Talk:Lebor Gabála Érenn

Lebor Gabála Érenn

Is it possible that Fir Bolg = Men of the Bags refers to BAG PIPES?? Alternatively, Fir (Celtic) = Vir (Latin) = Wer (Germanic) = Man, and Bolg (Celtic) = Vulgus (Latin) = Folk (Germanic) = People, so that Fir Bolg = Men Folk.

Also, the Pretanic Invasion of c. 600 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celtic outpourings of men into Italy of Bellovesus in the early 6th century BCE.

Also, the Laginian invasion of c. 300 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celtic outpourings of men into Greece and Asia Minor in c. 278-75 BCE...

While the Goidelic invasion of c. 100 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celto-Germanic outpourings of men into Gaul, Spain, and Italy of the Cimbri and Teutones (who were defeated by Marius in 101 BCE at Vercellae.

NPOV

This isn't a subject I claim to know much about, but I'm wondering what other users think of the NPOV in the article? I'm particularly worried about this sentence:

An important record of the folkloric history of Ireland, it was compiled and edited by an anonymous scholar in the 11th century, and might be described without exaggeration as a mélange of mythology, legend, history, folklore, Christian historiography, political propaganda and barefaced lies.

Is there another way of saying this? "might be described without exaggeration", "political propaganda" and "barefaced lies" seem against the spirit of WP:NPOV. Kaid100 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I have a solution. I happen to agree with you but feel that its probably a fairly accurate description. If I knew more about the subject I would get more involved. Frelke 21:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think barefaced lies could be replaced with some more neutral wording such as "embellishments" or "pure invention". Arniep 00:29, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the passage to-

and might be described as a mélange of mythology, legend, history, folklore, Christian historiography, politically inspired embellishment and some pure invention.

..but I'm happy to discuss it further.Kaid100 23:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Arniep 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a strong literary tradition in Ireland of describing legendary texts as lies (sometimes even the texts themselves warn the reader that the contents may be lies). Since we are discussing an Irish legendary text, it seems quite appropriate (and is probably true). I think this whole NPOV thing is being carried to the point where every writer in Wikipedia is forced to imitate the dry style of the professional encyclopediest. Get over yourselves; life is colourful, and language often needs to be to reflect the truth.--Muinchille1 (talk) 12:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The author of this article is most certainly biased. While embellishment is evident, the events and people have archealogical and anthropological vindication. by crossing the description of battles, migrations, people, kingships, etc. with other sources which are contemporary and compairing burial sites and dwelling remains, the jist of the book is reliable. i.e. whether or not Cu Chullain actually beheaded hundreds of mercinaries, single handedly and with multiple wounds, is up for debate. But, even though it sounds larger than life, it is still possible and there really is no way to prove it did not happen. It is a blurred truth from which we can still benefit.GomerianGod 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm flagging this article with a POV tag, the author is at times quite frankly insulting and unbiased. This article needs a very serious cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.80.197 (talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article reflects modern scholaship on the subject, although it could probably be better referenced. What precisely about it do you object to? --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

There are times when the author takes a tone wherein he criticizes the nature of the creation myth, but fails to unbiasedly criticize the creation myth from which it is apparently plagiarized. The overall sections concerning the ethos is done with a subtle tone of spite. A critical eye would fall upon this and remark "So the author thinks one kind of creation myth is ok, but one isn't?" which exposes bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.41.11 (talk) 12:44, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You will have to be more precise. Where exactly am I being more critical of one creation myth than of another? Are you suggesting that I have allowed an anti-pagan pro-JudaeoChristian bias to enter the text? That would be strange, given that I am not religious. What are the "overall sections concerning the ethos" that you refer to? My latest edits are an honest and genuine attempt to meet your criticisms. I just don't want people to read this article and think that LGE is an accurate account of Irish history. It's not, and making this clear is not a violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Eroica (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I've edited sections for NPOV. Does anyone still have any objections? Can we remove the POV tag? Eroica (talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to see some analysis of why it may be inappropriate to critique a history that likely has its basis in oral tradition. Indigenous storytelling is seldom derided in this way if details are not crossreferenced with external historic sources. There are consequences to such criticism, namely adding to a long list of oppressive attitudes that have affected self-perception and self-determination for members of endangered language groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.219.99 (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This is special pleading. The Lebor Gabála is worthy of study as an artifact of traditional history, but it can't be considered as being reliable history, whether or not you think that's "inappropriate" or "oppressive". Effectively you're asking us not to tell the truth to spare unnamed people's feelings. I think the POV tag should be removed. It's only there as a sop to those who aren't prepared to read pre-modern works critically. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added some comments by Robert Graves that support the view that LGE (and similar works) may preserve oral traditions that were transmitted accurately by word of mouth for centuries before the introduction of writing. Eroica (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections of substance have been made, so I've removed the POV tag. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

the writings of a Welsh priest is not erroneous? but the indigenous priest are? and also "Irish Pseudohistory", very biased accounts by writer, instead of being proper informative the article just AIMS at one target..... everything written by the romans is true except the roman church. This article is derogatory to Irish history and the Irish as well. fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.43.168.163 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The use of 'pagan' here is comical and not very encyclopaedic.

Suggested page move

From the article:

"It is usually known in English as The Book of Invasions [...]

Need I say more? Alai 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Date of Compilation Error

Na Lebor Gabala Erenn (a.k.a. The Book of invasions of Ireland, Leabhor Gabhala Eirinn) was the 17th century reprise of the preexisting Lebor Na Huidhre (a.k.a. Book of the Dun Cow, Leabhor Na Huidhre). The reprise was the work of Michael O' Cleirigh at the request of Brian Maguire and was completed in 1631. The Lebor Na Huidre was a compilation of five books that existed in Ireland. This original compilation was made in 1106AD by Mael Muire Mac Célechair (Galleghar) at Clonmacnoise. It was written in Gaelic using the Romanized Irish Alphabet.[Royal Irish Academy: Manuscript Records]GomerianGod 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You're confused. The earliest surviving version of Lebor Gabála appears in the Book of Leinster (ca. 1160). It's a compilation of poems, some of which may be as early as the 6th century) with a prose chronological framework/explanation which dates to the 12th. The Lebor na hUidre is a complilation of prose texts which, as you say, dates to ca. 1106 although most of the contents are older than that. It does not include the Lebor Gabála or anything that could be considered a precursor to it. Michael O'Clery, of Annals of the Four Masters fame, did write a version of the Lebor Gabála in the 17th century, which is mentioned in the article under "Textual variants", but he didn't create it and he didn't base it on Lebor na hUidre. --Nicknack009 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not confused. If there were something not right about the information I posted, it would not be my error for I recieved it from the Royal Irish Academy (the school has possession of the book). I do know that both Leabhor Gabhala Eirinn and Leabhor Na Huidhre are almost the same book, because I've personally read through both. Neither one are autographs, they are both just compilations, one a revision of the other, both edited by the Catholic church, which caused more escewment in the information. There are many poems, some which most likely even predate Christ, but there are also many naratives.GomerianGod 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

"And the first two "takings" of Ireland — those of Cessair and Partholón, both taking place before the Flood — seem to be wholly fanciful" vs. "Three hundred years after the Flood, Partholón, who, like the Gaels, is a descendant of Noah's son Japheth, settles in Ireland." I checked the online version and it says " till Partholon s. Sera s. Sru came to it. He is the first who took Ireland after the Flood", so I'm removing the "both taking place before the Flood". If anyone can read old Irish, they might wanty to check the original. Vultur (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

On 15 August 2004, QuartierLatin1968 made that edit (adding "both taking place beforethe Flood") - I have removed it. Eroica (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

NPOV Again

I have removed some edits by Valkyree, which were clearly intended to push the agenda that LGE is accurate history. This is not the place to argue your case. Referenced citations (e.g. the quote from Charles Squire, which I have kept, but moved to the relevant section) are, of course, another matter. Eroica (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right - I completely support what you've done. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

the origins section of this article does not have a neutral point of view and I am not the first one to point this out - but good work here from the thought police editing my changes in less than 24 hours - of course the LGE is not completely accurate history but neither is it completely derived from the imaginations of medieval monks - valkyree 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The article is entirely NPOV because it represents the consensus of scholarship on the subject. And it doesn't say the LGE is "completely derived from the imaginations of medieval monks", it says "Drawing upon the pagan myths of Celtic Ireland — both Gaelic and pre-Gaelic — but reinterpreting them in the light of Judaeo-Christian theology and historiography". --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're quite right, Valkyree, in saying that the NPOV status of the Origins section has been questioned before. But that section has since been revised extensively to remove any non-neutral POV. I have just read it again and made another emendation: I replaced the loaded word pseudohistory with the more neutral phrase legendary history. If you believe that there are still biassed comments in that section, I would be happy to consider further edits. Your own extensive edits could not possibly be considered NPOV. Eroica (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, "pseudohistory" isn't really what it is - that word really only applies to modern works with an agenda so powerful it overrides honesty. I've used "historical tradition" in some of the articles on individual kings. Eoin MacNeill called it "synthetic history", but I wouldn't use that as we don't have an article on it that could be linked to explain what it means - people would assume "synthetic" means "artificial" rather than its original meaning of "brought together", referring to the various attepts to reconcile native traditions with Christian and classical chronologies. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Legendary history is a more accurate phrase than pseudo-history and is in keeping with the fact almost all peoples have some legendary history (containing 'fantastic' elements)that pre-dates their verifiable historical history - that is an appropriate change. "Purporting to be ..." at the beginning of the section is similar and for the same reason - all legendary histories "purport to be..." and others are accepted as the earliest histories without need for the loaded words "purporting to be..." (which carries a negative connotation). valkyree - April 29,2012 valkyree 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

"Others are accepted as the earliest histories"? No they're not, except maybe by religious fundamentalists. Historians don't accept legend as history. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Most people are not western academic historians - the fact we still know these stories attests to the fact legendary histories are still told and passed on from generation to generation all around the world valkyree 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Opposed. -- Jamie ^u_t 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Lebor Gabála Érenn → Book of Invasions – Move requested to "the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". This was brought up once before but never discussed or formally rqeuested. Evidence in support: Google Books results for "Book of Invasions" c.42 pages, "Lebor Gabala Erenn" c.22 pages, "Lebor Gabála Érenn" c.10 pages (ngram viewer); Google News Archive results for "Book of Invasions" 6 pages, "Lebor Gabala Erenn" 1 page, "Lebor Gabála Érenn" 1 page. As this move would also require the main body the be slightly rewritten I've provided a rough version that can be copied over once the page is moved. -- Jamie ^u_t 11:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• I certainly have no objections. Eroica (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• The move is OK by me, but I utterly reject using Google search results as a justification for it. Hohenloh ⁺ 12:18, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Like the similar discussion at Táin Bó Cúailnge, the Irish name is what is used academically. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

How are you determining what is used academically? I just had a quick look on JSTOR and there's 220 results for "Book of Invasions" compared to 74 results for "Lebor Gabála Érenn". -- Jamie ^u_t 20:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

By reading books. Counting search term hits is no way to determine anything. As pointed out in the TBC discussion, Irish words with diacritics confuse OCR and might not show up on searches. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I originally determined the common usage "by reading books" as well - I guess we must just be reading different books. :) While I take on board what you are saying regarding the diacritics I personally doubt they would cause OCR to pick up less than half of the results...but I have no way of checking. I did, however, check the meagre few books I have on Irish history on their usage and found the following: Lebor Gabála/Lebor Gabála Érenn 3, Book of Invasions 1 (Most of my books are focussed on archaeology so didn't mention it). It's a small sample size but it's enough to give me pause. I can't see myself heading to the library and checking a larger quantity of books so perhaps you or anybody with a better sample size could post a count/comparison of their books. -- Jamie ^u_t 23:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've checked the books I have immediately to hand, and looked in the index of each: the form found in the index will be the one the author expects the reader will look it up under and therefore the one he or she assumes is primary.

• • • • • • • • Anne Dooley's Playing the Hero: Reading the Irish Saga Táin Bó Cúailnge (Unoversity of Toronto Press, 2006) has Lebor Gabhála Érenn in the index, and does not have "Book of Invasions".
              • Kim McKone's Pagan Past and Christian Present in Early Irish Literature (Maynooth Monographs, 1990) has Lebor Gabála Érenn, and not "Book of Invasions" (although it does have "Book of Armagh", "Book of Leinster", "Book of the Angel" and "Book of Rights", the latter two redirecting the reader to Lebor Angeli and Lebor na Cert respectively).
              • Francis J. Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings (Four Courts Press, 2001) has Lebor Gabála Érenn and not "Book of Invasions" (although it does have "Book of Leinster" and "Book of Rights").
              • A New History of Ireland, Vol 1: Prehistoric and Early Ireland (edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, Oxford University Press, 2005) has Lebor Gabála Érenn, and "Book of Invasions" as a redirect to Lebor Gabála Érenn; Vol 2: Medieval Ireland 1169-1534 (edited by Art Cosgrove, OUP, 2008) has Lebor Gabála, and no "Book of Invasions".
              • Michael Richter's Medieval Ireland (Gill & McMillan, 1988) has Lebor Gabála, and no "Book of Invasions" (but "Book of Rights" as a redirect to Lebor na Cert).

In Joseph Falaky Nagy's Conversing with Angels and Ancients: Literary Myths of Medieval Ireland (Cornell University Press, 1997), Dáibhí Ó Cróinín's Early Medieval Ireland 400-1200 (Longman, 1995), Joanne Findon's A Woman's Words: Emer and Female Speech in the Ulster Cycle (University of Toronto Press, 1997) and Nerys Patterson's Cattle Lords and Clansman: The Social Structure of Early Ireland (University of Notre Dame Press, 1994) it doesn't appear in the index in any form. Of course, the standard academic edition, by R. A. S. Macalister, is published in five volumes as Lebor Gabála Érenn: The Book of the Taking of Ireland.

That's all the reputable scholarly books on early Irish literature and history I have immediate access to. Only one uses "Book of Invasions" at all in the index, and only as a redirect. As far as popular books are concerned, James MacKillop's Dictionary of Celtic Mythology (OUP, 1998) has the relevant entry under Lebor Gabála Érenn, with "Book of Invasions" as a redirect. The only book I've been able to find that indexes it under "Book of Invasions" is T. W. Rolleston's whiskery old Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race from 1911. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A New History of Ireland (vol 1) was one of the books I checked so taking that one out of my count the total count would change to Lebor Gabála/Lebor Gabála Érenn: 7 and Book of Invasions: 1. That's enough to convince me to withrdaw my request. I don't think Eroica and Hohenloh were formally supporting the move (just saying they weren't objecting) but just in case they were I'll double check with them before closing the request. -- Jamie ^u_t 10:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

From their user talk pages: Eroica confirmed they just expressed their indifference; Hohenloh stated they were happy with a redirect from Book of Invasions. As such I am withdrawing the request which is unanimously opposed. -- Jamie ^u_t 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The Book of the Taking of Ireland would seem to be a better English title per WP:AT in terms of clarity and precision. It is also how the edition is sold on Amazon.com Lebor gabála Érenn: The book of the taking of Ireland. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that using Google search result counts is not a reliable method of determining an issue like this, but I want to point out that searching using the modern (rather than archaic) spelling i.e. 'Leabhar Gabhala Eireann' returns 22,500 hits in Google Search and 290 in Google Books. Gabhala (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Conform Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles English has no automatic preference over Gaelic. And why refer to a Gaelic book with a Gaelic name in the Gaelic language with an English name? This is about Irish history long before the English came to Ireland. The Banner talk 12:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tower of Hercules (La Coruña, Galicia) :

There is a mistake in the caption of the picture. The OFFICIAL NAME of the city where the Tower is placed is " A Coruña " written in galician (according to the spanish Law) . The designation of " La Coruña " in castilian is wrong (and illegal in spain).

Please correct the mistake. BeroBreo (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

NORMATIVA SOBRE NOMBRES GEOGRAFICOS EN ESPAÑA:

INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO NACIONAL:

And it's La Coruña in Castilian Spanish. I find it very hard to believe that it's illegal in Spain to use a Spanish name, even if it isn't the official name. Surely prescribing one language and forbidding others is the kind of thing Franco used to do. In any case, our article on A Coruña says the Real Academia Española recommends using La Coruña when writing in Castilian, and the local football club is called Deportivo de La Coruña, so I should think either is probably acceptable in English - although the article on the city itself is rightly at the offical name. So relax. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FIRST: The name of the city IS A GALICIAN NAME of a galician city. SECOND: IT IS ILLEGAL. I have attached documents about the spanish law regarding these matters. Please read them before making any judgement. THIRD: The ″Real Academia Española recommends using La Coruña when writing in Castilian″. The present article is written in english, not in castilian. FOURTH: The term ″español″ is used to refer the castilian language. The other spanish languages recognised in the spanish constitution are: Galician, Basque and Catalan.

For all that reasons I must conclude that the argument: I find it very hard to believe that it's illegal in Spain to use a Spanish name it has been written under only two possible scenarios. It its bad intended or it is a simple expression of ignorance. I strongly recommend you to inform about the spanish laws. Please read the Constitution.

I have relatives which have been killed under franco's regime, I know about their idea of tolerance.

Please modify the article. Thanks. --BeroBreo (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

FIRST: If it's illegal to use the Castilian name, then how come the football team do? SECOND: the links you supplied don't say anything of the sort anyway. THIRD: Even if they did, the English Wikipedia is not under the jurisdiction of Spanish law. FOURTH: You are a ridiculous troll. Go away. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Even if Spanish law is so Draconian, its long arm really cannot extend so far as to control the form of names written on an English-language page hosted in the United States. In my view, all the more reason to use the traditional English form "Corunna", including a link to A Coruña. Moonraker (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree with Moonraker. This article is written in english, not in castilian. Therefore I accept the suggestion of using Corunna, including a link to A Coruña. I just cannot accept that people using other language than castilian, refer to galician names using castilian. This behaviour tends to extend the false idea that in spain there is only one language, namely spanish. The term "spanish" is used to design the castilian language, which is a designation based only on political criteria not on linguistics. For those who my be interested, here is the law that shows that A Coruña is the official name .

Earlier today I modified the article so that it reads "A Coruña". I did so because I will not accept any decision of a person whose arguments are like this ″You are a ridiculous troll. Go away.″ --BeroBreo (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no argument that A Coruña is the official name, and I have no objection to A Coruña being used in this article (I think it's given undue weight in an article about a work medieval Irish literature that never mentions it directly, but that's another point). I will continue to call you a troll for claiming that using any other name is illegal.

I would also oppose using Corunna, which has no currency among English speakers and hasn't had for a long time. English speakers are far more likely to know Castilian Spanish than any of Spain's regional languages, and are therefore more likely to know Castilian place-names. In the UK the main reason anybody is aware of the place is the football team, who use La Coruña. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Images on this page

Has anyone got any objections to me changing and moving around some of the images on this Lebor Gabála Érenn page? And maybe adding some more images that are appropriate to the different parts of the story?

The current image at the top of the page is a picture of the Tower of Hercules in Spain. Now yes, this is indeed part of the Lebor Gabála Érenn story, but its not an appropriate image that represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story as a whole, and Irish History. The story is about the History of Ireland, and the Tower of Hercules is in Spain. I think the Tower of Hercules image should be moved down the page to the section called "Early history of the Gaels", because that is where the Tower of Hercules is discussed in the story.

And instead I can make several suggestions for a more appropriate image for the top of the page that better represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. Here are some suggestions;

• A picture of the Lia Fáil, the Stone of Destiny, on the Hill of Tara Wikipedia page would be very appropriate to the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. The Lia Fáil is a central part of the core text of the story of the High Kings, and its a lovely picture too! It would be perfect at the top of this page!
• Any of the images used on the Wikipedia Newgrange page would be very appropriate as the Tuatha Dé Danann are one of the most intriguing parts of the story. So a nice picture of Newgrange itself would be a good way to represent the Irishness of the story.
• Or another option would be to keep the opening image on the page "Academic", and put in an image of one of the actual texts used in the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. The Wikipedia page Book of Leinster has a beautiful image from Folio 53 of the Book of Leinster. And the Book of Leinster is one of the main scripts that tells the story of Lebor Gabála Érenn. So this option really would represent what the story is all about, the History of Ireland.

Or I am open to any suggestions for other images that would better represent Lebor Gabála Érenn and the History of Ireland. John37309 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

really questionable claims and a poor article

"Purporting to be a history of Ireland and the Irish, Lebor Gabála Érenn (hereinafter abbreviated as LGE) may be seen as an attempt to provide the Irish with a written history comparable to that which the Israelites provided for themselves in the Old Testament. Drawing upon the pagan myths of Gaelic Ireland but reinterpreting them in the light of Judeo-Christian theology and historiography, it describes how the island was settled six times by six groups of people. Biblical paradigms provided the mythologers with ready-made stories which could be adapted to their purpose. Thus we find the ancestors of the Irish enslaved in a foreign land, or fleeing into exile, or wandering in the wilderness, or sighting the "Promised Land" from afar."

The words "may be seen" indicate the initial problem. Whats being presented here is vague theory or an attempt at original research with no actual basis in fact. There are assumptions made about how the LGE was created which have no foundation in facts. Its impossible to know the motives of those involved. Its impossible to know that they were "reinterpreting". Further, to suggest that stories of enslavement in foreign lands, fleeing into exile, wandering or viewing a shore from the sea are somehow only Judeo-Christian narratives is utterly false. Those sorts of stories can be found all over Europe and beyond in a variety of different narrative histories. That there are zero citations in any of the quoted material above makes it all the worse.

Its accurate to say that we know very little about the LGE, what the motives were in creating it, what methods were used and what sources were involved. There have always been people who have made extravagant claims one way or the other, but those sorts of claims should not be dictating the core of an encyclopedic article. The article should be focused on explaining the known history of the documents rather than being focused from start to finish on the question of their value (and/or lack thereof) as historical documents. I came to this article looking for factual information about the know history of the LGE, its structure and the actual contents of the LGE. What the article provides is mostly a monologue fighting over the uninteresting topic of historical accuracy. This article is another poster child for why large parts of Wikipedia are useless. 75.17.124.191 (talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To an extent, I tend to agree with your opinion. This whole page has an incredible "negative" sentiment. This page is not an impartial article, it does need to be re-written. I was intending to have a go at re-writing the article, but I haven't found the time yet. But I offer my support to anyone that is willing to try. John37309 (talk) 12:02, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is negative or not impartial. The page reflects scholarly opinion, hedged slightly to appease romantics who want to believe it was passed down untouched from pre-Christian antiquity. There's no-one working in early Irish history and literature who believes that, and the LGE's dependence on the Bible, the Aeneid and Christian classical historians like Orosius is obvious to anyone who knows anything about it/them. Granted, the lack of references in the "Origins" section is an issue. At first glance it looks like a precis of Macalister's introduction to his edition/translation, and it could do with a few more viewpoints. But a better referenced article will essentially say the same thing. --Nicknack009 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Nicknack, all your LGE related articles on wikipedia are all written with the same negitive sentiment, and its very biased, and its not impartial. Now yes, i know that Macalister and other acedemics all criticise these old texts that were handed down to us through history. But to be truely impartial, nether for, nor against, the original Irish texts, our wikipedia articles should be non biased, and fully impartial. That means writing the wikipedia articles to discuss the original text, and not what Macalister thought of the text he was translating. This LGE article should be about the original LGE texts, and no importance should be placed on the opinion of the acedimics.

Lets be completely clear here! Nowhere in the original LGE texts does it say these books are mythology. The christian monks that wrote the original texts were NOT writing mythology. They wrote the history of the Island of Ireland. And regardless of what Macalister, or any other acedimic schollar thinks, these old texts are the history of our whole Nation. And the texts should be treated with the utmost respect, and that is the tone that should be used when writing LGE wikipedia articles.

The original LGE texts were written by Men of God, and they were intended to be read in the same way that you read and "interpret" the Christian Bible, that is, to have some faith in what they wrote, and interpret the words as the Word of God. And when Mankind finally wakes up, and finds out what really happened, then, and only then, will we, Mankind, understand what they wrote, and why they wrote our history in this strange and funny mythological way. Nobody today describes the Christian Bible as mythology, except the athiests. And LGE articles should NOT be described as mythology either. The LGE texts were intended to be interpreted in the same way you are ment to interpret the Christian Bible, which is, to have a little "faith", and in time, we will come to understand why the wrote our history like that! John37309 (talk) 03:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. Go away, troll. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

You obviously have not read the LGE, and you are obviously the troll here. I'm going to start fixing your crappy article with actual citations. 72.214.191.124 (talk)

He has read LGE. Nicknack has, over the last 10 years, single handedly written the vast majority of the Wikipedia articles that relate to Lebor Gabála Érenn. Nicknack should be honoured for the staggering contribution he has made to documenting and promoting Irish History. Nicknack, I was overzealous in my comments, and I apologise, I was being a bit of a Troll, you were right. But the articles could do with being a little bit more impartial, with more focus on the primary LGE texts. However Nicknack, I honour you for the incredible work you have done here on Wikipedia. John37309 (talk) 18:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Missing reference

There are multiple references to an author called "Monaghan" in the text, but no date, title, or other description 5.198.10.236 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's this edit.[1] I've asked User:Asarlaí to fix it. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. ~Asarlaí 21:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Invasions.

The subject line is an automatic Wiki redirect to the article. Since many non-Gaelic/Irish speakers know the manuscript by this name, I've included it in the lede for clarity's sake. Yes, I speak and write Irish, and Yes, I'm aware that the term is a highly questionable translation, but I don't include it as such; rather as a signpost to help navigate those who may think they've stumbled on the wrong piece. Hanoi Road (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of recent edit war

Let's look at the various things Gemmathegael and her sockpuppets wanted to insert into the article.

1. Various attempts do misrepresent the scholarly consensus as the opinion of a lone scholar - a common tactic of the pseudohistorian. Perhaps a bit more variety in citation is required to guard against this.
2. Attempts to cite "Irish bardic history" as if that was an authority. "Bardic history" is a construct of 18th/19th century wish-fulfillment, based on discredited notions of the accuracy of preservation and transmission of oral tradition. Besides, Ireland's poets were called filid, not "bards" - the use of the word "bard" was pulled out of Greek and Latin accounts of the ancient Celts, not from any source related to Ireland.
3. Material about DNA linking the Irish to the Iberian peninsula. This is probably completely irrelevant, and certainly undue weight, in an article about a medieval composition. The medieval Irish probably only believed their ancestors came from Spain because Isidore said so.
4. An attempt to discredit Macalister as a textual critic by casting aspersions on his methods as an archaeologist, cited to a paper which makes no such criticism of him. This is pure poisoning the well.
5. An argument over whether Nennius was a monk or a priest. I have removed all mention of Nennius, because he's irrelevant to the article, and probably didn't write the Historia Brittonum anyway. What's important here is the parallels between the texts, not the precise clerical occupation of the person who was once believed to have written one of them.
6. Changing "Judeo-Christian" to "Christian". This one is quite correct. The Irish monks were Christians, working from Christian materials.

I think that covers everything. Hopefully when Gemmathegael's block expires and she's calmed down a bit, some discussion can ensue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree Christian is correct, I was making the cardinal sin of not considering the context. Also, the use of DNA or archaeological sources to argue about the historicity is inappropriate, unless of course those sources discuss the topic. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

will remove judeo Christian.. It was Pre-Christian - Christian collection of documents..

Nennius has been on the page for 15 years, only when I point out he was not a priest but a monk was he removed.. "attributed to" instead of a complete removal would have sufficed if you took issue with the provenance.. Nennius used Irish texts to compile his work . according to MACALISTER . LEBOR GABALA ERENN , THE BOOK OF THE TAKING OF IRELAND Part I BY R. A. STEWART MACALISTER, on Nennius

For convenience I assume the historical existence of "Nennius": after all, someone must have written the book which bears his name. Also for convenience I call him by the old-established form of his name, rather than by the less familiar "Nemnius. "

INTRODUCTION. xxix

this misunderstood word is a valuable testimony that for this part of the history Nennius had a written text in the Irish language at his elbow.

unless R. A. STEWART MACALISTER is unrelaible , in that case i request a removal of all MACALISTER

best Gemmathegael (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

as it seems only a limted stable of "soucres are allowed" for eg I count ... Carey ref 11 times including ref 28 , Op Ed with Koch “ did the Irish come from Spain”Koch listed at least 5 times and included in ref 28 “ did the Irish come from Spain..MACALISTER 4 times,, however a recent addition of 27 ie Monaghan, Patricia. The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore. Infobase Publishing, 2014. its page 53 ...that is MACALISTER again in a compendium so 5 times. no bias there I see!

on Bardic History and of note the comments left which are discriminatory towards Irish culture.

" Attempts to cite "Irish bardic history" as if that was an authority. "Bardic history" is a construct of 18th/19th century wish-fulfillment, based on discredited notions of the accuracy of preservation and transmission of oral tradition. "

"Sure: "Irish Bardic history" is credulous romantic nonsense"

i will cite Koch , unless there is an objection , if there is I request all Koch is removed from the page as an unreliable source.. Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia Hardcover – 15 Mar 2006 by John T. Koch Koch on Bards.. bard page 171 “ Bards of earlier middle ages

Poets in medieval Ireland appear to have had a considerable degree of professional organization, and seven grades of poet, parallel to the seven ecclesiastical grades, had been established by the 8th century (see bardic order).

Medieval Irish treated the terminology of poets and poetry somewhat differently, calling the poet file (pl. filid) for the most part, as does Modern Irish, while reserving bard (pl. baird) for an inferior grade of poet. However, bardic poetry—eulogy, elegy, and, in all likelihood, satire—was as important an institution in Ireland as ever it was in Wales, and lasted longer “

Koch on Druids

In early Irish literature, human actions are often constrained by a taboo (geis) verbally imposed by another person. Magical force can also be exerted by ritual fasting (Old Irish troscad). Responsible for cult and ritual was the priestly caste of the druids (cf. Caesar, De Bello Gallico 6.13f., 16, 18). Besides the druids, several names for priests survive: for example, gutuater ‘father of the voice’ (?), aegones ‘belonging to the oaks’. Nothing is known of the relationship between the druids and these other types of priests. The priestly caste of the ovates is the result of a misreading of v\tes, which described an inspired seer. Borrowed from Celtic, the word was also used in Latin, meaning ‘poet’.Gemmathegael (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

more on edit war on sources .. of note

1/ recent insertions when i requested citations re: Graves + The White Goddess. the two sources added refer to his work on the Dana not the Lebor Gabála Érenn.. the wording of the sentence opens up for critsicms of the White Goddess.. thus the requirement placed on me here == Also, the use of DNA or archaeological sources to argue about the historicity is inappropriate, unless of course those sources discuss the topic" is void when i attempted to introduce critiscims on any work of MACALISTERS... cant have it both ways..

2/ multiple use of the same source,ie Monaghan in her collection uses MACALISTER ..its not a standlaone source and for someone to use her twice because a paragraph is split in two pages is dishonest. i refer to use of source 42 + 27 as split paragrpah.

3/Christian pseudo-histories of Saint Jerome and Isidore.[35][36] .. Pseudo will be removed from the work of Saint Jerome and Isidore. unless you object. I read that source from Carey, whoever put that as a source is dishonest. I doubt Carey would have the g's to write Jerome and Isodore as psuedo, and quite frankly the page is not about Carey and his phraseology. The work of these Christian monks are as valid as other religious writers.

be mindful of the Code of conduct policy and comments made prior: The Foundation will not practice or tolerate discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, political or religious affiliation, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael (talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

@Gemmathegael: Is that a threat? Because it looks as though it's intended to be chilling, ie discourage editors from editing. Although I'll have to say it's ridiculous as no one here is discriminating. Don't repeat it again please, although you are welcome to complain about the conduct of editors at WP:ANI. Doug Weller talk 10:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I remind people of the code of conduct and point out disparaging remarks based on ethnicity and my cultural heritage and you see that as a threat to you.. can you explain that please. Mediation is neededGemmathegael (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You write "multiple use of the same source,ie Monaghan in her collection uses MACALISTER ..its not a standlaone source and for someone to use her twice because a paragraph is split in two pages is dishonest. i refer to use of source 42 + 27 as split paragrpah." It appears that you are calling User:Asarlaí dishonest as he is the author. That's a personal attack. He also added "Other medieval pseudo-historians did likewise with other nations."[2] although I have slightly changed my mind about that as you can see in my edits. Doug Weller talk 10:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Gemmathegael (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)== Names: Bartholomew, Nemed and Fir Bolg ==

Here's what Carey actually says. "a glimpse of the rich interplay of native and imported ideas which went into the making of the pseudohistorical schema. Partholon is the Irish form of the name ‘Bartholomew’: and Kuno Meyer made the ingenious and convincing suggestion that this name was assigned to the first man to settle in Ireland after the Deluge because it was interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to mean ‘the son of the one who holds up the waters.’[1] The name Nemed, by contrast, is pure Celtic, an extremely important word whose field of meanings includes the senses ‘sacred object’ or ‘sacred enclosure’ and ‘legal rank’ or ‘legal privilege.’[2] With Mil Espdne or ‘the Spanish soldier’ we are back with foreign influence — and I should perhaps point out explicitly that the name Mil Espdne is neither more nor less than a direct borrowing into Irish of the Latin phrase miles Hispaniae which we find in the Historia. ... As for the Builg or Fir Bolg, an ambiguous but cumulatively persuasive body of evidence suggests that they were in fact a powerful and important group at a very early date: their name seems to be closely related to that of the Belgae, a group of warlike Celtic tribes who flourished on the Continent until Caesar’s time.[3]

At the very first stages of trying to assess the evidence, then, we get a curiously mixed impression of the kind of material with which we are dealing. Partholdn and Mfl Espdne look like scholarly constructs, the figments of men steeped in Jerome and Isidore; but Nemed and the Fir Bolg cannot be so easily accounted for, and they appear to reflect — at whatever remove — indigenous memories and speculations about the peopling of Ireland." Apologies for not fixing the OCR errors, and see the original for more details and sources.[3] If nothing else we need to rewrite the bit about Bartholomew and Partholon as it doesn't accurately reflect Carey and problem add what Carey says about the other names.

I'll also note that most of this article was written by two editors, User:Eroica who only edits sporadically now, and User:Asarlaí who is more active. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

This page is not about Carey regardless of how many times in the past he has been inserted as an expert..last count 12 times repeating the same source.

I pointed out Carey used as a source for calling the work of Christian scribes isodore and St Jermome pseudo was incorrect, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael (talk • contribs) 11:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

bias how many times have you used one paper from 1994 by Carey now? 16 times .. 

I notice my attempts to remove pseudo again have been removed, a blanket term used on this page in relation to all Christian writers.Gemmathegael (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC) thus we will need to insert pseudo work from Medieval Rabbis and Imams for context and balance, we are just talking about the writing style of the medieval times here ? or just Christian writing ? explain what you are trying to achieve here please..

the use of one source 16 + times to push an agenda..and thats not even including insertion of his same work, source disguised in various "celtic" collections

Doug Weller talk contribs‎ 40,597 bytes +7‎ Undid revision 939864558 by Gemmathegael (talk) misrepresentation of sources, they say pseudohistory, not history,. editor still trying to force his views in

<<== as per your note in the revsison History ...can you please enlighten who is they, "they" denotes plural or multiple, you have only included one paper from Carey from 1994 for the 16th time as a source and still continue to edit out, revert and delete  attempts to include other scholars work on the LGE

please clarify to me, and others after me, who is they, your sources should be relative to that LGE and Isodore notes on Isodore by Carey for others to view context because the page is about Carey it seems..

page 9 the opinion on Carey…

Partholon and Mil Espane look like scholarly constructs , the figments of men steeped in Jerome and Isidore

“ The Irish Scholar who invented the story of the Scythian noblemen was trying to do what Cassiodorus and Iordanes and “ Fredegarius” and Isidore had done— but he achieved it in his own way. The context is that which we find in other barbarian historiographers, but the story itself appears to be an independent invention. History Brittonum is in fact the ideal showcase for this originality..

page 13

and the genealogical doctrine according tot which the Gael and Scythians descend from the Magog is only a step removed from Isidore’s assertion that Magog was the ancestor of the Goths and Scythians.. Although the current orthodoxy appears that the History of the Goths did not circulate outside of Sapin…

Isodores work furnished seventh - century Irish scholars with a model of barbarian pseudo history.

Partholón insertion of Parthanán .. source in Monaghan.. Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore Monaghan, Patricia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael (talk • contribs) 13:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

You say "Doug Weller talk contribs‎ 40,597 bytes +7‎ Undid revision 939864558 by Gemmathegael (talk) misrepresentation of sources, they say pseudohistory, not history,. editor still trying to force his views in" - I thought it was clear that I changed my mind about what the sources said after rereading them and changed my edit. I can't understand a lot of what you've written above. The article definitely needs more sources, including the section on rescensions as not all sources agree on 5. Doug Weller talk 13:39, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

have included work by STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. ie there is no Archaeological evidence of the exodus.. he also states there is no evidence in Egyptian records to support it. It is relative to the LGE as mentioned in the exodus, and the views of R. A. Stewart Macalister in 1937 on the exodus, science is shedding light on History. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael (talk • contribs) 13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

have included the recent work by John Koch , seems he is an acceptable source as used before... his research on the link between south-west Iberia and the Atlantic Late Bronze Age. relevant here in name foundation, langauge.. "It has long been recognised that the V-notched shields, leaf-shaped swords and ogival-headed spears of the Iberian warrior stelae have close counterparts among actual artefacts of the Irish late Bronze Age. Therefore, if we can reorientate our thinking away from Hallstatt and La Tène to look instead at Ireland’s overseas affinities during its spectacularly wealthy late Bronze Age, the fact that Tartessos should now be giving up some of its mysteries in a language comparable to Irish may not be so surprising." article includes phrase the Book of Invasions.Gemmathegael (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

have included Macalister, LGE, Vol. 2, p. 168, 235, 238 and his notes on Bronze Age – The names of Cessair and her foster-father Saball.. including the A bronze age carn on Sliab Beagh “has been referred to by the Four Masters (A.M. 2242) as the grave of Bith.Gemmathegael (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

on recent edit and removal of my source STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. ie there is no Archaeological evidence of the exodus.... it is relative to pseudo history..there is no evidence but what is written, describing Christian sources as pseudo and sources from the Torah are not ? no other pov? explain please. my source is relative to the exodus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Last issue first. The Torah is a religious text, it isn't history so can't be pseudohistory. Your sources are not the Bible but simply from Christian writers. For Wikipedia at least this is a basic difference. As for Koch, you added "John Koch suggests that Tartessian is ‘more than a little bit Celtic’ and adds a new twist to the assertion". The problem is that is clearly a copyright violation, copied directly from the source and given that it is in the third person it's the editor stating what he thinks the article is about, not part of the text Koch wrote. He wrote " It will not be the first or the last ironic twist of intellectual history for a Celtic Tartessos to appear on the horizon after the Spanish provenance of the Gaels (as per the Book of Invasions) has lost its last shred of credibility." That's not at all the same thing, and the takaeway is the bit about "lost its last shred of credibility. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

will reword so not copyright violation.. and reinsert.. it has the book of invasions at the end and anyone can follow the link and read if they wish.. its relative to the reserach furher he has worked on the LGE as can be seen from other sources, you dont like his new work?

here is the criteria you placed on me doug.. must include the LGE , IT DOES.sorry you are but one editor and dont own the page.. what you think of what Koch wrote on his more recent work is an issue you should take up with him, as koch has been on this page as a source at least 7 times i wil reinsert.. this is at the stage for mediation as you clearly have a biased POV and will not allow me to edit with recent work, you prefer old sources that adhere to your bias and on last count had 17 citations of Carey from 1994.. i'm glad most people read the talk pages now as wiki has a reputation.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael (talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I love John Koch. Ironic that you think I have a biased pov, but not surprising that you don't WP:AgF#show good faith. You clearly didn't read my edit summary where I suggested we could use his comment about the Spanish provenance of the Gales having lost its last show of credibility. Doug Weller talk 16:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

read your issues.. i updated copyright issues and will add more of John Kochs work on the LGE .i see he is a fav of the page based on citations alone.. hence why i made a point of using the fav " stable" of sources used by certain editors. as i said its up to people to judge .. it mentions the LGE .. as he did in his earlier work prior.. dont worry about the last line, he elaborates fully in his paper which i will link thanks for the concern.Gemmathegael (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

would like again to point out the terms and conditions and ethics of wiki re: discrimination Doug be mindful 

you state = The Torah is a religious text, it isn't history so can't be pseudohistory. Your sources are not the Bible but simply from Christian writers. Gemmathegael (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

GemmatheGael: If you want to be treated as a good faith editor, then don't make threats. That's exactly what you're doing with your insinuations about "discrimination". --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

attacking the work of what many hold as Christian Saints as just Pseudo Christian writers as a blanket term and thus not on par with the Torah is infact discriminatory

belittling the history of Ireland with remarks on Bards is discriminatory on the basis of culture and ethnicity. so yes i will reiterate this and note it here.. how is that a threat. please advise? i posted the wiki code as a reminder..

I would also point out one more thing. This article is not about ancient links between Ireland and the Iberian peninsula. It's about the Lebor Gabála. Your edits remind me of another editor, some years ago, who tried to turn the article on Drumanagh, a site in Ireland that has produced Roman artifacts and some think may have been a trading post between Ireland and Roman Britain, into an article on all Roman contact with Ireland. Material about ancient links between Ireland and Iberia should be included here only if they're relevant to the Lebor Gabála, and should not overwhelm coverage of other aspects of the text. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Koch in the sources has named the LGE, in the two citations. have no idea what the Drumanagh issue is/ was.

So you're confirming you're not arguing in good faith. Fine. No more discussion. --Nicknack009 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

I will point out discrimination and the wiki code of conduct if I feel a line has been crossed yes.. had no idea one had to argue to edit wiki.. Gemmathegael (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits using Koch as a source

I've brought this up at WP:NORN#Interpretation of a source at Lebor Gabála Érenn as Koch doesn't seem to be saying what User:Gemmathegael has written. )(well, he does say the bit about "paid-up member" but I don't know what that has been included, surely not to push a pov?) Doug Weller talk 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

no problem. please all feel free to read his more recent work with Barry Cunliffe in Celtic from the West 3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages questions of ... edited by John T. Koch, Barry Cunliffe

the third argument: the loss of the voicless labail obstruent

. https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Gv4sDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT840&lpg=PT840&dq=john+koch+cunliffe+ireland+book+of+invasions&source=bl&ots=5uGOWv3g4t&sig=ACfU3U1CGe8xKH-VBL4aHJZz2J56_yEvXA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi62oKz58HnAhWaRhUIHeS5DhcQ6AEwAnoECAkQAQ#v=onepage&q=john%20koch%20cunliffe%20ireland%20book%20of%20invasions&f=false