Talk:Gaelic nobility of Ireland

message: If this is about modern Irish aristocrats (of ancient creation), but not old ones such as those at Anglo-Irish, should it say so? --Henrygb 22:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How can titles created by the British Monarch still exist in Ireland now it is totally seperate from the Crown that created them? It seems odd for a country to have a nobility without a royalty, doesnt it? --Camaeron 14:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles created by the British Monarch

message: There is no precedent that I am aware of for a cadet branch/sept of a clann/tribe to be able to assume the title of the prime lineage in the absence of an extant chief of same.  The O'Sullivan clan, who have an appointed chief, would be unlikely to agree with the third footnote and the suggestion that a McGillucuddy is now their head. I would recommend that the suggestion of such a practice be supported with references or the substance of the note removed.--Garranes (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone can get uninformed, and I was was unaware there was the slightest thing official about the "O'Sullivan Clan" or their website, which is an America-based social club. Thus McGillycuddy is currently what remains of the "Sept of O'Sullivan", and is thus their de facto head, as their remaining noble, until an heir male of the main line or of Beare can be found. It's not his fault or mine if the "O'Sullivan Clan" are not informed enough to be aware of it. They really don't count I don't think. They think Scots should wear tartans. That said the note can certainly be removed. I'm not attached to it and actually hoped it would get a response (although from an actual McGillycuddy or O'Sullivan!) DinDraithou (talk) 15:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I just saw it first.  It's a bit ungenerous to suggest the O'Sullivan clan is just a social club.  Both they and the McGillicuddys are members of Clans of Ireland and take their heritage seriously. (And the Scots got their notion of tartans from the Gaels.  It wasn't until the mid 1800's I believe that the different tartan patterns began to emerge in the Highlands.) I know this is being nit-picky, but you still have (O'Sullivan Mor) listed after the name of McGillicuddy.  The McGillicuddy family seat had been The Reeks for some years but Richard (previous Chief) sold it. It's a lovely place.  I don't know if it would be appropriate to list it as a family seat now though.  The current chief in SA might not be pleased.--Garranes (talk) 16:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I have restored the note with completely new contents, and simple. I'm sure McGillycuddy can be contacted. Regarding the O'Sullivans there has been some madness going on at Talk:O'Sullivan. I'm not sure if the chief you refer to is Gary Sullivan but he and his website have been ruthlessly attacked by an Irish O'Sullivan for the contents of the website and for those of his book "The Oak and the Serpent", which I have not read. Gary actually seems like quite a nice person and so I feel sorry for him and have exited the discussion for now. I was helping them find sources. Gary has now even posted about the attacks on the O'Sullivan website blog. His attacker is an Irish language professional and has been nice to me, but Gary has made him quite angry somehow.  DinDraithou (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the McGillicuddy's still are a cadet branch of the O'Sullivan's, not just 'originally'. I took a look at the exchanges on the O'Sullivan talk. It makes me think I may be attempting to be too precise myself...--Garranes (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  McGillicuddy vs O'Sullivan 

message: ===Eóganachta===
I am a little confused about the order of things. Beginning with the Eóganachta, theoretically O'Callaghan should be listed above MacGillycuddy because his sept is considerably older, but I am confused about how their succession went. I have come across it said that the Viscount Lismore line were the Chiefs of the Name, in which case the Spanish Dons assumed the title not long after, and so the chiefship was never restored, but perhaps only went dormant for a short period. As this seems the case I am moving O'Callaghan directly under O'Donoghue. When a real MacCarthy finally appears he will of course belong on top. I am aware of at least one real MacCarthy Reagh out there, a descendant of Donal na Pipi, 13th Prince of Carbery, who has recently been certified as an immemorial noble by the Knights of Malta. He would appear to be elderly and what his family's plans are I do not know. DinDraithou (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear the information I had was bad. The O'Callaghans of Spain have apparently been the Chiefs of the Name since the late 18th century. Their pedigree. DinDraithou (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precedence 

message: I am a little confused about the order of things. Beginning with the Eóganachta, theoretically O'Callaghan should be listed above MacGillycuddy because his sept is considerably older, but I am confused about how their succession went. I have come across it said that the Viscount Lismore line were the Chiefs of the Name, in which case the Spanish Dons assumed the title not long after, and so the chiefship was never restored, but perhaps only went dormant for a short period. As this seems the case I am moving O'Callaghan directly under O'Donoghue. When a real MacCarthy finally appears he will of course belong on top. I am aware of at least one real MacCarthy Reagh out there, a descendant of Donal na Pipi, 13th Prince of Carbery, who has recently been certified as an immemorial noble by the Knights of Malta. He would appear to be elderly and what his family's plans are I do not know. DinDraithou (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear the information I had was bad. The O'Callaghans of Spain have apparently been the Chiefs of the Name since the late 18th century. Their pedigree. DinDraithou (talk) 22:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Eóganachta

message: I dislike this phrase. It undermines the authority of the entire section. My preference would be to exclude those that are not verifiable. A sub-section could be created for those that are less than fully verified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I added "verifiable" by accident and see the confusion it causes. All are descendants of kings or other nobility. DinDraithou (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Most below are verifiable descendants

message: Shouldn't that read "Mac Liam Uachtar", seeing as there is no "W" in Gaelic? or even read "Mac Liam Uachtar (Mac William Upper)" ?  Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about the title, but I believe William in Irish was originally Uilliam, later contracted to Liam.  Scolaire (talk) 12:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac William Uachtar

message: Cross-posted from Talk:History of Ireland:
To be honest, I'm not wild about either the old version of this article or the new one. Neither of them seems to know what it's about. What's wanted, it seems to me, is a collaborative effort to organise the article in some sort of coherent way e.g. Pre-Norman Taoisigh, historic Gaelic nobles, historic Anglo-Irish nobles, current existing families and current heads, and to decide on a consistent format i.e. list, text or text followed by list. As it stands (or as it stood last week) it is unhelpful to those who know the subject and unintelligible to those (including me) who don't.  Scolaire (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. I believe if it could be determined what this article is about everything else (including the title) would flow from that. I'm going to propose another move below that might clear that up. --RA (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: The move seems to resolve the current disagreement. For the future, I don't think that splitting the article is the way forward. Readers who want to know about the nobility in Ireland don't want to have to find out in advance which nobility they want to know about. As I said above, arranging the article into logical sections and improved clarity of writing should make the distinctions clear. As I also said above, the distinction between historic and modern is as important, or more important, than the distinction between Gaelic and "English". Even in the seventeenth century there was not very much difference between, for instance, O'Neills and Fitzgeralds.  Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, and the original title Irish nobility was best. All the article needed was more historical discussion and better sectioning. But I'm finished fighting with RA. Currently those missing can be found at Talk:Hiberno-Norman. DinDraithou (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: It is for comments such as yours, Scolaire, that the RM process exists. One bold move followed by another is no substitute for discussion. We need to decide what this article is about. Now we're being told the original title was "best"? Good heaven! I reverted you three times yesterday, DinDriathou, when you moved the article from that location. Now you want it back? What is going on here? --RA (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: 
Gaelic and Hiberno-Norman nobility of Ireland → Gaelic nobility of Ireland — There is a lack of clarity to what this article is about - or at least a lack of clarity to the reason why some titles of English origin are included alongside Gaelic ones, and why some are not. Personally, I think a clean division between Gaelic titles and titles of English origin would provide clarity around the topic. The upshot of this move would be to create two major articles: 
* The current Peerage of Ireland, which is about "English" titles.
* This one, which would be about Gaelic titles.
Of course some people held both, and some dynasties moved from one to the other, in which case those people would appear on both lists/articles but each title would only appear in one.
There is of course a complication to this in that many of the people who held "English" titles became Gaelicised to some extent. However, the alliances between Gaels and Norman nobles and the Gaelicisation of nobles of "English" title are better dealt with elsewhere rather than mixing the two up. --RA (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The move seems to resolve the current disagreement. For the future, I don't think that splitting the article is the way forward. Readers who want to know about the nobility in Ireland don't want to have to find out in advance which nobility they want to know about. As I said above, arranging the article into logical sections and improved clarity of writing should make the distinctions clear. As I also said above, the distinction between historic and modern is as important, or more important, than the distinction between Gaelic and "English". Even in the seventeenth century there was not very much difference between, for instance, O'Neills and Fitzgeralds.  Scolaire (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are quite right, and the original title Irish nobility was best. All the article needed was more historical discussion and better sectioning. But I'm finished fighting with RA. Currently those missing can be found at Talk:Hiberno-Norman. DinDraithou (talk) 15:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: It is for comments such as yours, Scolaire, that the RM process exists. One bold move followed by another is no substitute for discussion. We need to decide what this article is about. Now we're being told the original title was "best"? Good heaven! I reverted you three times yesterday, DinDriathou, when you moved the article from that location. Now you want it back? What is going on here? --RA (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Did we not say that collaboration is the way to go on this article? Discussion by edit summary is the least useful form of collaboration. How about some dialogue, lads?  Scolaire (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Scolaire. I've just posted a comment to that effect on DinDraithou. TBH, I'm about to walk from this article. --RA (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Inappropriate use of this talkpage. Got anything else to say? DinDraithou (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: I'll leave it to someone else. When it comes to edit warring over a talk page comments, I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole  --RA (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is bizarre indeed! I hadn't noticed it when I posted the above comment. There's also this rather dubious post on the History of Ireland talk page. Looks like somebody has issues.  Scolaire (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is surprising and unfortunate, Scolaire. I didn't think you and I had a problem, but I see you two are friends. Do you plan to contribute to this article (if you can) or just continue to socialize? DinDraithou (talk) 17:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We are on speaking terms. I wouldn't call us friends particularly. You and I didn't have a problem before now, but if I see strange or inappropriate behaviour from anybody I call it. I don't ever just socialise. Whether I plan to edit this article (I am already contributing) is my business and nobody else's.  Scolaire (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You keep calling it! I'm sure RA is impressed and will reward you. DinDraithou (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

text: That's what I meant by a collaborative effort. Ideally we would have a structure: for instance, historical background on Gaelic chiefs and Anglo-Irish lords followed by lordship in modern Ireland to 1922 or 2003 followed by who is entitled to what or who claims what today. It needs input from people with expertise in each of several different areas.  Scolaire (talk) 21:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do something. So far you have done nothing. You're still on the talk page. Meanwhile I've been adding sources and doing further cleanup. If you can manage better than RA, who seems to favour extensive copy-editing of the contributions of others to make it look like he knows something when he has no background at all, I'll be genuinely impressed. If you can go beyond that and make a genuine contribution it would be great, Scolaire. Give us some content. Or am I supposed to write everything you would like to see? DinDraithou (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Commenting on the talk page, offering suggestions for what the article should include and pointing out stuff that needs to be sourced/rewritten is doing something. Extensive copy-editing of what others have contributed is what wikipedia is about. And removing other users copyediting with the summary "unhelful" certainly doesn't come across as an invitation to others to edit the article. Whenever there's a disagreement on content (I haven't yet figured out what you people disagree about, but it has to be something..), using the talk page to make suggestions is exactly what should be done. If we cooperate, we can come up with something better than any of us could do by themselves, but that requires a different kind of communication than I've seen so far on this talk page. Finn Rindahl (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the only one with any sources and it will probably stay that way. I have no confidence anyone here with the possible exception of Laurel, who is genuinely interested and has some related background, will be helping. Honestly I don't think you will either, Finn. You'll lose interest. So this is all pretty meaningless. DinDraithou (talk) 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I certainly have no interest in engaging with anybody who takes that sort of an attitude! Sources on what? What is Laurel's "related background"? What is the point of anybody adding and sourcing content when nobody knows what the article is supposed to be about and how it is to be structured. And when they know in advance that you are going to do a knee-jerk revert with a snotty comment? What are your sources on pre-Norman Irish history and society, and where is the evidence of them in this article? Saying there was such a thing as Rí túaithe and Rí ruirech (without citations) is not exactly a strong background to the Gaelic lords, is it? So which is it to be? Are you willing to collaborate or will you just continue to assert ownership of the article and write what you please?  Scolaire (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is easy to claim someone else is owning an article when you have nothing to contribute to it yourself. What of RA's "work" I did revert I reverted because it was bad. He was hastily trying to assert control because he felt a conflict had started, and was not really trying to improve anything, just change it. What did not make the article look poorer I let stay. As far as the Rí, if you don't know anything about them, who were central in Gaelic Ireland, then you have no business here and are doing nothing more that RA, except staying on the talk page. You don't know anything (yet) and are trying to find a way to assert yourself. Finding unfamiliar terms is easy and isn't contributing. I've quickly checked your work since 2005 and find no evidence you have any business here... yet. This is not the sort of article where a part-time socializer, or in RA's case an aspiring admin, can do much good for his career... if you're not willing to do some extensive reading of unfamiliar material. But if you or anyone manages to do something for the benefit of the article it will stay. I have a good history of working with respectable editors. Notice that when I chastised you (when you were busy socializing with your angry friend and calling me "bizarre" for his benefit) into actually reading the article for the first time, and making some observations, I respected them and made changes. It was to put you to work and show I would work with you. Yet you say I am owning. What a joke. You sound like a proper newbie. DinDraithou (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a post of such abysmal ignorance that I will not respond to anything in it. This is a piss-poor article and I have no interest in improving it if it means being patronised by the likes of you. Goodbye and happy editing.  Scolaire (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warring again already? 

message: "The Gaelic nobles" has no inline citations at all, just a number of footnotes, also unsourced. I'd like to know what the sources are for the following statements:
*Any Irish Chief of the Name descended in the male line from a rí may style himself a Prince if he so chooses...
*A number of rí ruirech also became Ard Rí and their surviving princely descendants remain claimants to the High Kingship to this day.
*The remainder...are at the very least allowed to style themselves lords, if they so choose.
*A noble chief or lord may be styled a flaith (originally meaning prince) or tiarna.
Is all of this from Burke's Peerage? If so, what page(s)?  Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's good, Scolaire! Very nice! No, hardly in Burke's. Now the two about choosing I will rewrite or remove soon because I haven't been quite satisfied with them. They can be sourced but don't really need to be there; the current styles of the chiefs say as much. The other two I will find the sources for soon because they need to stay. DinDraithou (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's meant to be patronising it doesn't work; it just comes across as creepy! You'd do better to leave out the personal comments altogether.  Scolaire (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Creepy! You keep calling it! Ha! DinDraithou (talk) 18:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline citations 

message: Here alone for too long, I'm now sick of this article, so I'm unwatching it. DinDraithou (talk) 23:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reign of Terror 

message: I remove the following passage as unsourced:
:Not contesting the title of O'Neill, Prince of Ulster (currently) is the newly restored Count of Tyrone, Jacobus de Tyrone, Comes (Vatican 2006).<:ref>NB, This name in its Latin form sometimes appears in the accusative case as "Jacobum", but Latin names are correctly given in the nominitive case as "Jacobus" (i. e., James).</ref>
The misspelt footnote on schoolboy Latin is all there is as a source. Who is this person? Is this the Martiniquais O'Neills about whose claims Complete Peerage is so scathing? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyrone?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaelic nobility of Ireland. 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/20100516102833/http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm to http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm
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) 05:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gaelic nobility of Ireland. 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/20120119075126/http://www.hbci.com/~tiraha/leinster/mmk.html to http://www.hbci.com/~tiraha/leinster/mmk.html
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) 04:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified