Talk:Eóganachta/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

What are those bots up to here?

Latest comment: 14 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why is this considered within scope of WP:Biography, and why is it rated a "stub" (33kb of sourced text). Something seem to be wrong here. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely not a stub, but it was in Oct 2007 when the WP IRELAND assessor stopped by. Xenobot recently inherited the stub rating. You should re-assess it and set the proper rating, removing the auto=inherit as you do so. As for why it is under WP:Bio, I suppose because it's for a dynasty? Not sure... –xeno^talk 00:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, I changed the class to "C" which also should be in accordance with what Din Draithou writes below - substantial article with some issues still pending. Regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Article condition

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I wrote most of this article when I was relatively new to the subject, and also relatively new to Wikipedia. Looking at it now, much needs to be rewritten, and most of the material on the allied royals septs can removed, since they have their own articles now. Furthermore, I was lazy about page numbers and now regret it. At least the overall article layout is good enough. DinDraithou (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has certainly been improved a lot since I last had a look at it (in May 2007 when I wrote a Norwegian version), you've done a lot of good work here DinDraithou. But as you say, some issues remain. (Re)moving the material on the allied septs seem a good idea, I also think the History section should either be removed - or written. As it is it's just a lot of headlines followed by links and suggested literature. If someone decides to actually write this section those links are certainly helpful though, if removed I would suggest a cut&paste to this page for future reference. I'd also like to add that I think the growing influence of Osraige and Cerball mac Dúnlainge following Feidlimids death might be worth mentioning - this seem to be one of several factors in Eoganchtas downfall from a serious rival to Ui Neill to being defeated by the Dal gCais some 100+ years later. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I think a section for Ossory is an excellent idea, because it was with the loss of this kingdom that the Corcu Loígde began to fall in the early 7th century, and until then no Eóganacht was a true king of Munster. This is generally assumed to be the way the Uí Néill brilliantly or accidentally shifted Munster from a Dáirine dominated military powerhouse into an initially semi-dependent Eóganachta governed province, without ever having to risk a dangerous series of major confrontations with the Corcu Loígde. Ossory appears to have had quite the disrupting effect on the functioning of two consecutive Munster over-kingdoms, although I know rather less about the period of Cerball mac Dúnlainge and hope you will write about that. This will help us focus the article on the approximately two and half centuries of Cashel's domination of Munster, during which most of our sources originate.

I'll leave what to do with the History section up to you and others, but we should definitely expand Kingdom of Desmond. We also need to expand Iarmuman so we can go on about the Kings of the Picts among other matters there. For now I'll begin on removing a lot of the material on our enigmatic allied septs since they had nothing to do with Cashel. DinDraithou (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has been butchered by somebody on a genealogical ego trip. Large sections of text have been subverted with at best reaching sources and in many places none whatsoever. Whoever is doing this is trying to falsely enhance the historical significance of the Corcu Loígde to the apalling detriment of the scholarship here. Most of the writing in these areas is entirely contradictory to established sources on the subject. Óengus mac Nad Froích was Eoganachta and ruling in the 5th century as the key power in Munster, yet we have someone trying to amp their "warrior" heritage using vague etymological connections between Roman ethnography and the Dáirine. Verdict: Burn it. Start again.

Be our guest and work away. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Fraudulant author

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An editor deleted large sections of text because of his belief that "author of that material appears to be the fraud XXX".

Should this not have been debated before deleting?
Is this original research by the editor in unmasking frauds?
Even if the author was a fraud, would that render all the material false? Even frauds sometimes write the truth. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

We should be friends, but you're defending a totally bad source. It's not your fault at all though, since we don't really know each other. For material on the web concerning Terence Francis MacCarthy, first read Chief of the Name, then see here, here, here, and you might also find this fun too. Also here. DinDraithou (talk) 23:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears that you have issues with Terence Francis MacCarthy. I'd rather not get drawn into that nasty cat fight. I too would like to be friends. But I must differ with you when you say that I have defended a "totally bad source". I've done no such thing; I merely used the source, taking it at face value. Even then, I referenced the references that that source used. If you regard those references and sources as equally bad, then please explain, otherwise their contributions should be allowed to stand. Likewise, you have not mentioned which parts of the expunged section was not factually correct. Regarless of the source, if it's generally accepted as true then it should remain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Gaulish associations or origins

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This article really should go into the Gaulish god Segomo turning up their pedigree as Nia Segamain. I no longer have many of my sources and cannot do it so easily now, although I did it for the Déisi when I had them. It is also argued they were simply Gaels returning from raiding expeditions and other business, where they might have picked up this and that. Without that material in front me to carefully cite I cannot do what this article needs. Nora lives (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eóganachta. 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/20080507075211/http://www.hastings.edu:80/academic/english/kings/Aided_Chrimthainn_meic_Fhidaig.htm to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Aided_Chrimthainn_meic_Fhidaig.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 13:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eóganachta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 18:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eóganachta. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)