Talk:Lebor Gabála Érenn

message: From the article:
:"It is usually known in English as The Book of Invasions [...]
Need I say more?  Alai 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested page move 

message: Na Lebor Gabala Erenn (a.k.a. The Book of invasions of Ireland, Leabhor Gabhala Eirinn) was the 17th century reprise of the preexisting Lebor Na Huidhre (a.k.a. Book of the Dun Cow, Leabhor Na Huidhre).  The reprise was the work of Michael O' Cleirigh at the request of Brian Maguire and was completed in 1631.  The Lebor Na Huidre was a compilation of five books that existed in Ireland.  This original compilation was made in 1106AD by Mael Muire Mac Célechair (Galleghar) at Clonmacnoise.  It was written in Gaelic using the Romanized Irish Alphabet.[Royal Irish Academy: Manuscript Records]GomerianGod 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confused. The earliest surviving version of Lebor Gabála appears in the Book of Leinster (ca. 1160). It's a compilation of poems, some of which may be as early as the 6th century) with a prose chronological framework/explanation which dates to the 12th. The Lebor na hUidre is a complilation of prose texts which, as you say, dates to ca. 1106 although most of the contents are older than that. It does not include the Lebor Gabála or anything that could be considered a precursor to it. Michael O'Clery, of Annals of the Four Masters fame, did write a version of the Lebor Gabála in the 17th century, which is mentioned in the article under "Textual variants", but he didn't create it and he didn't base it on Lebor na hUidre. --Nicknack009 23:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not confused. If there were something not right about the information I posted, it would not be my error for I recieved it from the Royal Irish Academy (the school has possession of the book).  I do know that both Leabhor Gabhala Eirinn and Leabhor Na Huidhre are almost the same book, because I've personally read through both.  Neither one are autographs, they are both just compilations, one a revision of the other, both edited by the Catholic church, which caused more escewment in the information.  There are many poems, some which most likely even predate Christ, but there are also many naratives.GomerianGod 16:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Compilation Error 

message: "And the first two "takings" of Ireland — those of Cessair and Partholón, both taking place before the Flood — seem to be wholly fanciful" vs. "Three hundred years after the Flood, Partholón, who, like the Gaels, is a descendant of Noah's son Japheth, settles in Ireland."  I checked the online version and it says " till Partholon s. Sera s. Sru came to it. He is the first who took Ireland after the Flood", so I'm removing the "both taking place before the Flood". If anyone can read old Irish, they might wanty to check the original. Vultur (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: On 15 August 2004, QuartierLatin1968 made that edit (adding "both taking place beforethe Flood") - I have removed it. Eroica (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Contradiction

message: I have removed some edits by Valkyree, which were clearly intended to push the agenda that LGE is accurate history. This is not the place to argue your case. Referenced citations (e.g. the quote from Charles Squire, which I have kept, but moved to the relevant section) are, of course, another matter. Eroica (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right - I completely support what you've done. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

text: You're quite right, Valkyree, in saying that the NPOV status of the Origins section has been questioned before. But that section has since been revised extensively to remove any non-neutral POV. I have just read it again and made another emendation: I replaced the loaded word pseudohistory with the more neutral phrase legendary history. If you believe that there are still biassed comments in that section, I would be happy to consider further edits. Your own extensive edits could not possibly be considered NPOV. Eroica (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, "pseudohistory" isn't really what it is - that word really only applies to modern works with an agenda so powerful it overrides honesty. I've used "historical tradition" in some of the articles on individual kings. Eoin MacNeill called it "synthetic history", but I wouldn't use that as we don't have an article on it that could be linked to explain what it means - people would assume "synthetic" means "artificial" rather than its original meaning of "brought together", referring to the various attepts to reconcile native traditions with Christian and classical chronologies. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

message: Has anyone got any objections to me changing and moving around some of the images on this Lebor Gabála Érenn page? And maybe adding some more images that are appropriate to the different parts of the story?
The current image at the top of the page is a picture of the Tower of Hercules in Spain. Now yes, this is indeed part of the Lebor Gabála Érenn story, but its not an appropriate image that represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story as a whole, and Irish History. The story is about the History of Ireland, and the Tower of Hercules is in Spain. I think the Tower of Hercules image should be moved down the page to the section called "Early history of the Gaels", because that is where the Tower of Hercules is discussed in the story. 
And instead I can make several suggestions for a more appropriate image for the top of the page that better represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. Here are some suggestions;
*A picture of the Lia Fáil, the Stone of Destiny, on the Hill of Tara Wikipedia page would be very appropriate to the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. The Lia Fáil is a central part of the core text of the story of the High Kings, and its a lovely picture too! It would be perfect at the top of this page!
*Any of the images used on the Wikipedia Newgrange page would be very appropriate as the Tuatha Dé Danann are one of the most intriguing parts of the story. So a nice picture of Newgrange itself would be a good way to represent the Irishness of the story. 
*Or another option would be to keep the opening image on the page "Academic", and put in an image of one of the actual texts used in the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. The Wikipedia page Book of Leinster has a beautiful image from Folio 53 of the Book of Leinster. And the Book of Leinster is one of the main scripts that tells the story of Lebor Gabála Érenn. So this option really would represent what the story is all about, the History of Ireland.
Or I am open to any suggestions for other images that would better represent Lebor Gabála Érenn and the History of Ireland. John37309 (talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images on this page 

message: There are multiple references to an author called "Monaghan" in the text, but no date, title, or other description 5.198.10.236 (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's this edit. I've asked User:Asarlaí to fix it. Doug Weller talk 15:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: . ~Asarlaí 21:30, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing reference

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

message: Let's look at the various things Gemmathegael and her sockpuppets wanted to insert into the article.
# Various attempts do misrepresent the scholarly consensus as the opinion of a lone scholar - a common tactic of the pseudohistorian. Perhaps a bit more variety in citation is required to guard against this.
# Attempts to cite "Irish bardic history" as if that was an authority. "Bardic history" is a construct of 18th/19th century wish-fulfillment, based on discredited notions of the accuracy of preservation and transmission of oral tradition. Besides, Ireland's poets were called filid, not "bards" - the use of the word "bard" was pulled out of Greek and Latin accounts of the ancient Celts, not from any source related to Ireland.
# Material about DNA linking the Irish to the Iberian peninsula. This is probably completely irrelevant, and certainly undue weight, in an article about a medieval composition. The medieval Irish probably only believed their ancestors came from Spain because Isidore said so.
# An attempt to discredit Macalister as a textual critic by casting aspersions on his methods as an archaeologist, cited to a paper which makes no such criticism of him. This is pure poisoning the well.
# An argument over whether Nennius was a monk or a priest. I have removed all mention of Nennius, because he's irrelevant to the article, and probably didn't write the Historia Brittonum anyway. What's important here is the parallels between the texts, not the precise clerical occupation of the person who was once believed to have written one of them. 
# Changing "Judeo-Christian" to "Christian". This one is quite correct. The Irish monks were Christians, working from Christian materials.
I think that covers everything. Hopefully when Gemmathegael's block expires and she's calmed down a bit, some discussion can ensue. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree Christian is correct, I was making the cardinal sin of not considering the context. Also, the use of DNA or archaeological sources to argue about the historicity is inappropriate, unless of course those sources discuss the topic. Doug Weller talk 18:58, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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