Talk:Túath

message: I feel it is somewhat inappropriate to describe Brehon Law as Celtic law, and think calling it Irish law is more accurate. It does not appear to be proveable as Celtic per se, and contains many elements inspired by canon law, which is essentially Roman in origin, so calling it Irish Law is factually correct, and not burdened by the heavy label of 'Celtic', with all its associated implications. Some elements may be Pre-Christian in origin. Some, especially those regarding kingship, might even be Pre Iron Age, but since none of this is proveable, it is best left to the realm of speculation, and the language used should reflect the limits of our knowledge.
-Aguyanon
Can anyone explain what connection there is, if any, between this and Gaelic tuath meaning "north"?  --Doric Loon 13:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're unrelated. Gaelic tuath is from Old Irish túaid, not from Old Irish túath. —Angr 07:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Change 

message: Corrected another spelling error.
I must also point out here that the modern name Ó Néill does not derive from Uí Néill.  That comment should be deleted from the article.
 
Cairney (C. Thomas Cairney, _Clans and Families of Ireland and Scotland_) writes:
 
"The great O’Neills (O Neill) themselves descend from Niall Glundubh, High-King of Ireland, who fell fighting against the Vikings near Dublin in 919. His grandson Domhnall, who flourished about 943, was the first to bear the dynastic name of O’Neill. They were the chief family of the Cineal Eoghain from 1241, and as overlords of Tir Eoghain (which included the modern counties of Tyrone, Derry and those northeastern parts of Donegal), and kings of Ulster they make a very distinguished group in history from the eleventh to the seventeenth century. Such O’Neill magnates as Conn, Shane the Proud, Sir Phelim and Owen Roe are all outstanding figures. A powerful branch of the family settled in Antrim and Down in the fourteenth century, where they were known as Clann Aodha Bhuidhe, or the O’Neills of Claneboy. Other branches of the O’Neills include the O’Branigans (O Branagain) of Derry, who provided eranachs (hereditary abbots) to the churches of Derry in County Derry and Derryvullan in County Fermanagh; the O’Rahillys (O Raithile) of Kerry, a literary family that settled early in County Kerry near Killarney, and the MacMartins (Mac Mairtin) of County Tyrone."
 
MacKillop (James MacKillop, _Dictionary of Celtic Mythology_) says:
 
"Despite the common misconception, the name O'Neill is not an anglicization of Uí Néill.  Instead, many a family derives from the Uí Néill, including O'Doherty, O'Donnell, O'Hagan, and others.  The O'Neill family, a subdivision of Cenél Eógain in Tír Eógain, taikes its name from Niall Glúndub (d. 919)."
Croman mac Nessa 11:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected Spellings 

message: I have edited and sourced the opening section.  Can someone provide sound sources for the "Social Organization" section? Martin MacGrath 21:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Does anybody have any knowledge of how many túatha there were in Ireland? Obviously it was constantly changing, but does anyone know the average number through the period they existed? I remember hearing from school that there was about 100 túatha in Ireland in the middle ages. And if, as this article says, a Túath had about 10,000 people that would mean about 1 million on the whole island, which sounds about right from what I've heard of population estimates of the time. So should I just add in the 100 figure, as I do distinctly remember being told that number in school? --Hibernian 01:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Túatha? 

message: If you are expanding this, make sure to source it as you go. Every time before you hit "save". Otherwise you'll just keep getting reverted and I don't think you want that frustration. If you insert what looks like personal, unsourced essays and WP:OR, as I said on your talk page, other editors are going to assume that you do not have sources, and we are going to revert you. This is just how Wikipedia works. 
By putting the "editing in progress" template up after you simply hit "revert" on me, you've indicated you're still working on this, but you need to engage with other editors, and don't just leave the sourcing for some time in the future. If the sources aren't there when others see these changes in their watchlists, they will be in the right to simply revert you, as I did. (And will do again if this isn't done in encyclopedic form). Proceeding to then edit-war against them is a road you do not want to go down, OK. Slán, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 23:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no edit war. If you check you will see there was a construction template on this page when you first started deleting text. Why you are deleting text on a page with a construction template AND that has been clearly edited only in the past hour or so is beyond me. It is overly aggressive and I dont need instructions from you on how to upgrade a page, my record speaks for itself. If i revert again i do not expect you to interfere with it. That page has no references to start with and is in a sorry state so it does not warrant this kind of invasive oversight as if i was vandalising. It costs a lot of effort to write this content and i dont need this kind of interference.  Thanks for your interest. Kodai (talk) 23:57, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I didn't see the template before my initial revert; it wasn't obvious in the diff view in my watchlist. Just the deletion of sources, plus all the new content with no new sourcing added. While I apologize for not seeing the "in progress" template, and would not have initially reverted if I'd seen it, I stand by what I've said that you still need to source this while you are editing, in order to avoid the appearance of lack of sources and WP:OR, Dylanovsky/Kodai. You are incorrect when you say the article "has no references to start with." The one section that lacked sources was flagged. The issue was that your edits gave the impression that you were rewriting the entire article without any sourcing, and changing the text that is sourced.  As soon as you add in WP:RS sources for the new content, there hopefully won't be any problem. As for the effort you've put in so far, and thanking others who've worked on the article over the years for our "interest", maybe check out WP:OWN. Slán, - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 00:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: Self-revert here. Use of fada is fine. I forgot how inconsistent it is. eDIL link I'll add to etymology section once I'm better-rested. - CorbieV ☊ ☼ 20:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  OI use of Fada is inconsistent