Talk:Records of members of the Oireachtas
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
All time shortest TDs edit
What exactly is the point of the unionist table for the all time shortest serving TDs? These people were elected to the House of Commons of Northern Ireland (HCNI), they did not sit in the 2nd Dail. They were technically eligible to sit in the Dail but did not do so, they sat in the body that they were elected to. How can they be classed as shortest serving TDs if they never sat in the Dail? As far as I see it, we have a table saying that this is a list of people elected to HCNI but had they chosen to sit in a different (extra legal) assembly to which they were NOT elected then they would have been among the shortest serving members of it. That's just bizzare! I propose to remove this table. Snappy (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
- I object. Kieran Doherty never sat in the Dáil and did not recognise its legitimacy, yet he is listed. Just as Constance Markievicz is semi-recognised as the first woman MP, so the Unionists were TDs. Their names were called on the roll: "Co. an Doire (thuaidh); Dr. H. Anderson; as láthair" etc. Segregating them in a separate footnote table is sufficient recognition of their different status. (BTW most in the table were elected to Westminster, not Stormont.) jnestorius(talk) 16:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Unionists (Anderson, McCalmont & Samuels) were elected to the House of Commons of the UK and sat in it, Twadell was elected to the House of Commons of NI and sat in it. Markievicz was elected to the Westminster (as were all SF members of the First Dail) but choose not to attend. Doherty was in prison and on terminal hunger strike, so it would have been hard for him to attend but he stood for election to the Dail and was elected to the Dail, which was in 1981 not the Irish Republic Dail. Roll call aside (and who expected them to turn up?), and the roll call for the 2nd Dail doesn't mention any NI politicians [1]. My question remains, how can you be classed as a member of a body that you were NOT elected to, DID NOT recognise and DID NOT attend? Snappy (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- They were elected to the Dáil, whether they wanted to be or not. Everyone was elected to both Dáil and Commons, and sat in one but not the other. jnestorius(talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's the best answer, you can come up with? "They were elected to the Dáil...". I still don't understand how one came be regarded as a member of a body, when one does not recognise it, does not stand for it, is not elected to it, and does not attend it. In Members of the 1st Dáil and Members of the 2nd Dáil, the non attendees of the Dáil are listed as Other MPs, which is correct. They were elected as MPs to Westminster / Stormont and did not attend a new assembly in Dublin. If these politicians are TDs are you claim, then how come none of them are in the Members of the 1st/2nd Dáil categories? Snappy (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tu quoque! The not recognising and not attending are irrelevant, as they apply equally to Markiewicz at Westminster and Doherty in 1981. It's wrong to suggest the only reason Doherty did not attend was his imprisonment; all Sinn Féin TDs 1922–86 were abstentionists. So that leaves the question of whether they were in fact elected to the Dáil. I have offered as evidence that they were included on the roll; you have offered no evidence to the contrary. I can offer another piece of evidence: they are listed in the Oireachtas Members' Database. I won't assert dogmatically that they were or were not TDs; I merely argue that one can plausibly argue either way. There is no definitive answer to the question; it is a matter of interpretation. That is why a separate table is appropriate, where the disputedness can be highlighted with some introductory text. That is what has been done in Members of the 1st Dáil and Members of the 2nd Dáil; I suggest the same policy should apply here. Those like you who disregard them can simply ignore the table, as you can ignore the analogous tables in the other lists. OTOH, Categories are all-or-nothing, with no possibility for hedging the inclusion or exclusion of an article from the category, as WP:CLS#Disadvantages of categories says. (If there were a subcategory "Unionists eligible for the First Dáil" or the like, that would be appropriate.) jnestorius(talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are incorrect to compare Markiewicz and all other SF members of the First Dáil with those in your table. The SF members stood in an election to Westminster, then attended the Mansion House. The politicians in your table also stood for Westminster and sat in it. One can't be a member of a body you don't recognise simply because other people say you are. Basically, you are saying that a group of people in Dublin decided that everyone who was elected as an MP in Ireland in 1918 was elected to the Dáil, whether they liked it or not. People define themselves, they are not defined by other peoples views. Someone can call me a monkey, but it doesn't make me one! Furthermore, none of the NI MPs who were elected to Stormont in 1921, are listed as members of the 2nd Dáil, probably because they were elected to the new Northern Ireland Parliament which they sat in, not to the 2nd Dáil. Snappy (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the point you keep making. It's a reasonable stance to take. But the Oireachtas members database takes a somewhat different stance. I have no opinion on the theological nub of the issue, but I don't see why your view should take precedence over an external source widely referenced in Wikipedia. jnestorius(talk) 13:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you're going to use Oireachtas members database as the standard, the table could go back in but without Twadell as he is not listed in there. Snappy (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Fair enough. jnestorius(talk) 15:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you're going to use Oireachtas members database as the standard, the table could go back in but without Twadell as he is not listed in there. Snappy (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- I understand the point you keep making. It's a reasonable stance to take. But the Oireachtas members database takes a somewhat different stance. I have no opinion on the theological nub of the issue, but I don't see why your view should take precedence over an external source widely referenced in Wikipedia. jnestorius(talk) 13:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- You are incorrect to compare Markiewicz and all other SF members of the First Dáil with those in your table. The SF members stood in an election to Westminster, then attended the Mansion House. The politicians in your table also stood for Westminster and sat in it. One can't be a member of a body you don't recognise simply because other people say you are. Basically, you are saying that a group of people in Dublin decided that everyone who was elected as an MP in Ireland in 1918 was elected to the Dáil, whether they liked it or not. People define themselves, they are not defined by other peoples views. Someone can call me a monkey, but it doesn't make me one! Furthermore, none of the NI MPs who were elected to Stormont in 1921, are listed as members of the 2nd Dáil, probably because they were elected to the new Northern Ireland Parliament which they sat in, not to the 2nd Dáil. Snappy (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- Tu quoque! The not recognising and not attending are irrelevant, as they apply equally to Markiewicz at Westminster and Doherty in 1981. It's wrong to suggest the only reason Doherty did not attend was his imprisonment; all Sinn Féin TDs 1922–86 were abstentionists. So that leaves the question of whether they were in fact elected to the Dáil. I have offered as evidence that they were included on the roll; you have offered no evidence to the contrary. I can offer another piece of evidence: they are listed in the Oireachtas Members' Database. I won't assert dogmatically that they were or were not TDs; I merely argue that one can plausibly argue either way. There is no definitive answer to the question; it is a matter of interpretation. That is why a separate table is appropriate, where the disputedness can be highlighted with some introductory text. That is what has been done in Members of the 1st Dáil and Members of the 2nd Dáil; I suggest the same policy should apply here. Those like you who disregard them can simply ignore the table, as you can ignore the analogous tables in the other lists. OTOH, Categories are all-or-nothing, with no possibility for hedging the inclusion or exclusion of an article from the category, as WP:CLS#Disadvantages of categories says. (If there were a subcategory "Unionists eligible for the First Dáil" or the like, that would be appropriate.) jnestorius(talk) 07:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
- That's the best answer, you can come up with? "They were elected to the Dáil...". I still don't understand how one came be regarded as a member of a body, when one does not recognise it, does not stand for it, is not elected to it, and does not attend it. In Members of the 1st Dáil and Members of the 2nd Dáil, the non attendees of the Dáil are listed as Other MPs, which is correct. They were elected as MPs to Westminster / Stormont and did not attend a new assembly in Dublin. If these politicians are TDs are you claim, then how come none of them are in the Members of the 1st/2nd Dáil categories? Snappy (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- They were elected to the Dáil, whether they wanted to be or not. Everyone was elected to both Dáil and Commons, and sat in one but not the other. jnestorius(talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Unionists (Anderson, McCalmont & Samuels) were elected to the House of Commons of the UK and sat in it, Twadell was elected to the House of Commons of NI and sat in it. Markievicz was elected to the Westminster (as were all SF members of the First Dail) but choose not to attend. Doherty was in prison and on terminal hunger strike, so it would have been hard for him to attend but he stood for election to the Dail and was elected to the Dail, which was in 1981 not the Irish Republic Dail. Roll call aside (and who expected them to turn up?), and the roll call for the 2nd Dail doesn't mention any NI politicians [1]. My question remains, how can you be classed as a member of a body that you were NOT elected to, DID NOT recognise and DID NOT attend? Snappy (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Gerry Adams in list 'Members of both the British Parliament and of the Oireachtas' edit
Why is Gerry Adams not mentioned in the list of 'Members of both the British Parliament and of the Oireachtas'? Because of their abstentionist policy?----Bancki (talk) 19:24, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Members of both the Northern Ireland Parliament and of the Oireachtas edit
If there is a list of 'Members of both the British Parliament and of the Oireachtas', why not a list of 'Members of both the Northern Ireland Parliament / Aseembly and of the Oireachtas'? I have two examples, are there many others?
- Austin Currie: MPNI 1962-72 (SDLP, East Tyrone); TD 1989-2002 (FG, Dublin West)
- Gerry Adams: MLA(NI) 1998-2010 (SF, Belfast West); TD 2011-incumbent (SF, Louth)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Records of members of the Oireachtas. 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/20071119184338/http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html to http://historical-debates.oireachtas.ie/D/DT/D.F.O.191901210004.html
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) 21:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Records of LGBT people edit
My reasons for removing Malcom Byrne were in the edit summary: we don't list the first Jewish TD for each party, so why should the first LGBT TD in each party get a separate mention on the page? That said, first gay TD elected in a by-election is a distinction. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, he has 2 records now, or 3 as he is shortest serving gay TD ever! Spleodrach (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Should we list Roderic O'Gorman (first gay Green TD) and Cian O'Callaghan (first gay SD TD) also? And if so, why not Shatter or Taylor among Jewish records? I'm trying to establish limiting principles and consistency. This page doesn't elsewhere break records down by party. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you change this? I thought we agreed on something for once! Spleodrach (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- I hadn't indicated an agreement, and my last comment above restated my reasons for not including this particular distinction in the case of Byrne (although I enjoy the nod to us becoming recurring sparring partners here!). Quite happy to include the by-election record. But do you think we should also list O'Gorman and O'Callaghan? If we don't, we're adding an element of subjectivity about which parties' LGBT representation is more notable. I'd agree that subjectively, it might be more notable that Fianna Fáil, a more conservative party than the Greens or SocDems had a gay TD, but we should be objective in our criteria. We could also find ways to distinguish each LGBT representative (O'Gorman was the first gay TD elected in a constituency where there had previously been a gay TD elected), although at some point, be glad of the progress we've made that we now routinely have gay TDs (if fewer lesbian TDs) elected. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- The original reason I included Byrne was that FF are a conservative party and having a gay TD was notable for them. On reflection, I decided to remove it, as its probablt not notable enough and FF already had Pat Carey, though he wasn't out. Spleodrach (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Grand! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at this list - List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom#British Parliament - they do list first gay MP by party.
- We can include Byrne, O'Gorman and O'Callaghan so! My main point was that it should be all, and not just FF because they are more conservative! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- If this was an list of LGBT office holders page, maybe. It isn't. Its a list of firsts, NOT party specific firsts. There is zero reason to list O'Gorman, O'Callaghan, Byrne. The by-election thing is a pointless distinction too. 213.146.164.195 (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- See List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom#British_Parliament. If the UK can do it, so can we. Spleodrach (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- ...on its own article.... not a general firsts lists. 213.146.164.195 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- See List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom#British_Parliament. If the UK can do it, so can we. Spleodrach (talk) 08:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- If this was an list of LGBT office holders page, maybe. It isn't. Its a list of firsts, NOT party specific firsts. There is zero reason to list O'Gorman, O'Callaghan, Byrne. The by-election thing is a pointless distinction too. 213.146.164.195 (talk) 08:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- We can include Byrne, O'Gorman and O'Callaghan so! My main point was that it should be all, and not just FF because they are more conservative! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Looking at this list - List of the first LGBT holders of political offices in the United Kingdom#British Parliament - they do list first gay MP by party.
- Grand! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- The original reason I included Byrne was that FF are a conservative party and having a gay TD was notable for them. On reflection, I decided to remove it, as its probablt not notable enough and FF already had Pat Carey, though he wasn't out. Spleodrach (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- I hadn't indicated an agreement, and my last comment above restated my reasons for not including this particular distinction in the case of Byrne (although I enjoy the nod to us becoming recurring sparring partners here!). Quite happy to include the by-election record. But do you think we should also list O'Gorman and O'Callaghan? If we don't, we're adding an element of subjectivity about which parties' LGBT representation is more notable. I'd agree that subjectively, it might be more notable that Fianna Fáil, a more conservative party than the Greens or SocDems had a gay TD, but we should be objective in our criteria. We could also find ways to distinguish each LGBT representative (O'Gorman was the first gay TD elected in a constituency where there had previously been a gay TD elected), although at some point, be glad of the progress we've made that we now routinely have gay TDs (if fewer lesbian TDs) elected. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Why did you change this? I thought we agreed on something for once! Spleodrach (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Should we list Roderic O'Gorman (first gay Green TD) and Cian O'Callaghan (first gay SD TD) also? And if so, why not Shatter or Taylor among Jewish records? I'm trying to establish limiting principles and consistency. This page doesn't elsewhere break records down by party. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In what sense is Roderic O'Gorman not Katherine Zappone's successor? He succeeds her in all her ministerial functions. He also has new duties which she does not have, but no other one person is her successor. While ministerial successors in Ireland can be a bit of a Theseus's ship, they don't have no meaning, especially where all of the previous minister's duties are held by the legal successor. Another contributor also thought this was worth noting. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's a re-configured department, so totally not the same. But really, this is a silly record, we don't do for for women succeeding women in Ministries, so no point in doing for the gays. Spleodrach (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neither do we list the first woman elected for each party, or constituencies with multiple women. It's not up to one editor to police what records are added to a page such as this. I disagree that it's totally not the same. He has more duties than she did, as one section of Justice will be transferred to her. Just as Darragh O'Brien has more duties than Eoghan Murphy, as Heritage is being transferred to that department, but it is fairly reasonable to describe O'Brien as Murphy's successor in Housing, as O'Brien will be responsible for everything Murphy was. It's obviously more complicated when we're looking at someone like Martin, who is a successor to Bruton, Madigan and Ross, but who in turn were also succeeded in some of their functions by Ryan and O'Brien. This is not such a case. Zappone was succeeded in all of her functions by O'Gorman. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- "It's not up to one editor to police what records are added to a page such as this." Exactly, and that applies to you too. Spleodrach (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Am I doing so? I'm making a case for including this, and previously after engaging in discussion with you on previous entries in this section of the page, agreed to include entries which you had made the case for. I did not summarily dismiss them, but opened a discussion, and on this occasion, have endeavoured to engage with your argument that it is a different department after the reconfiguration and how this affects questions of succession. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Again, your words, "It's not up to one editor to police what records are added to a page such as this.". Just throwing back in your face because you said them. Aw shucks, ain't it a shame when what you said comes back to bite you in the ass! Consider that when you are pontificating here! Spleodrach (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- It's a disagreement about the significance of an entry in a records page, and its height, about the continuity of government departments. We're not discussing the causes of the civil war here! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
- Again, your words, "It's not up to one editor to police what records are added to a page such as this.". Just throwing back in your face because you said them. Aw shucks, ain't it a shame when what you said comes back to bite you in the ass! Consider that when you are pontificating here! Spleodrach (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Am I doing so? I'm making a case for including this, and previously after engaging in discussion with you on previous entries in this section of the page, agreed to include entries which you had made the case for. I did not summarily dismiss them, but opened a discussion, and on this occasion, have endeavoured to engage with your argument that it is a different department after the reconfiguration and how this affects questions of succession. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- "It's not up to one editor to police what records are added to a page such as this." Exactly, and that applies to you too. Spleodrach (talk) 08:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Neither do we list the first woman elected for each party, or constituencies with multiple women. It's not up to one editor to police what records are added to a page such as this. I disagree that it's totally not the same. He has more duties than she did, as one section of Justice will be transferred to her. Just as Darragh O'Brien has more duties than Eoghan Murphy, as Heritage is being transferred to that department, but it is fairly reasonable to describe O'Brien as Murphy's successor in Housing, as O'Brien will be responsible for everything Murphy was. It's obviously more complicated when we're looking at someone like Martin, who is a successor to Bruton, Madigan and Ross, but who in turn were also succeeded in some of their functions by Ryan and O'Brien. This is not such a case. Zappone was succeeded in all of her functions by O'Gorman. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 07:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Shortest-serving cabinet ministers (in same office) edit
Jim McDaid was never appointed Minister for Defence (Ireland) and, therefore, should not be included on this list. Contemporary newspaper reports are quite clear on this, as was McDaid himself, who on 13 November 1991 referred to his "proposed appointment" in Dáil Éireann.[2]. He also stated on the record that he "requested the Taoiseach to withdraw my nomination to the office". Newspaper reports from the time referred to him as "Minister for Defence designate" for ten hours (Irish Independent, 14 November 1991). As a result of the controversy concerning McDaid, Charles Haughey, as taoiseach, stated to the Dáil: "I wish to request leave of the House to withdraw the motion concerning nomination of Members of the Government which I moved today."
McDaid's Dáil record makes no mention of him every serving as defence minister.[3]
User:Spleodrach insists that McDaid was a minister, using a reference from a newspaper published 29 years after the events in question.Damac (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Zappone edit
In addition to the citation I provided in my edit I wish to to mention these two other sources, This Irish Sun article, https://www.thesun.ie/news/2669449/childrens-minister-katherine-zappone-praised-by-top-white-witch-for-her-interest-in-the-wicca-tradition-and-studying-witchcraft/
and Zappone's book The Hope of Wholeness: A Spirituality of Feminism, written by Zappone and first published in 1991. In this book she mentionss she took part in rituals organised by Starhawk, a witch and neopaganism feminist.Aerchasúr (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
- The Irish Sun is not a WP:RS. The Today FM source literally says "While Minister Katherine Zappone examined the Wicca tradition in a book published in 1991." - that dors not make her an adherent Wicca. I mean - she may be - but you're going to need much stronger sourcing. See also WP:BLPCAT (which applies to lists as well as to categories). Douglas Hyde attended many masses over the course of his presidency - that did not make him a Catholic.
- As regards de Valera, he was the son of a Spaniard and an Irish woman; that does not make him "mixed race". BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes it does. We are not living in three race theory age any more. The term race is now a synonym of ethnicity, ie there are hundreds of race if face exists at all. I am changing it to Spanish as I personally abhor the term race and it is more precise anyway.
regarding Zappone. Hyde attended mass. That wouldn't be considered taking part in the ritual of mass from a religious studies point of view. I will get more sources and correct this later. Aerchasúr (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Good edit on Dev. As regards Zappone, one of the sources you had wanted to use also says she examined and took part in Christian ritual, so - does that make her a Christian? If not - why not? Because you can't argue that participation in a Wiccan ritual made her a witch but participation in a Christian ritual didn't make her Christian. Can you? Really, be very careful about what you add here. No cherrypicking, like, for example, adding "[women] strongly rejected allegations [that they had been victims] of physical abuse" but neglecting to add the very next sentence from the same source, saying "Against this, the vast majority reported psychological abuse," such as you recently attempted on another article. Maybe get consensus here, first? And make sure the sources are reliable. Blogs aren't. Nor are websites that have been done for plagiarism. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Leo Varakar said she is a wicca on public record. that is reliable enough source. Being Christian isn't mutually exclusive of being a witch. Being christian doesnt mean you believe pagan gods are a fictional. It just means you dont worship them and you think they are subordinate to God. Aerchasúr (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- No, it absolutely isn't a reliable enough source. Think about it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
- What a load of nonsense. No reliable evidence has provided for these bizarre assertions about Zappone being a witch or a wiccan. If it can't make it into the main Katherine Zappone article then it can't be in here. Spleodrach (talk) 08:47, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
First Traveller in the Oireachtas edit
In the Ethnic minorities subsection, it lists Pádraig Mac Lochlainn as the first Traveller in the Oireachtas. However, as noted in references of Eileen Flynn (politician), while Mac Lochlainn's mother was a Traveller, he himself (according to Flynn) does not identified as a Traveller as he was raised as a settled person and he was not involved directly in the Travelling community. CeltBrowne (talk) 20:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have updated the relevant section. Mac Lochlainn is still the first of Traveller descent. Spleodrach (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2023 (UTC)