Talk:Boann

Relation to Dagda

Where is the textual evidence that Dagda is related to Boann? The article claims he is her uncle. Are Dagda and Delbaeth siblings?

Is the Delbaeth mentioned in this article the same as the grandfather of Bres mentioned in the second battle of Mag Tuired?

Untitled

My understanding is that she walked counterclockwise around the well, the well surged up and ran to the sea, and in this flood she lost the arm, leg and eye. I thought Tobar Segais was a *well*, and that the river created from the well was the Boyne. I've also never heard a credible source say Brighid and Boann are the same goddess; however I do think it's plausible that, as the more popular deity/saint, Brighid later incorporated some of Boann's functions and worshippers. Additionally, I have heard some theorize that Boann is Brighid's mother. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, your account of the Segais incident accords with what I remember from the Dindshenchas (and our own article Nechtan (mythology) says the same). As for the alleged Brigit/Bóand connection, I think that as long as we make clear this we're describing a Neopagan POV, it doesn't matter much that it's not from a credible source.

(A propos, if Bóand was Brigit's mother, wouldn't one expect a good explanation à la making nine months seem as one day to Elcmar?) QuartierLatin1968 23:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think there would be a tale of some sort about Boann being Brighid's mother if this were the case. I'm thinking it might be due to a Neopagan conflation of Boann with Danu. I've made some changes to reflect the story as we know it. I was going to link to well but that article stresses man-made wells. I don't recall mention of any of the Celtic holy wells being man-made. Perhaps we need something more like water spring... though that seems to go into aquifers more than natural wells, IIRC. Or maybe we need to create some sort of article on holy wells in general (though some of that is touched on in clootie and well dressing). I didn't have time to check the links, so I'm not sure how we should describe them. Oh, wait, maybe I should just move them back (I didn't realize they were specific source references when I was editing). Yeah, I'll do that. --Kathryn NicDhàna 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn NicDhàna I believe your recent edit claiming that my information was inacurate was in itself false and unfounded. If you would care to read the primary sources that I have provided you may see this. I would apreciate that if you are going to edit two months of work on my part that you question individual points with me on my user page. If there are aspects of what I wrote you have queries for please point them out so that I can cite them correctley for you. I can assure you that after over a decade of study of this topic I can and most heartily do wish to provide nothing but acurate information which is my motivation for writing the article in the first place. Emmagallagher 00:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Emma, In the future you don't really need to put the same post on both our talk pages and this page. Just placing it here is sufficient :-) I think you are a bit unclear on some Wikipedia policies. I realize these things may not be immediately apparent on Wikipedia, and that you are new. As has been suggested by others on your talk page, I would also appreciate if if you would read up on the WP:OWN policy. You are contributing to an article that numerous people have already worked on, and will continue to work on. No one owns or is the sole author of any Wikipedia article. At the bottom of every page it says, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." It is not helpful to Wikipedia process to assume or imply that other editors know less than you, or that you can write up a different article and just copy and paste it over the Wikipedia article without resolving conflicts in style, tone, and conclusions. Check out the extensive work of some of the other editors who've worked on the article. You can click on the "history" tab of any article to see the list of people who have worked on that article. It is also not required for anyone to ask any other editor on their talk page for permission before making changes to an article. It is, however, politic (and policy) to discuss major changes on the article talk page to reach consensus.

Some of the sources you provided were not primary sources. And in some cases you cited a primary source for the title of a section, but then added information and interpretations that are not included in that source. It also is not helpful to introduce a large amount of mistakes and then assume others will correct them for you, or assume that the article should sit in that state indefinitely while you learn to correct them yourself. While mistakes are a normal part of learning, may I also gently remind you that that is what the sandbox is for, to learn formatting before experimenting on the articles themselves. If you think you cannot fix the formatting within a few hours of making the change, it is probably better to make the change *after* you've learned how to do it.

I have not "requested arbitration" on this, by any means, and am not sure what gave you that impression. I mentioned to some of the other editors who regularly work on this article that they may want to take a look at the changes, as I figured they might have more time to work on it right now than I do.

Again, I appreciate your contributions, but please try to Assume Good Faith and respect that Wikipedia is a collaborative project that works by consensus. Slàn, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Copyright Violations?

The following is in the recent additions: "Elcmar of the Brug (Bru Na Boinne / Bend in the Boyne/ Newgrange), had a wife whose name was Eithne and another name for her was Boand. Eochaid Ollathair (also named the Dagda) desired her. The lady was in fear of Elcmar, so great was his power."

I found the following at this copyrighted site: "Elcmar of the Brugh had a wife whose name was Eithne, and another name for her was Boand. The Dagda desired her in carnal union. The woman would have yielded to the Dagda had it not been for fear of Elcmar, so great was his power."

While there are some alterations, I'm concerned about possible copyright violations in this and other passages. I'm checking some other text now. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is in the current article text and not as a quote: "The Dagda brought his son to Midir's house in Brí Léith in Tethba, to be fostered. He was also called Mac Óg (the Young Son), for his mother said: ‘Young is the son who was begotten at the break of day and born betwixt it and evening.’"

The following is from the "Wooing of Etain" on this web page: "2. The Dagda meanwhile brought his son to Midir's house in Bri Leith in Tethba, to be fostered. ... He was also called in Mac Oc (the Young Son), for his mother said: "Young is the son who was begotten at the break of day and born betwixt it and evening.""

I'm removing this paragraph for copyright violation. I'm now extremely nervous about the recent additional material put into the article. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 03:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too close. If someone wants to elaborate on the bare facts of the myths, they can do that at a later date, but we cannot leave copyvios in the article. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again: The quoted paragraph in "Boann and Dagda and the birth of Aengus" section is not an exact quote from the source document. The text has been edited without any indication that it has been altered. The paragraph needs to be rectified or removed. My nervousness is increasing. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 04:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll see what I can do about that one. But I'm reluctant to put much energy into going through and repairing/rewriting text until all the copyvios are cleared out. I think I may let you (or others) finish clearing all the copyvios before I tackle it. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The more I look through this, the more I think it would be kindest to everyone to just revert, and then expand from what we had before. I'm sorry but this is really a mess. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. I agree. When, out of four paragraphs I looked at, two are copyright violations and a direct quote is not accurately inserted, I think there's too many problems to attempt to just correct them piecemeal. This new material seems to have been pasted in without much thought as to how or if it meshed with the info already in the article. I think reverting to a version before these additions would be good. If there is additional information that people want to include, it can be incorporated appropriately into the consensus version as it already existed. --Pigman^{talk • contribs} 05:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

OK then. While the earlier version of this article could certainly use fleshing out, and some of what was recently added is relevant, the fleshing-out needs to happen in an appropriate manner. It can't be done via copyvios and stylistic problems that take more time to correct than would adding new material in a Wiki-apt way. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 05:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

this copyrighted sitePlease look to see where this site sourced the material. It is the same as the source that I cited
Emmagallagher 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

this web pageAgain, the source from this site is the same source as I have cited.
Emmagallagher 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be two main problems with the content that I edited (aside from not asking Kathryn permission/concensus first)

1. that I have not placed the referance tags in the correct places within the text. THis is something I have sought help with and would still apreciate any genuine collaborative assistance with.
2. that all primary sources are in 14th Century Old Irish or Old English and has undergone many translations a number of which are 'qualified' academic sources. The recognised academic translations are those provided by collaborators to the CELT project at University College Cork, in Ireland. The majority of publications (print and electronic) in the entire area of Irish Myth are taken from this source. Personally I do not accept even these as primary sources as a)they are translations via two languages and b)they follow the academic Latinization of the Old Irish language that the universities academics have created over the last 3/4 century. (I understand that this is realy an issue for other articles but it does have a bearing on all related articles. Other than printing the article in Old Irish there are no other Primary sources. Therefore I would ask how should issues of translation be resolved in this regard?
   Emmagallagher 20:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Emma - I've moved the comments you interspersed throughout Paul's posts to the bottom of the page, so as to not confuse readers as to who wrote what :-) The problem with the content you added is that you cut and pasted material from other webpages without indicating that entire sections were exact quotes - you represented them as your own writing. And then in the case where you indicated that a section was an exact quote, the "quote" was not an exact quote from the URL you gave as the source of that quote, it was rewritten a bit. Both of these things are inappropriate. The CELT site and similar archives of mss recensions are excellent sources to use, but they have to be utilized in a way that conforms with copyright regulations. Also, you added Neopagan speculations from sources such as Caitlín Mathews, and then when I mentioned that that wasn't the best source, you removed the citation but not the text taken from it - in effect presenting the Neopagan content as if it were sourced from the mss recensions. I realize it takes some time to learn WP policies and guidelines, and that it can be frustrating to have your work reverted. May I once again remind you that it is important to Assume Good Faith and remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Tapadh Leibh, ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, So if I fix coding to block quote things that are exact quotes and cite the source correctley(where should the ref code be put?), where sections are inexact quotes revert them to being exact and cite accordingly or write it in common terms and cite relevant referance for those points then there should be no problems with what I wrote? Or do you personally disagree with any of the content I posted (other than style or copyvios)

With regard to your accusation regarding my deleting the Mathews link after you mentioned it, I must point out that I had deleted the link an hour and a half before you said anything about it.link to my edit at 18:28, 7th Jan link to your talk contribution at 21:02, 7th JanAlso the link was not a referance or citation note but in the section of 'further reading'. Personally I agree with you that the viewpoints of the Mathews on this matter are overly 'creative' and are ill placed in this article. Hence why I deleted it!

That said I do have concerns at your insistance that neopagan authours/referances/concepts are inapropriate. Not just with regard to the issue I have mentioned but also where other editors are concerned. I undersatnd that due to your CR background that much of these concepts would be distastefull to you, or go against the grain of personal belief, but surely wiki is not a place for personal opinion? If it is clearley stated that the information is from a neopagan standpoint and apropriatley referanced as such, I fail to see how such a point could be invalid. Unless of course you wish to be interpreted as seeing neopaganism or authours/scholars of neopagan areas of interest, as invalid? If you dont intend to be seen in this way may I gently sugest that you dont jump so quickly to edit such referances and discuss them for concensus or at least try to be more tolerant of such views.

Lig dúinn le beartas de mheon macánta. Tá sé an tarcaisne.

Ná bí gasta go breithiúnas agus tóg go réidh é tú féin!

Emmagallagher 03:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1. If an addition is well-written, well-sourced, encyclopedic in tone and not a copyright violation, it will probably remain in the article. However, other editors may still tweak it. One of the problems with some of the text you added is that sources vary, say, on the number of times Boann circled the well, how many salmon were in the well or streams, and even whether there are five or seven streams of knowledge. Therefore, it doesn't help the article to insert one version as definitive and encyclopedic.
2. Large pullquotes in archaic language are not ideal. While some quotes may be desireable, in some articles, at some times, large passages with archaic phrasings and/or spellings tend to be offputting to the general reader.
3. Much of these writing guidelines are covered in the links in the welcome message you deleted from your talk page. Again, may I suggest reading the guidelines rather than deleting them.
4. Other editors are more likely to respond to your requests for help if you do not insult them. ~ Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

golden / gold

Is the "fifty swords with golden hilts, fifty swords with gold hilts" a typo? 2001:BB6:5C1D:3B00:1C73:96B1:A426:1CBF (talk) 11:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)