Talk:Chief of the Name

message: Why "O Brien" etc? In English it is "O'Brien", in Irish "Ó Briain". Most of these names are in English, so should have the apostrophe. BrendanH 15:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
:If it's the anglicised form (e.g. Doherty, Connor) then you should use "O'". If it's the Irish form (e.g. Dochartaigh, Conchubhair), then use "Ó". Otherwise you are switching languages mid-name.  Now the traditional family name and the name of the current chief or claimant could well be in different languages. Kevlar67 12:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Name Spelling

message: This article, and others on related topics, will need to be watched to prevent Mr. Sean Murphy using them for self-promotion.  It is not appropriate for Mr. Murphy or anyone else to insert references to himself and his importance in articles.  He admits adding the references to himself to his article.  It should be noted that Mr. Murphy is trying to sell a book so he has reason to draw attention to himself..
Outside Observer, 2 June 2005
: Whilst it would be incorrect for Mr Murphy to blow his own trumpet here, it does not mean that all mention of his contribution towards the exposing of the fraud should be expunged.  Waltsbane (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed that self-promotion is inappropriate, but as you say there is no questioning the fact that Murphy was the leading figure in the uncovering of this fraud and identifying those "ennobled" by MacCarthy. It goes without saying that much opposition to even the mention of Murphy (often with a very similar tone to the first comment here) derives from those that bear a grudge, be they directly impacted by his exposé or among those affiliated with those individuals.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.199.79 (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Sean Murphy 

message: "After embarrassing official blunders in the 1990s which saw a 'MacCarthy Mór' and several other impostors receive recognition, the Irish government decided in July 2003 to abandon this practice as there was no proper legal basis for it, and to continue such recognition would, on the advice of the Attorney General, necessitate a constitutional referendum to amend Bunreacht na hÉireann.This decision was criticised by, among others, Etienne Rynne, Professor Emeritus of Archaeology at NUI Galway."
Why did Professor Rynne and others criticize the decision?  Did they disagree with the attorney general's opinion that recognizing chiefs violated the consitution or did they disagree with the government's decision not to seek an amendment to the constitution? What arguments did Professor Rynne make?  Who is Professor Rynne anyway?  Why is a retired professor of archaelogy cited as an authority with regards to a government policy on recognizing chiefs?  Does archaelogy have anything to do with this debate?  Did the critics represent a substantial or respected body of opinion?  It goes without saying that someone will criticize any governmental decision.  Why are these criticisms relevant?  
As it stands, the mention of criticism adds nothing to the story.  I cannot tell whether there is a serious debate in Ireland about recognizing chiefs or just a few people with "sour grapes."
--64.12.116.74 20:42, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the basis for criticism of the government's new policy to end recognition of chiefs. 

message: I have tagged this article because it cites one book and one website, it really needs to cite more as it makes a number of claims and recently some changes have been made. Additionally it is a controversial subject and not well understood in the public domain. Djegan 17:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have retagged the article as the only book reference would appear to be promoted by the author both on the article page and this talk page. Whilst I am not implying anything improper wikipedia must maintain high standards particularily in topics such as these and the history of this article. If anyone can add references or a more appropriate template then do so. Djegan 00:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Two websites and one book - of which an author is common to one of the websites and the book. I'm not so sure that this reassures me on one of the greatest fiascos sponsored by the Irish Government. Djegan 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Princeton03 changed the link without explanation.  I have reverted it to the correct URL. --Nike 01:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagged

message: I've mildly cleaned up some stuff based on this article's listing on WP:TASK. No real textual change: some cites and facts are stated without backup and I've commented what seems to be missing, I've reorganised slightly to bring all of Ireland together. Nothing major.
One outstanding query: by wiki standards this article should be moved to the singular: "Chief of the name", with a redirect here to that page. I didn't want to do that without discussion though. FT2 (Talk) 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking in The Encyclopedia of Ireland, Gill and Macmillan it has the article under the name "chiefs of the name" (plural) and indicates that the person would be regardes as "chief of his name" (singular). I will mention the issue on the Irish noticeboard as their maybe other opinions and consensus. Djegan 18:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Its wikipedia style convention that where a singular can exist, the article is named as the singular. if one would say "X is a chief of the name" then that's usually the correect title for the article, even if it does discuss the group and collective of all chiefs of the name. FT2 (Talk) 23:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: From Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals): "In general only create page titles that are in the singular, unless that term is always in a plural form in English (such as scissors)." --Kwekubo 18:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mild cleanup 

message: While I can understand the hostility that Mr. Murphy arouses from certain quarters, it must be pointed out that any and all conclusions he has ever made on subjects which he has an abiding interest - as a professional genealogist - have being fully supported by facts. Rather, it is those who are supposed to be the professionals - particularly the woefully misnamed Genealogical Office - and the claimaints who have being forced to retract their claims. 
Its little wonder that there is not a great deal of literature on the subject available. The simple reason is that there is very little to begin with. This is because there is just not very many people even in Ireland actively engaged on the issue, and because of a lack of regulation in certain quarters all sorts of dubious actvities have being cheerfully engaged in for decades. This has being a subject of deep disquiet, disgust and fury to those such as myself who, while not professional genealogists, are nevertheless  Seanchai by pride, profession and vocation. I include in this professional and accomplished amaeuters in the feild of Irish history, heraldry, genealogy, etc. 
A few links which may prove illumanating to those who wish to learn more are as follows:
* http://www.familyhistory.ie/pressrelease.htm
* http://www.familyhistory.ie/bill.htm
* http://www.familyhistory.ie/backcopies.htm
Suffice to saw, Mr. Murphy's published conclusions in 1999, following several years research, pretty much blew the lid on a very messy business that many vested interests quailed at seeing the light of day. There had being some concern at the more outlandish activities of the hoax macarthy mor for several years, and it was as a direct result of this that led to many others - of whom Mr. Murphy remains the most publicly notable - to query the status accorded by an office of the state to several of these individuals. Macarthy mor was merely the most public, most outrageous but certainly not the most deserving of investigation into independently unproven claims of descent and titles (in a Republic!!!). 
The very insularity of these circles led to the revelations recieveing little coverage even here in Ireland and this is something that continues. Because far too many simply do not understand the substance of the issues concerned - or care - some of the most blatent acts of theft and piracy have being carried out against both personal property (in the form of coats of arms) and the heritige of the nation, for years. No criminal proscutions have being brought, even though maccarthy more is reputed, via his courtsey recognition from an office of the state, to have swindled a number of millions by selling knighthoods, lordships, membership fees of his organisations, and other ingenious stratageys. Other such cases may well lie hidden from public view. In fact, they do.
As someone who has long being acquainted with the subject I can only heartily welcome the new provisions and the the withdrawal of courtsey recogniton some years ago. That's not to say that either myself or others do not wish to see Cheifs of the Name being identified and recognised by the state. We do. We simply feel that it should be done properly and openly. Claims by amadans to be Prince of Ulster, Hereditary Prince of Corcabaskin and of Thomond, when shown to be false, cheapen our collective heritage and our guardianship of it. Exactly how these titles could be held by citizens of the Republic of Ireland, or how they could be granted by the same to citizens of other states, has never being properly explained. 
I and many more like me very much look forward to the day when there will be a fully accredited list of Irish Chiefs of the Name. That we are a Repulic is a fact and one which the overwhelmingly vast majority of Irish people are happy with. Yet in now way should this rule out recognition and understanding of our past, and current representatives of the dynastys that ruled and reigned over this land since before history began. 
In conclusion I must note for the record that I am not a member of any of the above organisations listed, nor have I ever held any position from any of them. Like Professor Rynne of NUIG, I have being simply a deeply concerned by-stander in the general feild of Irish heritage. Is mise, Fergananim 21:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get your tongue out of the British monarchy's arsehole.  The native Gaelic rulers of Ireland did not have dynasties, and they explicitly rejected primogeniture in favor of elected kings.  The very notion of a "Chief of The Name" is offensive to Gaels as it was one of the policies imposed upon the native Irish by the English crown as part of their policy of surrender and regrant, which they used to eliminate indigenous leaders in favor of reliable colonial puppets.  Go peddle your West Briton bullshit somewhere else.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.248.84 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Commentry

message: Gaelic clan leaders were elected by the members of the clan, not merely the eldest son of the former leader.  Primogeniture was an alien custom forcibly imposed by the same people who attempted to eradicate Gaelic culture.
The Irish Republic was right to toss this anglicized "chief of the name" nonsense onto the dungheap.  It is repugnant to both Gaels and republicans.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.240.66 (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cac go Leor! 

message: Please don't replace this without an official source. I also note that one of the entries, Diarmait Mac Murchada, doesn't mention this. If living people are named they also need reliable sources. An aside -after deleting the section I found  which discusses some of our articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abandonment list & a web page discussing some of our articles 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Chief of the Name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060620100640/http://www.burkes-peerage.net:80/sites/common/ejournals/at0202-4.asp to http://www.burkes-peerage.net/sites/common/ejournals/at0202-4.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Chief of the Name. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080330034929/http://www.theclansofireland.ie/ to http://www.theclansofireland.ie/
*Added  tag to http://www.desmondasn.webs/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051027093241/http://www.nli.ie/pdfs/Chief%20of%20name.pdf to http://www.nli.ie/pdfs/Chief%20of%20name.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified