Talk:List of High Kings of Ireland

message: T F O'Rahilly (Early Irish History and Mythology) believes that everything in these lists prior to the time of Niall of the Nine Hostages is fiction. A few of the people named (eg Tuathal Techtmar and Mug Nuadat) may have been historical characters, but even they have been misplaced and provided with bowdlerized reigns.
- - - - - -
Don't place too much faith in O'Rahilly. I still think he's a wonderful writer, but much of his theorys can be challenged. Our job here is simply to transmit the material in the most even-handed manner possible. 
For my own part, I am more than willing to believe that many of those listed are fiction, but I would also argue that there are a great many grains of truth within them. 
Plus, you have to admit it's pretty cool to have regenal lists going back so far for such a small little island out in the Atlantic! AND they are more extensive than those in Britain! Ha!
If I might suggest a few other sources ... the Annals of the Four Masters, MacFhirbhisigh's wonderful book of genealogies, Francis J. Byrne's "Irish Kings and High Kings", and Bart Janski's book on Irish Kingship. 
Fergananim
:Rather than dismiss all the pre 5th century kings as fictious, I added in legendary, as it there is a strain of thought that argues that some of these individuals (as mentioned above) had some form of historical proveance.--John Carroll 13:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
What source do those dates come from? adamsan  20:32, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh sure, I'm not taking them seriously. Fascinating stuff though. I'm going to slightly rewrite the first sentence as I think it's missing a noun. adamsan  20:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going through creating pages for all the High Kings, and noting the different versions of their reign-lengths. When they're all done we should be able to figure out a margin for error. --Nicknack009 22:28, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction?

message: Would anybody object if I made this list into a table? Only it's a little hard to read with two sets of dates – one for AFM and one for FFE – and we could have different background colours for the various dynasties (sort of like they have over at List of monarchs in the British Isles, only much less complicated). What say? QuartierLatin1968  21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that'd be a very good idea. Go for it. --Nicknack009 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Like the table, very nice.  But could we break it into separate sections with appropriate headings?  It seems a tad unwieldy all in one chunk... Bookgrrl 03:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List to table?

message: There's some good material at thePeerage.com, and he gives sources for all his material, like a scholar and a gentleman. Bookgrrl 03:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another source

message: The opening sentences (aside from not quite following wikipedia style and form) come across as fairly dismissive of the High Kingship, likening it to a form of propaganda. To me, admittedly not at all informed on the subject, this is quite a negative slant. The article could benefit from input by someone with solid knowledge who can give it a more neutral stance. Alcarillo 02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add that I also feel that the opening lines are very poor. Firstly, what modern scholars consider the High Kingship pseudo-history? I've certainly read a few who hold the opposite opinion. Secondly, we have as many (or more) sources for many of their reigns as parts of 3rd Century Roman History, or the detail of Caesar's Gallic wars. Granted, prior to Niall of the Nine Hostages we can be cynical, but (recalling offhand) St. Patrick's confession makes references to Niall's raid, and the British historian Gildas makes references to it as well. All that's in addition to Irish sources.  Laeghaire is recorded to have presided of the codification of Brehon Law. That's not a document that survived unfortunately, but references were made to it on numerous occasions. Thirdly, the line states "construct of the eighth century" and then follows up with "did not become a reality till the Normans". Presumably, the author of this piece is referring to the Norman arrival in Ireland, and is four centuries out of place. Or even the Norman takeover of England, in which case they are three centuries out. In my opinion, the following line should be removed :
The corpus of early Irish law does not support the existence of such an institution, and scholars now believe it is a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century AD, a projection into the distant past of a political entity which did not become a reality till the Normans.
I propose that a more suitable line replace it, taking into account the source material which is available to us, and augmenting proper scepticism for the earlier period with a more supportive attitude for the source material Niall of the Nine Hostages onwards. It could also be added that the authority of the High King often depended on the strength of his character, with civil discord being rampant for the nominal High Kings, and stronger personalities like Brian Boru or Malichy the Great commanding a stronger National authority. That however, is a modern interpretation of why civil disunity was rampant under the Ancient Irish governmental structure, and does not reflect an unchallenged view, much as it is my opinion. General Michael Collins (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality 

message: At the moment, this list is rather confusing. It combines real, historically attested people like Brian Bóruma, Ruaídri Ua Conchobair, or Domnall Mac Lochlainn, with outright mythical rulers. Historians usually start their lists with Niall (for example Frank Byrne, Charles-Edwards). The category is just as bad. Inevitably, any historical list is bound to include Niall, Ailill Molt, et al. However, including the late medieval and early modern imaginings is surely a bad thing. I would propose the following:
* Split this article in two: List of High Kings of Ireland for the historical ones (the Oxford DNB uses this form of words), List of Legendary High Kings of Ireland for the ones before Niall. Optionally, one might follow the Swedish example and have a List of Semi-legendary High Kings of Ireland, but how would this be verifiable? 
* Split the category into two: :Category:Legendary High Kings of Ireland, :Category:High Kings of  Ireland.
* Split :Category:Irish kings into two: :Category:Legendary Irish kings, part of the mythology tree, and :Category:Irish kings under Monarchy in Ireland/History.
Any thoughts? Angus McLellan  (Talk) 16:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The first solution that pops into my head is roughly inspired by this chart...a comprehensive, chronological chart/table of kings that is divided (with colored lines similar to the Irish states chart) by both kingdom and historicity.  Easy for me to say, I know.  I may also be misunderstanding your ultimate intent. Dppowell 22:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly support a split here, this list mixes historical kings and years with names and year that are clearly constructs of mediaval historians based entirely on legends and traditions. I think Legendary High Kings/ Kings is to the point, and the division should probably be with Niall of the nine hostages. With "semilegendary" kings I would understand historical persons that we don't know much about except legends connected to their names, I don't think such a distiction is really helpful to use here. When making an article in Norwegian :no:Overkonge (Irland) I started the list of historical kings with Ailill Molt, but I see the rationale for including Niall. Finn Rindahl 17:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Angus has asked me to contribute to this discussion. I've no strong feelings on it one way or the other, I just wonder where the cut-off point would be. The legendary kings shade into the historical ones. I'm mainly interested in legend, and if the page was split most of my attention would be on the legendary page, but I wouldn't like to "lose" a king like Niall, who has a rich legendary existence (and I think is much more legendary than historical). Perhaps if the page is split those deemed "semi-historical" or "semi-legendary" (or those who are historical but are the subject of legendary narratives and traditions) could be included in both pages? --Nicknack009 08:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A degree of overlap surely makes sense. I think the last king to meet a legendary end is Diarmait mac Cerbaill, and certainly everyone before him has plenty of legendary material attached to them. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've created a sub-category for Legendary High Kings of Ireland and moved everybody prior to Niall in there. I think the early Milesian kings, although many aren't much more than names, belong there as they are part of a genealogical (rather than narrative) legend. As to where the rest belong, that's another argument. --Nicknack009 13:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split?

message: The section List of High Kings of Ireland#Succession order and claimants was commented out with no explanation.  Is it original research? or it just doesn't belong in a list article?  Either way, something active ought to happen to it. --Red King 15:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having read it properly, I'd say it, like the introduction, probably would be better at High King of Ireland. --Nicknack009 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Succession order and claimants 

message: It's all well and good to add "with opposition" to the ones that have already been added, since they were. But doing so suggests that the rest were without opposition, which, with few exception(s) was not the case, much less those cases were the person is imaginary and the title is real. In short, I'm not sure that listing "with opposition" next to some or even almost all is the way to make sure that message gets across. Buirechain 17:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but one of the reasons I suggested splitting the list is so that it becomes short enough that each group of kings can get an introductory paragraph, and individual notes as appropriate, rather than just a bald list as we have here. Being "king of Ireland" after the death of Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, with or without opposition, is not really the same as before, any more than the sort of kingship shared by Flann Sinna or Domnall ua Néill had anything much in common with Áed mac Ainmuirech or the like. The reason to have a list, rather than only a category, is to allow notes and comments to be attached to the entries. Admittedly, few of Wikipedia's insular medieval king-lists do this. I started on List of Kings of the Picts and List of Kings of Dál Riata, but I got bored. We may as well start somewhere. Wikipedia:Featured list criteria sets out the sort of thing we should be aiming at. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  With opposition 

message: Centralised discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms. O Fenian (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of arms

message: The style guidelines for titles call for capitalizing a title only when a person's name follows it. As I understand it, a title by itself identifies a role and should be in lower case. Is there a reason for an exception in the case of high kings (other than editors here being used to capitalizing it)? Jojalozzo 19:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of "high kings" 

message: I have to point out the following sentence;
“a projection into the distant past of a political entity that did not become reality until Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid in the ninth century.”
The article is worded as though Máel left a political dynasty or hereditary monarchy and political union in place by the claim that he was a high king. Nothing could be further from the truth and was opposed by other kings in Munster, Norse-Gaels and his Uí Néill kinsmen. Even then it’s some claim to have a political union when he left no dynasty, except for his son Flann Sinna would later be King of Mide, and self-styled King of Ireland but then attacked Munster as they didn’t support his claims like his father, not much of a political union.AuIx81 (talk) 01:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The political union of Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid!! 

message: I'm cutting these two out because (1) Brian (his surname should be Ó Néill, not Ua Néill) had trouble dominating his own region, and had virtually no influence outside it. A High King dominated the entire island. Even his allies presided over greatly reduced areas. (2) Bruce for much the same reasons. And Ruaidrí Ua Conchobair died in 1198, not 1186. Fergananim (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Inclusion of Brian Ua Néill (sic) and Edward Bruce

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of High Kings 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/20081227214217/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Home.html to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Home.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120075004/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Baile_Chuinn.html to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Baile_Chuinn.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) 04:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Target standards for Wikipedia Lists:
* 1. Prose; overall, features professional standards of writing.
* 2. Lede; has an engaging lede, of appropriate length (not trying to be an article) that introduces the subject, and defines the scope, and inclusion criteria.
* 3. Comprehensiveness: comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing where practical a complete set of items, but at least all of the major items.  Where appropriate, has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information, of appropriate length, and taking account of any separate articles which might exist or be reasonably likely to exist given notability requirements, about selected items.
* 4. Structure; is easy to navigate and includes, where helpful, section headings and table sort facilities.
* 5. Style. It complies with the Manual of Style, including making suitable use of text layout, formatting, tables, and color, and with a minimal proportion of redlinked items, and has images and other media, if appropriate to the topic, that follow Wikipedia's usage policies, with succinct captions (and non-free images and other media satisfy the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and are labeled accordingly).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.96.68.130 (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List standards