotes? Verifiable quotes tell a lot about a person's world view and are excellent primary source material. They are better than the majority of the referenced secondary works that appear in this article on O'Connell. Many of these secondary works are politically motivated and, some would argue, lack objectivity. I am not necessarily saying they should not be used as a basis for this article - afterall some were written by O'Connell's actual or near contemporaries - but they should be balanced by O'Connell's own words. The reader of the article will thus obtain a more rounded view of the man.Oz MH 22:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well there's nothing to prevent an article being created over at WikiQuote anyway, as one is merited. My reasoning for it is that the article is somewhat overburdened with lists, perhaps it might be better if some of the more important quotes were incorporated into the text? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:50, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the quotes is to excise the best, and possibly the only, primary source material in the article. In terms of historical methodology that is definitely not good practice. However, I take your point about their 'list' character and would not object to their incorporation into the body of the main text of the article.Oz MH 23:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that the quotes were possible, should be inserted into the main body of the text. I would suggest that for the interim then, they be left as they are, until such a time as they are used. I also agree, that there is no reason why an article can not be produces over at WikiQuote. Regards --Domer48 11:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created the Daniel O’Connell article over at WikiQuote.http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Daniel_O%27Connell As the quotes are used in the main body of the text on this article we can address them, If all agree. Regards --Domer48 12:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CBI - SERIES C - TWENTY POUND NOTE.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First point- I believe I've read that O'Connell was considered for king of the new Catholic Belgium. Second point- Was it true that you could not throw a stone over a wall in Dublin without hitting one of his children? Bostoneire 18:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets a B- and deserves better. Here are some areas for inclusion that I don't have refs to hand for:

• He studied for the bar thanks to the Catholic Relief Act of 1793 pushed by Henry Grattan. The same Act allowed Catholics to vote again.
• Nothing on the British cabinet resigning in 1801 when George III would not accept emancipation as part of the union.
• The D'esterre duel arose when he described the Dublin Corpo's provision for the poor as "beggarly" (which it was).
• The Corpo served itself not the ascendancy. Most were conservative but a minority were liberals.
• Nothing on the Catholic "veto" which delayed emancipation.
• Nothing on how Grattan assisted the campaign in London for emancipation until 1820.
• O'C also worked towards what became the Reform Act 1832, allowing more people to vote.
• I don't see anything on his help for the starving organized during the 1840s famine.Red Hurley 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How nice of this Mr O'Connell chap to work to "allow more people to vote" in 1832. Is this the very same Daniel O'Connell who conspired with the British government to raise the annual rental value required to vote from £2 to £10, and thus took the vote off 100,000 native Irish Catholics/nationalists, as a quid pro quo for the British passing Catholic Relief Act of 1829? This article is far too kind to this individual. 109.77.56.84 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The British government did raise the bar to £10, which went a considerable way to blunting the effects of Catholic Emancipation. This is the first time I have read that O'Connell was instrumental in effecting this legislation. Could you quote your authority please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.17.30.44 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It reads like a third-rate history essay - horribly turgid, far too much "filler" and a narrative that gets overwhelmed by tangential material. Somebody needs to do a serious pruning job, retaining the facts and cutting out the waffle. That's just my opinion as a casual, unbiased reader. It takes too much effort to read it through to the end.Godingo 18:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was in better shape at the start of 2006 but has since become bloated with all kinds of misc. information scattered around the place in no chronological order. I've started to re-order some of this info to make the article more readable.Hohenloh (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some evidence to suggest that O'Connell participated in some forms of Freemasonry. Of course, many politicians and other public figures were also members at the time, but O'Connell's involvement would arguably weaken his reputation as a Catholic, since several papal bulls at the time declared the lodges to be anathema. It should be said however that O'Connell reportedly gave up his membership after 1837, when pressure started to build on him to be in better standing with the Church. [2] ADM (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he was an enthusiastic member because of his United Irish friends who were pro-enlightenment in the 1790s. O'Connell had a religious reawakening from 1820, was not a frequent lodge attender, and was actually expelled from it in 1837, see this 2008 book review. Why remains a secret.86.42.218.15 (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connell's "United Irish" friends? Is this the same O'Connell who joined the British military forces in 1798 to violently suppress the United Irishmen? 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. O'Connell acted as a silk for Grand Lodge Ireland and there are reliable sources all over the web for his membership of Freemasonry. Articles appeared in "The Builder" in May 1916 and Oct 1921, but a quick google search will give you lots of reliable sources for O'Connell's membership. He's in the list of Freemasons on wikipedia. He was initiated in 1799 in Lodge Dublin # 189. His membership appears not to have been causal. In addition to being a Past Master, he is reported as being the First Junior Warden of Lodge No. 13, Limerick (those lodge numbers 189 & 13 look strange to me). Bishop Troy is said to have pressured him to resign (Troy was pressuring masons in the 1840's to do so), but O'Connell writes to the newspaper "The Pilot" in 1837 acknowledging his past membership but confirming he is no longer a member due to not being able to take Oaths as a Catholic while also making reference to "ecclesiastic censure " against membership. Quatuor Coronati has produced several papers on him and he's often in reliable lists of famous freemasons. There are several different details on his resignation, some say he was excluded. However most sources say he resigned

Sources http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1921_october.htm http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_builder_1916_may.htm Melbournemason (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More on those strange lodge numbers "Daniel O'Connell was Initiated in 1799 in Masonic Lodge No. 189, Dublin. He was the W.M. of No. 189 in 1800, an affiliate member of Ancient Union Lodge No. 13, Limerick City and the Founder Senior Warden of Lodge No. 886, Tralee, County Kerry." http://www.irishmasonichistory.com/connor-lodge-no-189-past-masters-jewel-1962.html

Melbournemason (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My Irish grandmother often told a story that there had been an attempt to poison O'Connell at a function in England. But the attempt was thwarted when an Irish waitress was able to warn him (speaking in Irish) and he was able to "accidently" drop his poisoned wine glass. I can't find any evidence of this, and wonder if it is an urban legend that started later. The story was a verse that formed part of Irish language lessons, and she could recite it verbatim. Anyone know of this.--Dmol (talk) 03:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I found the verse on the Irish language Wikipedia,

"A Dhónaill Uí Chonaill, an dtuigeann tú Gaeilge?"
"Tuigim go maith í, a chailín ó Éirinn."
"Tá nimh i do chupán a mharódh na céadta!"
"Maith tú, a chailín, is tabharfaidh mé spré duit."

But it's unreference, and I don't speak Irish so can't read the surrounding text. Hopefully this might narrow it down for a native speaker to find for us.--Dmol (talk) 07:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The heading in the Irish Wiki says this is a typical piece of folklore about O'Connell and the Irish language. The text explanation in Irish is similar to above, except that he was drinking from a cup (tea) and after being warned by the waitress he replaced the cup and took another cup. The man who then took O'Connell's cup died. O'Connell could speak fluent Irish. Hope this helps! Hohenloh 00:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

My Mother often recited the above words which translated means:-

Daniel O'Connell, do you understand Irish? I do indeed , colleen from Ireland There's poison in your cup that would kill hundreds Thank you Colleen, I will give you a (spré)? perhaps dowery? not familiar with the word sorry Nuala Donegal Gaeltacht — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.26.9 (talk) 10:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the quote mark from Daniel O'Connell#Political beliefs and programme before "whipped his MPs into line" because there is no closing quote mark to tell where the quote ends (the quote marks around "Opium War" balance each other). The reference is off-line. Art LaPella (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would he REALLY have spoken Gaelic as his first language? If not, it seems somewhat absurd to list his name first as Dónal Ó Conaill, a name in a language that was basically dead at the time he lived. Wikipedia is supposed to represent facts, however inconvenient they may be for one's political agenda. I'd compare it to listing Amschel Rothschild's name first in Hebrew. I realise some radical Irish revisionist would like to imagine that Gaelic has always been their nation's primary language, but it was simply not the case! 76.19.26.248 (talk) 04:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The language was far from 'dead' in O'Connell's youth, particularly in rural Kerry. He was also fostered out to a local family of 'limited means' in his early childhood where the household language was Irish. See Oliver MacDonagh's bio. RashersTierney (talk) 11:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Irish was absolutely the first language in Kerry of O'Connell's youth. See Patrick Geoghegan's biography. Up to the 1840s, roughly half of Ireland's c.8 million inhabitants used it as their native language. Whcih makes it all teh more interesting that O'Connell himself declared himself, as a utilitarian, uninterested in the language. Jdorney (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What an extraordinarily ignorant thing for 76.19.26.248 to write. Incredible. We can assume by his reference to Irish as "Gaelic" he's not only historically uninformed but comes armed with all the anti-Irish prejudices of the British rightwing. 109.77.56.84 (talk) 14:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See under Gaelic Revival and Gaeltacht. See also Joyce's Ulysses, where Buck Mulligan (a character based on Oliver St. John Gogarty) refers to Irish as 'Gaelic' in the opening scene. The only person who speaks Irish in the scene is Haines, a visiting English student, and he speaks it to the old woman who comes to deliver the milk, and neither she, nor Mulligan, nor fellow lodger Stephen Dedalus (Joyce) can understand a word of it. The old woman asks Haines, 'Are you from west, sir?' Khamba Tendal (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the birthplace of O'Connell was Cashen not Carhen: See: http://www.libraryireland.com/topog/C/Cahir-Iveragh-Kerry.php also: http://archive.org/stream/sportsmaninirel00dixgoog#page/n196/mode/2up/search/birthplace PeterClarke 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Carhen seems far more popular than Cashen on Google Books, especially as a lot of the Cashen results don't seem to be talking about a birthplace but the river. Cashen Bay is apparently near Ballyduff, which is about 90km northeast of Cahersiveen, and there's certainly no dispute that he was born in/near Cahersiveen. So given "The Cashen" (see Cashen Bay) isn't near at all, I'm thinking that can't be the place being referred to. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! PeterClarke 13:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone confirm or refute the statment that O'Connell was a Brother? Fergananim (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was, and left them when the Catholic Church prohibited membership, according to this source. RashersTierney (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O'Connell falls under the WikiProject as an Irish Nationalist. "Welcome to the Irish Republicanism WikiProject, a collaboration of editors dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of Irish republicanism, Irish nationalism, and related organizations, peoples, and other topics". Finnegas (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting clarification: In the "beliefs" section, when it mentions that O'Connell wanted to keep the Opium War going, does that mean he was pro-UK or pro-Qing? Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.victorianweb.org/history/pms/dizzy.html

A duel between himself and Disraili was planned but ultimately abandoned after police intervention, contradicting the articles quite strong statements that he would never duel again and abhorred killing.

"In 1835 Disraeli and Daniel O'Connell quarrelled publicly over press reports that O'Connell had been called a 'traitor and incendiary' by Disraeli. The pair were to fight a duel but the police intervened and Disraeli was bound over to keep the peace. This was the first of their confrontations."

Quoted from above website. Nathan3166 (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the following website Daniel O'Connell was a freemason. (http://www.irishmasonichistory.com/a-brief-history-of-grand-lodge.html) 79.97.64.240 (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Daniel O'Connell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

161.243.68.115 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Daniel O'Connell had several children. I was told by my father that I am of direct relationship to him presumably through his childre. My grandfather was Patrick O'Connell who immigrated to the United States. I believe that he hailed from County Cork and his wife Hannah O'Scannell from County Kerry (or visa versa). Does anyone know the lineage of Daniel O'Connell's children?[reply]

Last edited at 16:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 12:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Daniel O'Connell. 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/20090312063843/http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/South-West/DerrynaneHouse/ to http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/South-West/DerrynaneHouse/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100222092245/http://www.jewishireland.org/history_2.html to http://www.jewishireland.org/history_2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130730164720/http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Daniel_OConnell to http://multitext.ucc.ie/d/Daniel_OConnell

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) 07:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a short section of his feud with Disraeli. Would it not be worth mentioning Disraeli's famous retort, something along the lines of:

‘Yes, I am a Jew, and while the ancestors of the right honourable gentleman were brutal savages in an unknown island, mine were priests in the temple of Solomon.'”

I dare say that as with many famous quotes, different versions exist, and disputes as to when or whether or not he actually said it.Paulturtle (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no firm evidence that Disraeli actually said this - most Disraeli scholars doubt that he did. So probably best not to include it.

Rocon17 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not necessarily. Debunking popular myths is something that the internet is rather good at. But I'm not going to argue about it.Paulturtle (talk) 06:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion that O’Connell was an inspiration to later activists such as Gandhi and MLK, while a seemingly reasonable assertion, cannot be supported by any source I can find. In fact I can’t even find any source to prove they were even aware he existed. In the absence of evidence, such suggestions should be removed. - 05:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.152.252.139 (talk)

It is well known of Disraeli's and O'Connell's rivalry and the latter's antisemitic views toward the former. Why is there not a single mention of O'Connell's contemporary and famous rival? Gaelicbow (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]