User talk:Nora lives/Archive I

Did you see this?

Hi DinDraithou. Did you see this Talk:Niall_of_the_Nine_Hostages#Fergus just posted on the Niall talkpage? Maybe it is something you could address? Are there are some mistakes in the ancestry in the article you might be able to deal with?--Celtus (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Celtus. Thanks. I've added what information I can at the moment, there at Niall's talk page. We also have this problem with the Dál Riata, who are Darini, being male line descendants of Niall on some pages. I partly corrected the offending Erc of Dalriada article, which seems to have been the source. There is more discussion in Byrne, which I'll add some day. DinDraithou (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Medieval Irish

I have changed categories of many articles within Category:Medieval Irish people and I am not singling out just people of Munster. I intend to diffuse more similar articles. This is because I am moving them to more specific century based sub-categories within the higher level Category:Medieval Irish people. This gives more accurate classification and is in line with Wikipedia practise of diffusing articles to sub-categories. It also helps reduce category clutter. You are correct to remove all articles in this category if more specific sub-categories can be found for them. If all the categories within a "category-tree" were included within an article then that is needless repetition and clutter within the article. My changes were not random but had been considered. Regards, Jaraalbe (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Since that's what you're doing I'll try to help a little. I didn't get that it was about sub categories. But remember that some people get misplaced chronologically, or may be largely fictitious, or may be combinations of two or more people. Then Medieval Irish people may be the only category for them. DinDraithou (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello again!

I'm guessing that you were the anon IP editor to whom I had to apologize, nearly three months ago. Good to see that you've established a username. Yes, it makes you seem more credible.

Would you be willing to divulge just what your username means? It doesn't matter for anything, I'm just curious. Unschool 05:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, yes, your guess is right. What my username means I'm not sure, but it is the name of an ancient fortress, Din Draithou or Caer Draithou, in Wales, associated with the Dind Traduí built by the Irish High King Crimthann mac Fidaig. I came across it when I was doing the research for that article. DinDraithou (talk) 02:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the explanation. Happy editing! Unschool 03:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Desmond

No problem. The articles about the Gaelic kingdoms of Ulster are very messy at the moment. I think the biggest issue is lack of content more than anything (I know mostly about the southern kingdoms, not so much the north). I'll try and fix Tyrconnell up with a map and make the O'Donnell arms. - Yorkshirian (talk) 11:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. It looks excellent. I think going with maximum extent is good, like with Thomond, although the southern portion (mostly Uí Fidgenti) was long part of the Earldom of Desmond even though theoretically subject to the O'Briens since Domnall Mor O'Brien took it in 1178 and they remained capable of asserting their authority (Gerald FitzGerald, 3rd Earl of Desmond). As far as the Kingdom of Desmond, actually the maximum extent should be greater and cover part of the southern coast (Barony of Carbery too?), depending in part on the inclusion of MacCarthy Reagh territory. Compare http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_1300.png with http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_1450.png DinDraithou (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Planned articles

DinDraithou, I noted from your list of upcoming articles that many of them focus on O'Donovan. There is a considerable amount of debate regarding O'Donovan history, and it has been revised several times over the last thousand years to meet the needs of the various writers. The work that would be considered most authoritative, primarily based on the stature of the writer, would be the O'Donovan genealogy in the Appendix to the Annals of the Four Masters, as edited by John O'Donovan. However, there are numerous articles by many writers which argue against many of his assertions. In addition, there seems to be a movement during the last century, and most notably during the last twenty years, to bring some form of modern day new age romanticism into the history of the O'Donovans and the Ui-Fiegheinte. For instance, there are no records contemporary to the period 1580-1616 timeframe which refer to O'Donovan as Prince of Carberry. The title was simply "O'Donovan", who was entitled to Lordship of the lands of Clan Cahell. In the 1594 pleadings before Adam Loftus, which are reproduced by John O'Donovan in Tribes and Customs of Hy-Fiachrach, the titles and contemporary language are clear.

What is your reference for "O'Donovan, Prince of Bru Ri"? The line was seated at BrughRigh, now Bruree, as your know, from around 150 AD to around 950 AD, with slight movements to Croom (Cromadh) and elsewhere before the split of the sept in the 1169-1300 period. But that time frame is quite at odds with the use of "Prince" related to designated chiefs of the name.

As far as I can determine, the use of the "Prince" title is more a function of the efforts by several writers to restore the MacCarthy Mor title. The use of "Prince" seems to be a recent invention (recent as in Gleanings from History, by Butler, published in 1925). The work published in 1867, "The Life and letters of Florence MacCarthy Reagh, tanist of Carberry, MacCarthy Mor" clearly shows there was not a contemporary use of the title "Prince" attached to the Irish chiefs. Thus, I am interested in the authoritative support for the designation of O'Donovan, Prince of Bru Ri.

Thanks. Modonovan (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is meant to be a translation from the Irish. There is no doubt that Olaf O'Donovan was styled "Prince" (King) of Carbery some decades before the first MacCarthy Reaghs were, because we find it noted in the Annals. DinDraithou (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

So the trouble is that someone came along and made some changes before me. At first only the top two Connachta were princes at Irish nobility, but then someone came along and made (correctly) O'Neill and O'Donnell princes too, but at the same time dubiously made the restored "O'Rourke" one too. Even MacDermot's Prince of Coolavin is questionable for the main page. What I decided to do then was try to make clear which lines were undoubtedly princely versus which were comital, and the result was "titles" for O'Kelly and Fox and O'Donoghue which were easy enough if dubious for the last two. O'Donovan is a princely line and sometimes still claims Carbery (see O'Hart) but this tends to upset the remaining MacCarthy Reaghs even though O'Donovan has the best claim today. I came up with Prince of Bru Ri for this reason, which is technically accurate enough and based on historical realities as you point out. It is an English language article after all and intended for an international readership.

If you can think of better solutions please discuss them with me. Obviously mine is temporary and specifically for Irish nobility. DinDraithou (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: O'Donovan, Prince of Bru Ri

DinDraithoue, The only concern with designating the O'Donovan as Prince of Bru Ri, is, as you pointed out, it is your invention. I would be surprised if O'Donovan will concur with the designation, and I would be quite surprised if he will adopt it. But, I will send him an e-mail and inquire.

Regardless of the international audience for the articles, historical accuracy is important, within reason. Combining elements of historical accuracy into a stew of truths will only lead to confusion. Considerable research has been done by many to argue the fine points of history, and it would be a shame to present inaccurate information for the ease of convenience.

As to the issue of source of the name of Carbery, John O'Donovan asserted that the name came with the O'Donovans that migrated into the Cork area; O'Hart picked up the assertion. In " A History of the O'Mahoney Septs of Kinelmeky and Ivagha" by John O'Mahoney, this view was strenously argued against. O'Mahoney noted "As to the origin of the name, all Irish antiquaries concurred in deriving it from Cairbre (Riada), a contemporary of' Olioll Olum, in the last quarter of the second century. In the nineteenth century the novel opinion was started, without any pretence of support from historical testimony, that the name was imported by the Hy Cairbre Aedha, or O'Donovans, when migrating from Hy Fidgiente, Co. Limerick, to their new tribeland in West Cork, after the English invasion. The editor of Annals of the Four Masters, lapsing in this instance from that habit of keen criticism which is so conspicuous in his works, gave some countenance to this new opinion, but with evident misgivings. "The extension of the name," he says (beyond the tribal territory) "looks strange enough, as it took place since the year 1200, and as the race that transferred it did not remain (recte never was) the dominant family in the district." Thus, fictional inventions have a tendancy to become fact, and after a hundred years, we can not sort it out so easily.

In any event, I would propose that if Dan likes the title you gave him and wants to use it, then no amendments would be necessary. Otherwise, you may want to revert to his normal title, O'Donovan, Lord of Clan Cahell, and Chief of the name.

Modonovan

Right after I replied to you I went ahead and made him "O'Donovan of Clancahill" again, and removed Prince from several other of the titles as well. The problem is that someone may eventually come along and edit all their favourites into Princes again, leaving the Uí Maine, Eóganachta and Uí Fidgenti looking the lesser.

Regarding Mahoney, I've read him and not found his arguments convincing. He tries too hard to debunk the O'Donovan-Uí Chairpri "myth" and ignores that we have evidence for adoptions in this manner. The lords of Eóganacht Glendamnach were sometimes styled lords of Fir Maige Fene (Fermoy). And we can't exactly have historical contemporaries of the mythological Ailill Aulom. O'Rahilly, Sproule and Charles-Edwards offer enlightenment here. Cairbre Riata is supposedly ancestor to the Dál Riata, right? DinDraithou (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Irish clans

Noticed you changed a title to House of O'Neill. You may have had good reason to do this but the Clans of Ireland association does list the families as actual "clans". You can view their website here: http://www.theclansofireland.ie/. Historically there were clans in Ireland and judging by the names of the modern associations they do like to be reffered to as clans so there is no good reason why I should not change the titles back.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. But the problem is that in the case of extant dynasties, they need to be differentiated from the commercial clan phenomenon which has its origins in Scotland. The Clans of Ireland are organizations, however well meaning and productive, lacking the patronage of modern dynasts of the surname (Chiefs of the Name). An example of a society with a noble patron is The O'Donoghue Society and it is not about being a "clan" in the modern sense. Although not to all, to many "going clannish" means "gone common". In other cases, even though a family or sept has no representative among the officially recognized Irish nobility, there are lineal descendants still trying to work out who among themselves they should elect, and these do not commonly think of themselves as belonging to a "clan". The word has several new meanings. See here. DinDraithou (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The term ______Clan is used for Gaelic originated noble families in Ireland. Look at the official website of Baron Inchiquin, head of the O'Briens for instance. Besides the term House of not being used by Gaelic families as far as I can see "House of O'Brien" and "House of O'Neill" doesn't make sense, since the O' means "of" (or more specifically descendant of) anyway. So it looks like "House of of Neill", if you get what I am saying. - Yorkshirian (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

According to the Oxford Companion to Irish History, the families of Ireland were reqarded as "clans". People have somehow got it into their heads that they were not and that it is a modern conception when it is historical fact. Its a bit like people saying that Scottish Lowlanders did not live in clans when in actual fact they did.QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

That is not O'Briens official website and it used to be called "dalcalssionsept.com". Notice the information on him is quite out of date. None of the noble families use "clan" today. It was once used with a different meaning but that was quite a while ago. Finally, saying House of O'Neill is perfectly fine meaning "house of the descencents of Néill). O' has never meant anything like "of". That we use for Duke of and Earl of, Comte de, etc. DinDraithou (talk) 21:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I posted a reply regarding this subject that you may be interested in on my talk page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Carroll family

Could you explain to me why you are indenting the article this way. Are you trying to show some type of hierarchical tree? BigDunc 16:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		The Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience shall be awarded to DinDraithou who has shown extraordinary patience in the face of toil and turmoil. Mootros (talk) 16:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I see you are doing a lot of good work in an area of interrest to me, that is early medieval Irish history. I'll add some more comments to Eóganachta but I feel I should introduce myself (as a friendly warning ;) first. I really don't have any knowledge on Irland except for what I've read the last two years, and most of what I've read has been right here at Wikipedia. Secondly, I've only made very minor content-contributions at wikipedia in English, what I mainly do here is make corrections to what others have worked on, as well as asking a lot of (possibly annoying) questions at these editors talk pages. I'm not a native English speaker, and don't feel very comfortable writing it. Thirdly, my personal interest is mainly limited to 9th century and onwards (the period of Norse influence) and also with history - genealogies and such is something I normally just skip when reading an article (I do of course understand that this is a valid interest and relevant for wikipedia indeed). Having said this, and thus warned you that my contributions may be limited to critical comments and stupid questions, I just might take a look at the Eoganachta history section and see if I can help organise the content that's already avvailable there and in related articles. Not today though, but possibly in the near future. All the best, and happy editing, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Well contributions to talk pages can be important and critical, and it's often the case that other people then go and reshape the article. We can definitely do it that way. As far as Norse influence we know for certain that the Scandinavians "contributed" to the demise of both the Eóganachta and the Uí Fidgenti, in the latter case by being their allies. You might be interested to know that the O'Donovans are a survival from that period and are known to have a substantial amount of Danish ancestry and probably Norwegian too (It would be great if you could contribute to Uí Ímair even if only to the talk page). They are in fact still disliked by some in Munster for that very reason, and Irish historians tend to be automatically unkind to them. Likewise there is a camp that is dismissive of Cerball mac Dúnlainge for immature reasons. Your English is worlds better than my French btw. DinDraithou (talk) 18:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

My impression is that the Norse in Munster just like the "natives" suffer from the surviving sources having a bias in favour of Ui Neill (or later Ua Briain), and thus doesn't really tell much about what went on in the southwestern part of Ireland. There's quite a lot of info on the Norse in Dublin, less about Waterford and hardly any on Cork and Limerick. Norse Limerick seem in periods to have contested Dublin as "the Norse capitol", still we don't know much about these rulers (not even how they were relatedd to the Uì Ìmair. Anyways, whether the warfare in Munster from 960 on should be seen as the Dalcassians vs the Norse Limerick (where Maelmuad chose to support Limerick, which proved to be a bad call) or a rivalry between the Dalcassians and Eoganchta for Cashel/Munster (where Ivar of Limerick chose to support Eoganachta, which proved to be a bad call) is not entirely clear to me. Anyway: at the middle of the 10th century the "Norse cities" were no longer controlled by people from present Norway or Denmark, but by families os Norse origin who had been present in Ireland for several generations and become deeply entangled in internal Irish politics.

There seem to be a slight shift in how Irish historians treat the Norse presence (and then also those Irish who allied with them), towards a greater tolerance for that it wasn't the "Irish against the foreigners" (Gáedel re Gallaib) as much as the Irish against the Irish (with the now almost Irish foreigners eagerly taking part). At least I've found that O Corrain and Downham has a more positive view on the Norse impact on Irelands development. This aspect was understandably not very welcome while the tales of Clontarf etc served as a prototype of the Irish defeating the invading Gall - a comfort during the sufferings from the new foreigners, first Norman and the English.

OK, I'm rambling here - I'll try to do some more reading and see if I can contribute some more useful stuff at the Eoganachta-article, either at the talkpage or at the article itself. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy reading Ó Corráin, whose surname belongs to the Uí Liatháin princes it so happens (he devoted part of an interesting article to it), and cite him frequently, although I think he is among the dismissers of Kjarval. The Uí Liatháin were one of Ireland's few sea capable powers and I believe once defeated the Norse in a substantial naval engagement, which might contribute to how excited (and repetitious) he gets telling us how little success the Norse had getting inland. I liked Downham's recent title on the Dynasty of Ívarr, but found her coverage of Limerick, and especially the family of Ímar Luimneach, very lacking, even if a link to Dublin can't be established. This leaves Todd remaining the best reference. And then she irritatingly insists on putting everything in the Old Norse nominative. A lot of people do that now. Her compilation (p. 237 ff) of mentionings in the Annals is quite helpful. DinDraithou (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Excellent Articles

Your articles on Munster kingdoms and peoples are top notch. They have greatly contributed to my own understanding of Munster in this period. I began a number of the article on early historical kings and your articles have helped to clarify the political evolution of this period for me. i began writing articles using McCarthy's chronology but have since began using dates used by historians. However the Munster kings were some of my first articles and I have not gone back to them to change the dates of as yet. Timelinefrog (talk) 04:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I think your articles are excellent and I admire your ability to work with dates, which give me something of a headache. What we need to do is discover which 7th or 8th century king from the Eóganachta was the first undisputed King of Munster, and then change the titles of the kings before him. I am very tempted to start with Cathal mac Finguine, although we could go as early as Faílbe Flann mac Áedo Duib, who was the first to significantly project, even if his influence in Munster may still have been restricted. The trouble is that the kings in between them are unknowns. We can't go earlier than Faíble Flann because of the intense rivalry between Cashel and Iarmuman. Every historian seems to pick a different century. DinDraithou (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found that the king lists and the annals reach a high level of agreement beginning from the time of Failbe Flann. The 6th century kings are shadowy and the king lists biased in favor of the Glendamach branch which does not coincide with the annals. Also, the rotation among the inner circle of Eoganachta becomes regular in the 7th century in both the annals and the king lists. At some point I plan to go back and clean up the articles using standard dating systems rather than Mccarthy. Though I think Mccarthy dates are correct and his theory very valid with an emphasis on the dates of the Annals of Tigernach; the standard usage among historians is the Annals of Ulster. Cathal mac Finguine's reign seems to be an apogee of this rotation system and then the rotation breaks down and even the kingship of Munster itself until the time of Artri and Ochlabar in the early 9th century.Timelinefrog (talk) 05:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It does look like Faílbe Flann was the first Eóganacht to at least appear king of Munster to Connacht and then to Leinster, and his performance must have had a powerfully centralizing effect back home, for a few related septs. Objections are that his performance still remains one of the very few successful performances by the Eóganachta outside Munster, ever, the cause being that they never controlled it entirely and were always devoting their energies to expanding and keeping support back home, the source of all their famous political fables. Even the Northern Uí Néill never managed to become true Kings of Ulster, which is why we don't call them that. The Eóganachta benefit from a lack of contemporary sources and the rather abrupt disintegration of the Dáirine in the 7th century, who for some reason chose not to stay in the game unlike their Ulaid cousins.

Next, Cathal mac Finguine's performance was noteworthy but poor, so it's really not until Feidlimid mac Cremthanin that we see the likes of Faílbe Flann again. It was to Feidlimid that the subjects of the Eóganacht Locha Lein finally transferred their allegiance. This gives us a truly lackluster two centuries between Feidlimid and Faílbe, and I suspect very few, if any, actual "Kings of Munster" from the Eóganachta. These regionally important but mostly local kings seem to have spent most of their time writing pretty stories and trying to collect taxes from their most trusted subjects, with varying success. DinDraithou (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, one can argue that the approach the Eóganachta took was atypical and asked more of Ireland than it had to offer. One always gets the sense they were out of place. Their invented kingship of Cashel, we must remember, was unlike that of Tara, which the Uí Néill appear to have inherited/taken from others. The Eóganachta were practicing considerable innovation in a largely unresponsive environment. DinDraithou (talk) 04:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles

Hello DinDraitou,

Always good to hear from another wikipedian. It is a shame the maps are not more specific, but I've found his descriptions, in Connacht at least, spot on. As an overall work I strongly recommend Medieval Ireland: An Encyclopedia (see http://www.routledge-ny.com/ref/middleages/ireland/) though it is expensive.

I have not looked at Bhreathnach 2005 for quite some time, but it is very useful for the period and geographical enviorns. The local kingdoms and over-kingdoms are very well set out, and its maps are fairly good.

The best book on Irish pre-history and medieval history is still Francis John Byrne's Irish Kings and High-King - it astonishes me just how often I have recourse to it, even after all these years. So get it! And re-read it several times until its stories sinks in.

A lesser-known but just as vital work is The Celebrated Antiquary: Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh (c.1600-1671) - His Life, Lineage and Learning, An Sagart, Maynooth, 1996; reprinted 2003. ISBN 1903896 05 3; ISSN 0 790 8806. Author is Nollaig Ó Muraíle. All I can say about this is this - get it!

Also:

• Smyth, Alfred P. (ed.), Seanchas: Studies in Early and Medieval Irish Archaeology, History and Literature in Honour of Francis J. Byrne. Dublin: Four Courts, 1999. ISBN 978-1-85182-489-2

• The Island of St Patrick: Church and ruling dynasties in Fingal and Meath, 400-1148, (ed. Ailbhe Mac Shamhráin)

• Early Medieval Ireland, 400-1200, London and New York, 1995. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín

• A New History of Ireland, volume one, Dublin, 2006. Ed. Dáibhí Ó Cróinín

All are expensive, so start with Byrne and Ó Muraíle.

I don't understand the un-Irish comment. Most historians concur in that there propably was a Niall or Conn, but whoever and whatever they were has being hopelessly lost in depths of myth and literary fiction. I agree. Once I had hoped that we could establish more about them from a factual basis, but several years later I have come around to the common view. As Dan Bradley's Y-DNA research demonstrated, there was a Niall-like charecter alive sometime in the early to mid 5th century in Ireland, and in all likelyhood it was him. Before him, who knows.

I vaugely remember Kellagher's article, but have not read it in years.

Lastly, take a look at the articles I have written on Irish historians, as they all contain at least partial bibilographies. Here's a quick broad list - Cú Choigcríche Ó Cléirigh,Edel Bhreathnach, Brian Ó Cuív, Donnchadh Ó Corráin, Nollaig Ó Muraíle, and a kinsman of mine, the late F. X. Martin.

Let me know if you have any other questions. Delighted to hear from you, Fergananim (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Map in Déisi article

Hello DinDraithou, I've updated the map in the article, File:Britain.Deisi.Laigin.jpg. To see how it appears in the article, you will probably need to press CTL-shift-r to empty your cache. Further comments welcome. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I was going to respond but thought I should get some things together first. Actually you had the location of the Laigin (in Leinster) right the first time. The Uí Liatháin dynasties were found in East County Cork. See here and here. On the linguistics of the peninsula in Wales and on other sites I'll have to get back to you because there are a number of fortresses named and some attempted identifications floating around, which I need to google for again. But you can start with my paragraph "Dind Traduí" under Crimthann mac Fidaig which is complete with citations, and find out where my username comes from. DinDraithou (talk) 01:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I was a wee bit too eager. Can't stand the mistake, so will correct it asap and then wait for your update for another pass at it. Take your time, and whenever you feel that you have what you want, let me know. Interesting choice for a user name! (I feel a bit unmysterious by comparison ;) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, to start with, one possibility for Dind Traduí and Din Draithou is Dunster (Bats Castle). See here, here, here, and here. The trouble is that it is thought to be the fortress of King Cado by some and so there is a paper waiting to be written on whether this Arthurian character really started out as our one and only Irish king, who goes curiously unmentioned in British sources for all the hell he is supposed to have brought there. I'll search for the Uí Liatháin fortresses soon. They appear to have had at least one in Wales and one in Cornwall. DinDraithou (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting reads, with answers to my questions and answers to questions that I hadn't asked. As worthwhile tellings of history, they add to the list of questions yet to be answered. And through all of this, I seem to have accidentally tripped over the connection to your moniker. Thanks much for the pointers. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:25, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Obscure Irish genealogy question

Hello. I wonder if I can pick your brain. Would you have any idea who the "Boidb filii Ronain h-oi Congaile", whose killing is recorded in the Annals of Ulster at AU676.2, might be? I've had a look in Charles-Edwards' Chronicle of Ireland, which is good for explaining who's who in the annals, but I can't find anything there. "Ua Congaile" made me think of the Uí Failge, but I don't see any Rónán's in there, and "Bodb mac Rónáin" made me think of the Cenél nÓengusa, but there are no Congal's in that pedigree and I'm sure I've seen it written somewhere that there are none of them mentioned in the annals, so presumably not that either.

Anyway, very nice work on the Déisi. Please don't feel under any pressure, but it would be really nice to see Corcu Mruad, Corcu Baiscind and Dál Messin Corb turn blue. And if you're looking for rubbish I had a hand in that wants fixing, Osraige needs it even more than Dál Riata. Best wishes, Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Angus. Thanks. I've looked and looked but can't turn up anything. They are listed alone here. Congal could possibly be Congal Cáech (Claen) of fame but then we also have Congal Cennfota mac Dúnchada, the latter probably too late to be the great grandfather. I wish I was more familiar with Ireland outside Munster. All I can tell you is that I don't think they were from there, but then again Bodb is an interesting choice for a name.

Osraige I plan to get around to at some point. While they are clearly Laigin by pedigree we have their special relationship with the Dáirine being interesting enough to cause every other scholar it seems to say "they may have been related". But then again the Dál Fiatach "let" the Dál nAraide share the kingship with them too and the picture I get is of yet another peculiar Érainn way of doing things, confident enough in their own position to "share", as they understood it, or disorderly enough to make it necessary. It was the later kindreds trying to prove themselves who monopolized the kingships, or were more orderly. But I'm afraid the other three you want to see are a long way off. Perhaps I could get to Corcu Baiscind first after I do Corcu Duibne, who are nice and orderly and clear, and sailors. I'm sure you know much more about Dál Messin Corb than I do. DinDraithou (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Map

Thanks for the note -- I am still not sure when I can get to it but I will refer to your notes if/when I do. You might also consider asking Kmusser, who does a lot of volunteer map work and is very good at it, and who would probably be a lot quicker than me! Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppenheimer

Great, it's about time someone started making some damn sense of this stuff. I'll do what I can to help. Everything else aside, I think it's asinine that the Oppenheimer supporters around here have put themselves in a position where they don't need to provide sources defending their material, but skeptics are expected to provide sources refuting it. It would be one thing if Oppenheimer's book was discussed, fairly, in the proper places. But it's been injected all over Wikipedia, and the message has been "if you don't like it, prove it wrong". Recently some individual tried to rewrite Britons (historical), not because it needs serious attention (it does) but because it didn't sufficiently tow the line advanced by Oppenheimer. A proper article on genetic history will hopefully provide a base for a less one-sided discussion of all the issues involved.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Geeze, I step out for a day and all hell breaks loose. Looks like you tried to correct some drivel and ran into a bit of methodological ideology. A lot of the Oppenheimer stuff was mostly entered en masse a year ago or so; to get a picture of the extent, have a look at this. Probably the most productive course is to put up the G-H-of-I article without further publicity (and with parenthetical mention of Oppenheimer's shortcomings), then work from there – it should get us to where we need to be. Then rather than change the drivel in the other articles immediately, post your intentions on the talk page and ask for comments (you'll surely get a few, but you'll have the high moral ground of initiating discussion on material not properly vetted in the first place, as well as the technical high ground).

Agree with Cuchullain about the introduction of 'popular recent information' that is then inertially defended by 'prove it wrong', even though it was never treated critically in the first place. Best Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re Cuchullain: Thanks. You're spot on. I come across it everywhere on Wikipedia and never know what to do. Asking for sources refuting it has proven a successful strategy because there aren't any I know of that bother. No one needs to because everyone knows what it is. All there is to do is make the argument to a largely disbelieving crowd unfamiliar with basic population genetics, which means going nowhere. I end up giving them a few wikilinks to R1b etc which are fairly up-to-date but they never investigate and get smarter. All they get is more confident!

Re Notuncurious: This is great! I didn't know this was an issue of yours too. Now I hope we can start a Wales project, but I'm unfamiliar with the Genetic history of Wales aside from what I know is true for both Wales and Ireland. I do know there are some recent studies on Breton Celtic Y-DNA but I haven't read them yet, only the abstracts. DinDraithou (talk) 04:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My own background has some overlap in several areas of this topic (not enough overlap, certainly), but it's dated in this fast-moving field and it was not ever a main focus, so at present I'm intending to be an 'interested bystander', not a participant in the genre (I feel like I have a few too many irons in the fire as it is). For the wikipedia environment, I think that there will be better luck in treating the issue and getting quality results if a 'quantum' approach is taken – put up the G-H-of-I article for example, rather than first incrementally addressing the shortcomings in existing articles (especially the hot-button ones). You can then rationally address how results are skewed based on a data subset's magnified/reduced impact, an issue in giving Oppenheimer his proper perspective: good luck in explaining that on a discussion page to those without a grounding in genomics + stat/prob. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought for what it's worth, to use or ignore – in the genetic history articles such as G-H-of-I, perhaps have a section that addresses incorrect and outdated studies and publications, with the reasons given and properly cited. That not only buttresses the article itself, but is a convenient reference point to mention when discussing and updating the other articles that cite Oppenheimer (and others). I've taken to doing that kind of thing in articles where it seems necessary, for example Maelgwn Gwynedd#Literary misinformation. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

All excellent advice and suggestions. I've now added a simple paragraph to Irish people but it's no substitute for a comprehensive article. About a section such as you suggest I've thought of it in simpler terms and like better how you address Maelgwn Gwynedd#Literary misinformation problem by problem. Of course I've also entertained not talking about Oppenheimer at all unless someone else adds a reference.

I got into this a few years ago myself because I trained in Indo-European studies and everything was about "R1a, R1a, R1a!", which I and a few others were suspicious about being the "true" Indo-European marker, bacause it meant closely related R1b must be "non-Indo-European", a patently absurd proclamation but popular and tortuously argued by people with little background in European history. Now it is toned down and not such a problem today, so I haven't kept up the last year and a half since Karafet et al, which told me what I wanted to hear: R1b had been improperly dated and has not been in Europe for 30.000+ years. Our suspicions were correct.

I've added the blog posts to the project page mostly so I can get back up to date, but also for others interested in the basic implications of some newer studies. The owner of EuroGenes I know quite well and helped encourage to start his blog, while Dienekes is also someone I've come in contact with, so I can assure you of their reliability should you want to catch up a little yourself. Naturally they won't be referenced in the article. DinDraithou (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added a nice paragraph complete with the new studies to Irish_people#Genetics. It will of course become a part of the upcoming User:DinDraithou/Genetic_history_of_Ireland. DinDraithou (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello DinDraithou, I'm currently absorbed in some research, but should be able to use the results in a few articles; in the meantime, I'm drifting in and out of wikipedia intermittently. For the section you mention, perhaps change the focus to have the current understanding in the lead, with a summary (currently it's at the end). And mention that the field is fast-changing. Then mention in passing (only) its impact on the previous understanding regarding R1b without reference to anyone's work. Then, in a last and separate paragraph, mention O and S dispassionately, and their reliance on data that has since been revised (with citation supporting the assertion that there has been scholarly revision). Perhaps something along the line of:

Popular interest in the subject has been increased by the commercially successful works of Stephen Oppenheimer (The Origins of the British, 2006, rev. 2007) and Bryan Sykes (Blood of the Isles, 2006), among others. They have skillfully integrated R1b (Y-DNA) analysis with the research and publications of respected historians such as Barry Cunliffe to produce credible scenarios of the genetic history of the peoples now living in Britain and Ireland. However, several of their scenarios rely on dating the arrival of people to the islands in the Paleolithic Era, whereas refinement of the data they used now suggests that the islands were populated by people of the Neolithic Era.<insert scholarly references here>

With something like this, you're merely reporting the current state of things and doing it accurately. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm still wary of including too much about Oppenheimer because there already was a lot of interest and a number of studies were already out: the ones he used. Unfortunately his book set in stone what should not have been and that is his chief fault. It was premature.

As for the R1b revision itself I have to reread Karafet et al for a nice quote and link that with the ISOGG page. Then for the general place of Ireland in Europe I have simply to pick one of several studies which all show aspects of the same thing, that the Irish are not genetic outliers and are closely related to other Western Europeans. I'll make sure you know when I have the batch together. Rewrites/spliting of that paragraph and introductions will have to wait for the moment but will come soon. Thanks for the good suggestions. DinDraithou (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

JOGG and Ellen Levy-Coffman and Oppenheimer

Hi. Got your message on my talk page, had a quick look, and do not really follow. Can you save me some time and tell me how Ellen is related at all to Oppenheimer? I am not a fan of Oppenheimer, but I do know Ellen and her article and can't think of any particular problem or strong connection to Oppenheimer. (Would not shock me if she cited him back then. Lots of people did.) I would say it might be questionable if you are trying to remove mention of Oppenheimer from articles. He is "notable". By the way R1a needs third parties to come and look right now if you know this field. There is a bit of a blockage in rational discussion there that might be easy to fix with an outside eye or two. Maybe you'll blame me, who knows? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds rational to me. More generally geneticists do not have much debate at all in published form, which is unhealthy. I have kept away from the R1b article partly because I know that what needs to be there is not yet easy to source in an uncontroversial way. It is a matter of waiting. Basque uniqueness and Basque origins of many western European haplotypes are both something like pseudo academic urban legends, although saying this is taking it a bit too far perhaps. There may be some grain of truth to it somewhere. What I suspect is that the Basque country and other mountainous areas of northern Spain are simply isolated pockets of clades which were once more common over most western Europe, with founder effects etc, and this gives odd impression. Let's say neither of these hypotheses are proven.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have it easy with a diff, so that you can compare two proposed versions of the R1a article. Most differences of opinion have been to do with wording, and the question of what is encyclopedic. For example, is the word haplogroup jargon that should be removed from this article about a haplogroup? See [1].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with some of these Basque theories is that they have been published, and they have not yet been completely dismissed in published sources. Therefore we are forced to keep mentioning them on Wikipedia. As I said, part of the problem in genetics is that authors working in this field do not often bother to write criticisms of old theories, so for Wikipedia editors we have nothing to cite in order to prove that a theory is no longer mainstream. For this reason I believe the JOGG is possibly now already becoming more important than any other journal in this field. It is the only one that often prints articles that are really discussing the interpretation of numbers and not just printing raw data with some interpretation for show. I don't know if you noticed there is a new edition?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No problems with your "rant" but personally I think you SHOULD try to contribute to the field in a way that gets reviewed. It is all very well to cite Dienekes, but that only gets you so far.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Moving forward: a suggestion

Although I understand your frustration over Genetic history of the British Isles, I can also understand the viewpoint of other editors who see the major changes you make to such articles, without first gaining a clear consensus in advance on the talk pages of those articles, as disruptive. I have a suggestion, which I hope you will take in the positive spirit in which it is meant. That is, that you develop the article as you wish, but in a sandbox linked to your own page - User:DinDraithou/Sandbox - rather than, initially, as the article itself, and that you advertise on the article talk page that you are revising the article prior to publishing it. The sandbox would have its own talk page, to which you could invite comments. This approach has worked well on other articles with which I've been involved - it gives you the advantage of developing the article as you would wish, and by inviting comments taking a more collegiate approach. The only drawback is that the existing article would remain until the new one gains some measure of support and is published. What do you think? Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. But I would rather see editors with more knowledge of England-Scotland-Wales put it together. The introduction I will contribute to and Ireland section can write largely on my own if necessary. In any case I need to get User:DinDraithou/Genetic history of Ireland up first and see how people like it. If Genetic history of the British Isles is still more or less in its current state at that time then maybe I can do some research and try to "adopt" it. DinDraithou (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think the problem is that the editors on that page are probably largely not geneticists - they are editors like me who have picked up on the Oppenheimer and/or Sykes arguments. We really need geneticists to be involved in that page - or, if not, for people like myself and others to be directed towards the clearest summaries of current research and disagreements or uncertainties, in language which we can readily understand. I'll try and do some work on it anyway in the next few days, if I have time, and see how it goes. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Summaries are hard to find for current research of this kind, and as Andrew Lancaster points out disagreements and direct criticism are just as hard to find. But they do exist in the very numbers and naming which are the chief challenge to understand. Ideally the article should read like Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) because only then will it be of use to specialists and other researchers, whose interests take priorty unfortunately for the wider audience. If Andrew and his peers were to tackle the article it would eventually look closer to that than to the broad Genetic history of Europe because it won't be of help to researchers any other way.

Btw do you have any suggestions for what I should do about what has progressed to harassment by a certain editor there? The problems you and I had were misunderstandings and we both turned out to be completely article-focused in the end, but this fellow is all personal and doesn't appear to care at all about the article. I guess I should report him, but I don't want to help drive a competent mathematician away from Wikipedia, even if he's engaged in what he obviously shouldn't be at the moment. DinDraithou (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Re the readability of articles, I think this guidance - WP:PCR - is important. "People who read Wikipedia have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to explain the subject fully.... State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader...." - etc. I'm not sure what you mean when you say that "the article should read like Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) because only then will it be of use to specialists and other researchers". That seems to me to be the wrong way round - WP should be reporting what specialists say and making it understandable. Regarding the other editor, if I were you I would just try to rise above it - WP:AGF and WP:KEEPCOOL. (That's what I had to try to do a week or two ago, after all..... :-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

PS I can understand why you deleted some of the other messages - but of course it meant that I hadn't seen them before I searched through the history for them... Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think keeping cool is a great thing and I'll try to stay that way. I'm sorry about that business a week or two ago and may really have been editing while intoxicated. Even worse, I hadn't looked at R1b lately and was expecting you to read a rather better version from a few months ago.

Regarding Genetic history of the British Isles, the argument can be made that this should be closer to a "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" type article and that the "Baroque music" type articles are Settlement of the British Isles and Genetic history of Europe. But I see your point and am kind of at a loss. Inevitably it will need to go into some pretty daunting detail or it won't really be saying anything. Perhaps I worry too much about the difficulty of explanation and those editors more familiar with the material, particularly with England-Scotland-Wales, will have little difficulty in making it quite readable. DinDraithou (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I just go back to my earlier suggestion that you do what you can in a sandbox, and also accept other people's contributions to improve it before it goes into article space. The best articles, in my experience, are those where a group of editors, often from different backgrounds, contribute, rather than just one editor trying to cover all aspects. But if you want to do the Irish one first, which can perhaps then be drawn on for the BI one (or Britain, if the article ends up being split - which may well be a reasonable approach) - that's fine. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've just "read" (actually, skipped through with mounting horror) Talk:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). My turn to give up in despair, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that talk page is an entrance to an alien world. I recommend a strong drink before going any further. DinDraithou (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Noticed the update on your userpage...

...are you sure you're of Danish and not Norwegian ancestry, or are we talking about a more recent Dane(?) than Ivar of L. Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it refers as much to the landowning merchant Coppinger family of County Cork, who are most frequently given as being of Danish descent.[2] But others assert the family is English,[3] which of course does not mean they might not also have been Danish.

In fact I might have some very distant Norwegian ancestry. The Clan Oliphant are sometimes called Norwegian instead of Norman,[4][5] and Norman itself can be Norwegian. Then the Clan Maclachlan are asserted at least by some people to be Norwegian (Lochlainn) instead of O'Neills, although these don't understand Irish naming. Each can of course be both plus other things and many coastal clans have plenty of Norway in them, but in any case my Scottish ancestry is very distant and derived through additional centuries in the 13 Colonies and Canada.

Finally there is the linguistic evidence for a substantial Norwegian presence in Limerick that I mentioned. So I will add the Norwegian ancestry box. I just worry that someone will come along and ask me to demonstrate it! DinDraithou (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm, the Clan Maclachlan claims "Mac Lachlainn which is the patronymic form of the Gaelic personal name Lochlann meaning "stranger"." - never heard about Lochlann translated like that. Strange. Anyway, I will certainly not dispute your claim of Norwegian ancestry, at least you know enough (old) Norwegian to know when to add an "r" to a name and when not to - that's more than some others I could think of... :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I learned that giving myself an introductory course in Old Norse. Re Lochlann, there is an article on how it developed that meaning which I need to find again. DinDraithou (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Didn't the Dalcassian kill all of the Norsemen of Limerick after the Battle of Sulchoid? In any case, I just wanted to say that I'm going to go ahead and merge the O'Donnell articles. On of them there is a long list of books claiming to be "references", but non are used in-line, so I'll just change it to bibliography. - Yorkshirian (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks great. The O'Donnells are a star dynasty and deserve a nice article. DinDraithou (talk) 02:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

R1a comments

I am sorry you think I was "haughty" about the misunderstanding with the bullets, but honestly I think you are reading way too much between the lines. My advice is just to assume there is nothing between the lines, and stick to the subjects at hand. I share your concerns with the way genetics articles are written, as do many people, but this is not the place to let loose about it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The section may be trying to be but it is not very meaningful. It will have to include a little introductory academic discussion on the archaeological cultures, which will have to come from Indo-European studies and not geneticists. There are a few respectable books we can use and don't need to cite JIES articles for this article. DinDraithou (talk) 17:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is closed to suggestion, but please do remember that R1a may not even have a link with Indoeuropean languages. I think the link has been asserted in a very offhand way for the most part. And so to write too much about it within the R1a article may be un-called for. Put it this way: I tend to agree with you that geneticists drop in casual references to such things in a questionable way, and for that very reason I wonder how much time the article should spend on it (as opposed to just pointing readers to the proper articles).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:02, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Well it is "linked" to certain later dialects at least - but the question of R1b and the western dialects is avoided/dismissed. Like you must I also cringe whenever I see the hypothetical PIE linked to anything and agree with the Hindus and many others that the Kurgan hypothesis is the new Nordicism and immensely popular with the wrong kind of people. It is an idealogy based on... vocabulary (of contested significance). Forget linguistic typology (as hard as theoretical physics so nobody understands it). Some fairly recent studies using the latter approach find the "R1a dialects" less archaic than the western ones, no kidding.

But most geneticists seem to have little exposure to the problems of Indo-European linguistics and probably go around thinking PIE was definitely somewhere they can help find, misled mainly by archaeologists such as Mallory and Lord Renfrew. If you read linguistic texts on Indo-European you will frequently find passages blasting the approach. JIES is interesting because it is basically the Kurganist journal (led by Mallory), although it is valuable for archaeology and physanth in the R1a parts of the world, not so much language.

I'm mostly through my miff and will restrain myself when adding to the article. DinDraithou (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going to remove the tag, then, unless you can provide some meat. I wanted to remove all discussion of language R1a links because the molecular clocking is all over the board, but Andrew insisted that if it was published and repeated that we needed some of this in the article. I myself would throw out all of these associations, as I said you cannot have 4 valid theories at once, at most they are hypotheses.PB666 ^yap 05:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I have provided some meat, and some kind of tag needs to stay until we change a couple of things. You just haven't gotten yet quite what the meat is, probably my fault. As I said, the section has its geography confused and oversimplifies the proposed "periods". Many Indo-Europeanists see a continuing tradition from typically as early as Samara and Dnieper-Donets at least through to Andronovo, but the article gives no hint of that. Please read Kurgan hypothesis and follow the Wikilinks. You'll see that some type of tag has to stay for the time being... unless of course you remove that list and associated discussion. DinDraithou (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

PS. What I'm saying is that if we're going to include a little bad science we should at least be able to summarize it properly. DinDraithou (talk) 06:09, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If its really bad science I don't want it intermixed with the other studies that are more substantial, Andrew at the moment is hovering over the page like a crocodile on a nest of eggs.PB666 ^yap 00:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at the Kurgan page. It is unrated and rather poorly written, what I grasp from this page is the overwhelming majority of evidence of the hypothesis extends from the Ural mtns to the S and South west, much of the evidence does not extend to India or extends to India with substantive cultural change. Primary movements were short distances into Europe. Early 4th century BC (5000 years ago, copper age) to myaybe 3500 years ago.PB666 ^yap 00:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou, PB666 has started a discussion about this on the talk page. I would much rather you were running discussion on this, and even better if you'd do the editing. I have no idea if he is reflecting your concerns or not. I did pick up one seemingly valid point:- Somewhere in the editing history I named this section after the Bronze Age. That might have been over-specific. My basic strategy so far in this section has been to strip down the geneticists' cross references to others fields to what it really is, which is really just a skeleton theory that is not very controversial: Indo Aryan languages came from the direction of the NW, somewhere probably after the Neolithic, and before historical times. I was kind of using Bronze Age for this period, and I do not stand by that decision. I made some tweaks this morning in the article, for example adding Chalcolithic (as per PD's comments). Another thing it strikes me as being potentially useful to decrease any possible misunderstanding is to de-emphasize the word Kurgan, as it does not add much to the discussion. I now have only one mention of the word I think, and it is in parenthesis.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you two mavericks have gotten to the right place now with changing the section titles. The Kurgan hypothesis takes us back into the Neolithic. See also the very popular Samara culture and related Dnieper-Donets culture. Eventually we should have DNA from them, if we don't already, and from the Sredny Stog culture, also popular with many. And I am very interested to see about the unrelated but dense Bug-Dniester culture and its possible descendants millennia later (Slavs?). The Kurgan hypothesis has its immediate descendants overrun by Indo-Europeans so I don't understand why it's listed on top. DinDraithou (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please spend some time on this article, and especially this sub-section. It definitely needs another viewpoint. This section is literally still in a draft stage because everything has been tied up for so long. (I completely re-wrote it around the time PB666 went unlateral, and since then it has been putting out fires.) I have absolutely no problem saying that the term Bronze Age was wrong. (It possibly does reflect a vagueness in the assertions of geneticists, but the way out of this is to make their claims also vague in the article?) Not sure your latest edits just changing the titles works, but it might be a step towards something that works. Please make sure you read through the section as you change it, and make sure it all fits together. I am making this advice now not because I predict problems but because I'd like to try not editing this article for a while. Call me if you need me?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make a short comment. I think what the various geneticists are trying to say is pretty much just "maybe if R1a came to India from the NW, and Indo Aryan did, maybe they came together." If you can make that sound encyclopedic... :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

DD, I have reworded the section, check my [last edit], I moved the Kurgan hypothesis up in the paragraph and rebutted it, some other rewording. With the proper conditioning I removed both tags, see if you agree or not. Since I placed the ((speculation)) I can remove it in good faith, if you do not like the correction you can replace the clean-up tag.PB666 ^yap 07:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC) Clearly I would go further than I did but this is a concensus edit.

Din, your name is being used in vain for a lot of things over there on R1a. Do you reckon any have any connection to you?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I am staying away for now. DinDraithou (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask you to look at this and comment? I am also asking other editors active on the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Total Misunderstanding?

I am uncertain why you call the move of the Ui Néill page information to O'Neill dynasty a total misunderstanding. And why you also called my cleanup of the disambiguation page the same. How is better arrangement of the disambiguation page a total misunderstanding? How is putting the Ui Néill information on the O'Neill dynasty page a misunderstanding, being that the O'Neill dynasty begins with Ui Néill and expand out. Could you please explain? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand that O'Neill name comes from a descendant of Niall of the Nine Hostages, I was the one that added that clarification in the surname origin between the two Nialls. But, O'Neill does claim decent from Niall of the Nine Hostages, so the dynasty would seemingly begin there, even if the name came later. I thought I would, and it will take me some time, add a section for Ui Niell and explain everything to the point of O'Neill, and mention the other dynasties that arose and include an in-text link. The only reason I wish to add all information to one page is so that people researching that are unfamiliar with the differences in spelling and such can go to one page and find it all, as well as links to the other dynasties. The O'Neill collection of articles is very departmentalized, and each article includes a couple paragraphs scattered here and there. I thought a complete history from Niall of the Nine Hostages to the present era would become a quite expansive, definitive and flagship article. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 16:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The idea was not to merge every slightly related article and offshoot, but just to follow the O'Neill dynasty back as far as possible. You would not object to that, so long as the other articles are left intact? [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 19:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It will take some time to finish, and might be rather shoppy for a bit, but can be done. Just bear with me on it, and help keep a watch to make sure no one reverts pages and such completely, if that is not too much trouble. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 20:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Does moving an article destroy its history?

Hi DinDraithou, thank you for moving the Ua Déaghaidh page for me. I notice that all the edit history of the article was stripped off in the process, and the same is true of the talk page associated with it. I find this strange. Does a move always destroy an article's history like that? --odea (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Various

Hi. Sorry for a quick reply, but I am on the move: 1. Concerning R1b I find it a difficult question, and all similar questions about R1b, because we know a lot more in the genetic genealogy world than we have good sources for. I can see lots of things I'd like to write, but I am putting it off waiting for more publications. You have cited a webpage which might be criticized. (I have been through a lot of silly discussions about this subject: is a genetic genealogy webpage a "personal" webpage or something with some authority? I would argue that it clearly has authority in some areas and occasionally they also have notability.) Wasn't there also a JOGG article? If so that maybe gives a good way to avoid problems. 2. Concerning the NOR discussion which mentioned you, I do not think I made any accusation like the one you mention? My main intention was to say that I did not think your editing was relevant to the case being discussed, and I did not intend to take any sides at all concerning your debates with Hans Adler, as I am simply not familiar with them. I think you'll agree that you have not really been deeply involved in either discussions or editing on R1a, except on a couple of very specific points which had nothing to do with the various moving positions of PB666, and therefore the way your name has been dropped into so many discussions by PB666, as if you are on his side, was extremely disruptive and misleading. I think this is what led to you being mentioned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

O'Donnell Titles

Greetings. Allow me to shed more light: The Prince of Durlass title is referred to in both the Annals of Clonmacnoise, and the Annals of the Four Masters (Vol. II). For example, Cuchaill O'Donnell, Prince of Durlass was slain in 993 (recte 999/1000 A.D.) by Hugh O'Neill, Prince of Tyrone. Prince of Tyrconnell is not the same as King. The O'Donnells were recognised in Ireland and by e.g. Henry II as Kings, but the Popes in the 1600s recognised Red Hugh, Rory, and his brothers as Princes, not Kings. The distinction is important, and historical accuracy is not served by obfuscating these two different ranks of nobility. Other O'Donnell titles not mentioned in the article are Lord of Leskerry, which appears in British archives for 1467-72, and Earl of the Out Isles, as appears in the Irish Accounts of Sir Henry Sidney (see Reports on Manuscripts of Lord De l'Isle & Dudley at Penshurst Palace (HMC, 1925). Sir Hugh Dubh O'Donnell was received in Scotland in 1513 by James IV of Scotland as Prince of Ulster. See MacGettigan's Red Hugh O'Donnell and the Nine Years War, Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2005. Season's greetings. Seneschally (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me also add that the King of Leath Cuinn title was used by Domhnall Mor O'Donnell when he ruled much if not most of Ulster Connaught, and Meath. See O'Clery's Book of Genealogies. Let's agree that Irish history is best served by dispassionate recourse to established sources. Titles used by O'Donnells were legitimate if consistent with established norms of the time, under Brehon laws, or if recognised beyond, as by a foreign King, James IV. I would agree if you were to dispute the use of Earl of Tyrconnell by the various collateral pretenders after Hugh Albert O'Donnell (2nd Earl), as it was attainted in 1614 (albeit still recognised on Continent), and was in any event entailed to Donal Oge in ultimate remainder. Mind you, one could theoretically dispute any Gaelic titles after the Treaty of Windsor 1175 Seneschally (talk) 01:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Broun paper

I now have scans of the Broun paper courtesy of the Deacon. I'm working on shrinking them (currently they run to 30+ mb, too much to email). If you'd like a copy send me an email (my wikipedia username (no spaces or dots) at gmail dot com) and I'll get it over too you when I've finished tarting it up. Thanks for the heads up about the Uí Duach Argetrois. I have faint hopes of sending Cerball mac Dúnlainge to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates some day, so I really must fix the Osraige stuff before that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In my less than infinite wisdom I decided to OCR the scans. It didn't work great but it worked well enough that I thought it was worth finishing. I'm currently a bit less than half way through the draft copy (6000-odd words done, probably 8000 to go). Should be presentable enough to send over by Friday at current rates of progress. I'll send a copy to Broun as well and see if that encourages him to add it to the GU eprints server ... Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion idea

No I do not see any reason to expend passions on a deletion debate. The article can clearly be improved a lot, so it is better to let things happen at their own pace. I believe discussion on the talkpage is looking better right now? But any discussion now about possible deletion will raise the question of why you do not just improve the article? The types of concerns you have about the article seem like ones which can be fixed by re-writing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not a favorite article of mine, indeed I understand your concerns pretty well I think, so I am not trying to make it sound better than it is, but deletion is a big call. There are clearly people who there is something separate which can be said about the title subject. Why not let them try? Proposing deletion is the same as saying that other people can not make the article. It goes beyond saying that you don't want to have anything to do with it. Can you really make that case and convince people? Personally I reckon you have quite a few snippets of ideas that could help form the basis of a much better article. Why not give the idea a chance for now?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but the world won't end while you give it a chance. No deadline remember. Any improvements, no matter how small, are still improvements.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Uí Duach Argetrois

Hi Din. I've never heard of the above (incredible, huh?). Do you have any idea as to the origins of the term Argetrois? It looks awefully French (or Gaulish?) to me,

Great work you're doing. What I'm up to at the moment is mainly adding people to their Irish county of origin, but especially writing as many bios as possible on natives of County Galway. One thing I noticed about all Irish county bios is that few of them have people of pre-modern era and/or Gaelic names. Now, I'm not gaelfascist, but I thought it would be helpful to add as much on that side of our heritage. So far so good - 941 in medieval Gaels; several hundred Gaelic-Irish in that and other topics, plus 1057 Galway bios! Ha! Puts us in second place behind Dublin (grrr!1244 - not for long) and our comrades in the People's Republic of Cork (i.e., langers; 870).

So I haven't been able to do much with the medieval projects you suggested, but I hope all this will add to the mix. Cheers, Fergananim (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nora lives. You have new messages at The ed17's talk page.
Message added 04:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cianachta

I can't find anything on them on Wiki. Think I'll write a bit, and I'd be delighted to have your input. Also, could you look at the Kings of Ui Maine and tell me if the bios need any work? I've also revised and expanded the Prehistoric and legendary ancestors in Irish people but I think it could be shortened. Hope to have more info on the Martine over the weekend. Fergananim (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

One I missed ...

Hah. I just noticed this when I was archiving my talk page. I'm not sure I've seen anything like that, but I'll have a look. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ardchluain na Féne and Mucfhalach Mac Dáire Ceirbe

Is the first the high meadow of the Feni (see IKAHK, F.J. Byrne)? Any idea what Mucfhalach may mean? muc = swine, pig? The Feni or Féne were later supposed to be the Gaels but seem to have been the free ruling classes, not an ethnic group (see (Trecheng Breth Féne/Triads of Ireland, Fir Maige Féne {of Fermoy?} and Bérla Féne). This could be indicitive of their prehistoric high-status. Thoughts? Fergananim (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Cian d'Fhearaibh Bolg

I draw your attention to the above, just as an example of how obscure the likes of the Mairtine are, and why! Fergananim (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Apologies to you DinDraithou, I didn't realize that a Barnstar has to be agreed upon in advance before being awarded. One of my many Wikipedia screwups. Asteuartw (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Que? Do we have guidelines&rules for barnstars now? Finn Rindahl (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently so. See: Wikipedia:Barnstars The rules state "Please don't add it without a consensus" Asteuartw (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again, but truth is I really don't deserve it just for creating what is essentially a list with a little intro. It would be nice to expand the discussion and to mention Maryland's relative urbanity for a manorial culture. DinDraithou (talk) 21:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this is a fairly old discussion, but I have just found it. The above discussion seems to be based on thinking that "Please don't add it without a consensus" refers to awarding a barnstar to an editor: at least, that's how it reads to me. In fact those words refer to adding a new barnstar to the list of those available. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#O'Brien dynasty

Hi, I just wanted to alert you to this, I saw your interaction while looking at recent changes. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, but you didn't need to post it up there, since we actually know each other. It's a shame he's taken it personally now given the chance to, if he really has. I was about to let him know on his talk page that we don't have a problem and can make this fun. In any case, his work is mostly good, but he's wrong about a couple of things here and I wish he would stop owning the article. DinDraithou (talk) 23:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies about this comment, probably a bit over the top and heated, but the self-proclaimed "academic" credentials does sort of get on my nerves. I started a talk section on the O'Brien article. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly did I claim academic credentials in this area? You have gotten angry and that has made itself all up in your head. I'm fairly confident that I'm better read on the Munster kingships than you at the moment, that's all. DinDraithou (talk) 00:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Irish genealogies

On your prompting, I've started an article on Irish genealogy - I'll NEVER get around to the Martine or other stuff at this rate! But a good complaint! Please knock away at it if you see anything you can improve upon. Fergananim (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Images

Images need not be "mentioned" in the text. In fact, very few are. -Rrius (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The specific event in the image need not be referred to in the text. Where did you get that idea? It is both illustrates that the term is used to refer to those countries and that there is contention about it. "The PIGS strike back" clearly illustrates that they feel injured. In any event, your notion that they are just kids who don't know what is going on is your opinion and completely irrelevant to whether the image should be on the page. -Rrius (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, it's not my section on corrective policies. I just disagree with your unsupported assertion that the article should only be an etymological article about the acronym. -Rrius (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I should have thought it quite clear that "they" referred to the protesters. Also, I think your fear that the image somehow reflects poorly on Greece or Greeks unfounded. -Rrius (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mairtine

Added a bit to the above. Fergananim (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks! I don't think there is much else in LNG, nor in FM. That leaves O'Briens's Corpus ... Delughted at praise, Fergananim (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mackenzie DNA

You mentioned on the Clan Mackenzie discussion about the Mackenzie DNA and that there is some debate of which DNA is the Dál Riata signiture. Isn't the MacDonald DNA from Dál Riata ? Also do you know anything about any Clan Munro DNA projects ? Thanks. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. QuintusPetillius (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Clann Somhairle

Hi&thanks for the notification about Ivar and Somerled, are you planning to write something in Ivars family section. One thing that comes to mind is that a son named Gille Patrick suggests that he probably was a Christian.

I'm really not into this DNA stuff, but as you correctly anticipated a biological proof of Norwegian descent for the MacDonalds gives me some kind of patriotic happiness. I haven't read the article by Woolf linked from Clann Somhairle yet, but I take it his arguments are historical rather than biological (DNA). I'm not convinced though that biological evidence for Norwegian ancenstors of the MacDonalds can be used to argue against their descent from the Ui Imair, I'd rather put it the other way around: If there is biological evidence for Norwegain descent and historical arguments for descent from the house of Ivar - then that suggests Norwegian ancestry for Ivar as well. After all, the arguments for Ivar (Beinlause)s Swedish/Danish origin are based on legendary traditions.

A completely different matter is that I am suprisedd that it is possible to distinguish between Danish and Norwegian andcestry per 1000+ year old genetic material - but then again I know nil about DNA and biological-genetical research. Best regards,20:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Alexander III of Scotland

Did he have any known illigitimate issue, and if so, any documented descendants? Fergananim (talk) 10:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Ormond

Hi, I just noticed that Ormond is a disambiguation page, and quite a lot of links there are intended for the Munster Kingdom of Ormond. I would suppose the title I just redlinked would be the correct for a future article on that shortlived kingdom, but the disamb. page suggests Ormond (ancient Irish kingdom). I was just about to change that, but thought I should ask for advice first. We already have Kingdom of Desmond, while Thomond seem to be a less disambiguous name. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And

Irish genealogy - are the reference sections too long? Fergananim (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Hi! Concerning this what you think was a vandal was just the automatic archiving "bot" now reset to 14 days. If you don't want it archiving 14 day old threads you'll need to either change the settings on the talk page or keep the thread active.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Cenél Conaill branch of Eóganacht Chaisil?

I'm puzzled by something F.J. Byrne writes about Lorcain mac Conlígáin in RIA (p.853-54), "...he was of the Cenél Conaill branch of the Éoganacht Caisil - that doesn't make much sense to me. Are we still talking about descendants of Conall Gulbanas in the northern Uí Néill branch? Or is this a different "Cenél Conaill" (descendants of Corc mac Luigthig?) Or did Byrne make a typo? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

We'll Meet Again ...don't know where, don't now when...

Enjoy your wikibreak DD (I insist on calling it a "break"). I have the impression you're a very intelligent person, so you'll probably learn whatever there is to learn about the ups and downs of Physics before I reach 1169. When (I insist...) you get back we have some unfinished business with making sure the Eóganachta get the place they deserve in history, and not just the dusty corner the Uí Néill and Uí Briain propagandists have confined them to...

In the meantime I hope you'll check in every now and then, I'll probably keep dropping questions about obscure septs and the like on your talk just to tempt you back (or remind you why you left - guess that will depend ;) All the best, take care out there in the real world. Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Caithréim Chellacháin Chaisil, commissioned by "O' Callaghan"

This is right up your alley I believe, so I'm posting a question even if your not here to see it... I just wrote a stub on Caithréim Chellacháin Chaisil. One piece of info I haven't included is from James Carney (RIA New history, p 487) qouting Brian Ó Cuiv in 'Literary creation and Irish historical tradition' p. 241, stating that CCC was "apparently written under 'some scholar under McCarthy (or O' Callaghan) patronage'."

McCarthy would be Cormac Mac Carthaigh, which is what all other sources hold as the commissioner of this work, but who was O'Callaghan. Annoyingly, Ó Corráin has an article in Ériu probably answering this and all other questions I have, but I can't get hold of it. If you happen to have a scan a copy would be most welcome, but don't put any work into it (not that important - the stub is decent enough even without that info IMO). Mainly, I'm curious about this O'Callaghan and who he might have been... Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another editor just supplied me with that article, so never mind that ;) Finn Rindahl (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

PIIGS

I fear you were right and I was wrong about that article. Perhaps you would like to revisit the discussion of how in depth the discussion should be? -Rrius (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

You may have to wait a while for that, as DD is retired/ on wikibreak (time will tell). Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 22:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ciannachta

Hope you're enjoying your breack. Have finally made a start on the Ciannachta. Fergananim (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Encouragement like that keeps me going. I'm relying on the newly published nine-volume "Dictionary of Irish Biography .. to the year 2002" for help as regards important Ciannachta people. Any input at all is very welcome. I'm not a major Lady Ga Ga fan, but sure I wouldn't kick her outta my bed if she visited. Fergananim (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

O'Donovan

Nice work! Mind you, would it not be best to refer to them by their Irish names, rather than "II" and "III"? However, I presume you have been forced to do this because there were others of the name, and none without distingusing nicknames? I've been trying to track down the present O'Shaughnessey for some years now, but because its original, unpublished work, it cannot be included on Wiki. Glad to see you were able to make use of my article on Tadgh Olltach! Fergananim (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm nearly finished Donnell II O'Donovan, one section left to go. Surprisingly his yearly rents (and not including Clan Loughlin's) were a little over one fifth (44+) those of the MacCarthy Reagh himself (208+), and the O'Donovans' income was further supplemented by "the dues which they had levied of old in the harbours under their rule". Do you happen to know what the O'Shaughnessy's chief rents were towards the end? DinDraithou (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have given you the rate (you probably already know it), which was around 3 cows to the pound. Thus £44 = 132 cows, £208 = 624 cows. No wonder the MacCarthy Reaghs were considered so rich. In their rural and pre-industrial, not to mention remote, economy, that was considerable wealth. DinDraithou (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!

Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. I've just read your profile and I understood that you're an Irishman (I wish I can visit your wonderful country some time soon!), so can you understand what are a minorized language and culture and maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to that moment. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Supporting us will be like giving equal opportunity to minorized languages and cultures in the future! Thanks again, wishing you a great summer, take care! Keep on preserving your great culture, country, music and language! Slán agat!Capsot (talk) 20:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am happy too! I have put it on my page. Sláinte agus táinte! DinDraithou (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for asking me! DinDraithou (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Numerical listings

Hi DinDraithou, I just saw your new page about the 7th Earl of Desmond and thought I'd leave you a tip on how to get numerical listings without having to type blank lines and numbers. You can get a list by simply typing:

# Foo
# Bla

directly below each other, which will then generate numbers. Cheers, De728631 (talk) 18:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! DinDraithou (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

O'Neill coat of arms

Hello. There is a discussion about the O'Neill coat of arms at Irish people talk page. Heraldry may or may not be your expertise, but I recall you are familiar with O'Neill dynasty history. So, if you can not speak on whether or not the style is correct, could you help properly identify the O'Neill arms as having a left hand, not a right as a few editors are trying to suggest? Apparently, because the right-handed image has existed unnoticed for a year, it is considered factual simply because it has gone unnoticed for a year. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 15:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I say just forget them for now and let them keep what they're used to in their little world. One particular editor you should not interact with as he is periodically blocked for his behavior. Don't fight them. Just back out.

What we should do is ask the Prince of Clanaboy himself about his dynasty's arms and all that, if we can find him. Reportedly he is very knowledgeable. I have not encountered him personally but he is apparently easily enough contacted. DinDraithou (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

On second thought maybe it's not a good idea. That crowd will be following you for a while now and trashing your contributions, now that you've lost a conflict with them. DinDraithou (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I appreciate you tryingto help guid eme with them. [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 13:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You may not recall me, but I was the one that helped merge the various O'Neill articles together into the O'Neill dynasty article, and the one the was working towards editing and correcting the heraldry section. I was trying to upgrade the images in the heraldry section, however I have come across a problem still with a couple editors. First, it was they were not sourced, then not the right shape and so on, but that all seems to have passed. Now, they are arguing my image, Coat of arms of the Uí Néills, Princes of Tyrone, is just too ugly to include. The image they propose is actually the wrong one, it shows a right hand and not a left hand. If you could find the time to go to the Irish people talk page or Heraldry WikiProject talk page and express any amount of support, it would help end this debate sooner so I can continue on illustrating instead of wasting my time on here arguing. Kindly, [tk] XANDERLIPTAK 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about "them", but I am arguing for File:O'Neill.svg, which shows a left hand, and without the pure invention that Xander has added to his - yes, ugly - image. I too would be glad if you express an opinion on the Heraldry talk page. Thanks, Scolaire (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)