Talk:Niall of the Nine Hostages

message: Testing of people named O’Neill, from Ulster in Ireland, showed that Niall’s R1b1b2e/M222 Y chromosome was not as common as in other supposed Ui Neill families. In fact unlike the other northern Ui Neill samples from related families, it was not even the largest group of DNA. A so called “O'Neill Variety “ is the largest group among Ulster O’Neill’s. It is likely to have been a non paternity event where a R1b1b2e individual was replaced in position of authority (enabling for more breeding) by someone bearing the "O'Neill Variety" Y chromosome. The time span when this may have occurred is not precise, but quite probably every O’Neill listed in tje article as a Niall descendant (based upon assuming R1b1b2e is the Y chromosome Niall possessed) is not a descendant. 
http://www.jogg.info/22/index22.htm
members.cox.net/eoneill/
http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.htm
http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/oneal/results
http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.pdf
http://www.jogg.info/22/index22.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.209.45 (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: O'Neills

message: Gates' DNA is M222 but news stories are mentioning officer Crowley's relation as simply because of Crowley surname, which is far from definite proof of any relation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.209.45 (talk) 09:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gates Crowley

message: Bear with me folks, I have a long way to go! Fergananim
2/25/05- 
To the last person who edited this: 
I regret that, while your formatting was far superior to the original, much of your new information was either incorrect or too reliant on legend and not hard facts from the time period. I was therefore forced to correct it. However, I thank you for your efforts in improving the page.
:That would be me. I've made a few minor tweaks (Irish language for Gaelic being the only significant one), but I'd quibble with the assertion that St Patrick "suceeding in turning the pagan Celts into the Christians of today" - I think it's generally agreed the mass conversion didn't happen until the reign of Diarmaid mac Cerbhaill, although obviously Patrick made an important contribution. I'll have a think and see if I can express that better. --Nicknack009 
18:36, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early edits

message: Boys and girls, yet again I have made a few edits to this article, all concerning dates. I notice that those who rely on souces such as the Annals of the Four Masters and Seathrún Céitinn given his life-span one ending early in the 5th century. In my edits I have consistanly given his date of death as about 450/455. Now I have no problem with people rewriting the article, but I would like them to give reasons for such edits ... as I belatidly realise I should have done. 
My reasons for the 450/455 date are quite simple: most Irish historians of the past sixty/seventy years, after decades of controversy, now accecpt the later date. These people include some of the giants of Irish history; Fr. Paul Walsh, Kathleen Hughes, Francis John Byrne, Nollaig O'Muralie, Daibhi O'Croinin. Thus I really have to wonder why, after so much blood sweat and tears was spent trying to establish this rough estimate, some come along and change it summerally. If anyone plans to do so in future can they at least have the courtsey to do so? I will refrain from the moment from going into the why behind the 450/455 date unless asked. Thank you. Fergananim.
:I'd appreciate it if you did give your reasons. I'm not familiar with the historians you cite, and you need more than just a list of names to back up your position. To my mind Niall (and the Connachta, his supposed brothers) is primarily a figure of legend, an eponymous ancestor from a heroic age who's no more reliably historical than King Arthur. He may well have been real, all we have to go on are legends. His traditional date of death is no more reliable than the stories of his life, but I'd be interested to know why your sources think a later date is more reliable. --Nicknack009 13:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Slightly less than three years later, I've found out why modern historians prefer a later date, and updated the article accordingly. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Notice to all previous editors

message: I don't know enough on this topic to edit this, but there is an interesting news/science report that means the "Descendants" will need to be expanded. See Scientists discover most fertile Irish male: "The scientists, from Trinity College Dublin, have discovered that as many as one in twelve Irish men could be descended from Niall of the Nine Hostages, a 5th-century warlord who was head of the most powerful dynasty in ancient Ireland." BlankVerse 17:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An English Times report said 2% of men in New York City have the gene. There was a two page spread in the English Independent 19 January 2006 on the topic, citing comparisons with Gengis Khan etc. Is Ian Paisley a descendant? Seriously.--shtove 00:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendants 

message: The article doesn't say where he got the "nine hostages" nickname. What is the story of this? Who were these nine hostages? Academic Challenger 02:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it does. Look under "King and High King". --Nicknack009 12:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Does it though?  The only reason I want to read this article is to understand WHY THE NAME and what it really means.  Couldn't find it. Dcsutherland (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did he get his nickname

message: not all believe so.
First off its Niall and HE IS VERY REAL.
Its pretty hard to say someone does not exist when they have DNA evidence of people being descendents from him. My dad was doing our family tree and he showed up as the 2nd closest descendent to niall he was actually tied with another guy but the other guy was older making him the first(note I never saw the DNA report myself so I don't know how accurate this is, and he has since passed.) I myself am going to get checked at some point to see where I fall on the list of descendents but be assured that he did exist. The real question would be how much of the history we know is accurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maddrummerhef (talk • contribs) 16:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Was Neil real?

message: 'Niall may have been the most fecund male in Irish history, and second only to Genghis Khan worldwide' - neither of these claims appear in the 2006 Moore et al. paper. Can these remarkes be attributed the scientists in question, otherwise the claim should be removed.
Kennedy One Namer (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Most fecund male in Irish history?

message: Could someone please fix Eogan's link in the chart of Niall's family?  It leads to the disamgiguation of the name eogan rather than this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E%C3%B3gan_mac_N%C3%A9ill about his son.  Thanks!Jason947 (talk) 04:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It is easy to do, all you needed to do was find this: Eogan. Then to direct the link to Eógan mac Néill you change it to: Eogan.--Celtus (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eogan link

message: OK, but there are exceptions and I feel so translating Niall Noígíallach to "Neil, having nine hostages" rather than "Niall, having nine hostages" makes sense from the same perspective that many English language textbooks translate kings and royalty into their own language "Heinrich I" of Germany being called "Henry the first, of Germany" or Johann to John, etc. Niall/Neil being a tribal king, seems to apply in the same sense. Is there any agreement here? He applies more of the historic title as a name sense than the personal modern given name sense, is what I mean. Nagelfar (talk) 02:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal names are translated only when there is a long-standing tradition of doing so, dating back to when doing such a thing was common, and when the translated name is so well known it would be confusing to revert to the real name. However, we stopped doing that sort of thing a long time ago, quite rightly, and we should not revive it. The only thing that needs translated is Noígíallach, which is not a personal name but an epithet. I have reverted to that, and italicised the epithet to make it clear it's a foreign word that needs translating. --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  New to lineage, Can you explain why the nickname is considered an epithet? Iggynelix (talk) 04:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Because that's literally what epithet means. Iapetus (talk) 11:00, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  user:Nicknack009 ''personal names are not "translated"''' 

message: In the Early Life section, it is stated that Fergus was one of four sons by Mongfind.  The family tree shows Fergus as a son by Cairenn.  Is there an explanation for this discrepancy? (66.31.36.247 (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fergus should be a son by neither as a matter of fact. In the sources he belongs to Mongfind, but is almost surely a literary creation just to make her and the Three Connachta look bad. See Byrne pgs. 74-5. We can also support his non-existence with the alternate story of Mongfind in the Book of Lismore, where she only has three sons. I've added some of that to her page and you can access Stokes' translation from the references. DinDraithou (talk) 14:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fergus

message: I've added back the fact that Gates is descended from Niall with this rationale:
If we are going to list notable people descended from Niall, including Turlough O'Cahan who doesn't have his own wikipedia page, we must mention Gates. I would not be against trimming this section simply to note his astonishing fecundity and perhaps some notable aristocratic families descended from him, but if we're mentioning individuals, seems to me he's in.
The "scandal" over his arrest is irrelevant to this, and I would not support adding claims that Gates and Crowley are distantly related. Arxack (talk) 07:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As has been said in edit summaries, we can't list every person who claims to be descended from this supposed king. It would include most Irish and most people with Irish descent around the globe. The solution is less mention of specific individuals, not more. The fact that Gates has been in the news lately for an unrelated reason does not mean that his alleged descent from Niall is important or necessary for this article. The material should not be resotored without a discussion establishing a consensus to keep it.--Cúchullain t/c 14:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be rough about it, a professor (black or white) at the most middle class university in the world is about as far from relevant or interesting as you can get. Carrying a little of Niall's male line junk DNA doesn't make someone a descendant. The other half, or more, is social class. DinDraithou (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that social class matters very much when talking about descent from a man who is said to have lived in the 5th century, nor does race or country of origin. The bottom line is, there are literally millions of people, upper-class or otherwise, who could claim descent from Niall, and this article might run a bit long if we list them all.--Cúchullain t/c 15:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's fair. Good luck with the article. Arxack (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed about the rationale for exclusion.  I do however think Gates stands apart as he made explicit mention of his apparent Ui Neill descent in the documentary African American Lives.  Millions of men may carry the M222 mutation but only some opt to mention it. --Saforrest (talk) 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry Louis Gates 

message: Nicknack009, I think the problem is that someone like Gates is not a "social descendant" of the aristocracy of the Old Gaelic order. I did not mean to give the impression that only aristocracy are notable, but that they are relevantly notable. But if Barack Obama were a descendant then he would be, being in a position of authority, the traditional role of aristocracy. So I think we should stick to commanders-in-chief, military officers, religious leaders, and of course the recognized "genetic-social descendants" of the Uí Néill, the Gaelic peers. Personally I think it is unthoughtful of Gates to present himself as a descendant of kings and draw the Uí Néill, even a tiny little bit, into a United States' race-relations scandal. If you read Irish nobility the O'Neills are currently three-way feuding from three countries (Spain, Portugal, Puerto Rico) and then there is the genetic confusion the contributor at the top of the talk page pointed out. At least about that I can say that he doesn't account for aristocratic intermarriage and so they still "belong" to the Uí Néill, and so we can list them, if not here (since they're not technically famous today) then maybe in a new section on the Uí Néill page. DinDraithou (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You continue to dictate who is and isn't suitable for inclusion, based on criteria that Wikipedia doesn't recognise. Again, Wikipedia is not a directory of the aristocracy, and the "traditional role of the aristocracy" is not Wikipedia's criteria for notability. I think this edit summary sheds some disturbing light on your attitude. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you know enough about Wikipedia, though you claim to be an authority. What you're saying isn't accurate if there are relatively well educated people like me willing to remove certain controversial additions. I am part of Wikipedia too now. Please be more constructive and stop focusing on me so much, or on those comments you have misinterpreted. If it comes to it I will simply have to out write you and we can disagree as we change language and little stuff on Niall's page, which I'm currently reformatting a little. Maybe you should get to work on Ptolemy's Ireland and the tribal origins of some later aristocracies, where you can do important work, and leave the Irish kings for the editors with more knowledge. Thanks. DinDraithou (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Once again, material is added to Wikipedia based on whether reliable sources indicate it is important. Your stance that importance is dictated by whether someone is an aristocrat, a political figure, or a "social descendant" (whatever that means) is erroneous, as is your previous stance that some material doesn't need to be cited because it is "very, very well known". People can be discussed in this or any article based on whether the sources say they should be, not by your personal feelings about their nobility. Your defensiveness to Nicknack's totally valid points is uncalled for, and I there is absolutely no answer for you referring to an American professor, and all Americans in general, as "trash".--Cúchullain t/c 00:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Did I? Don't be tiresome. Funny when I tried to get citations from the goofballs at Bourgeoisie I got in trouble for it. I deleted supposedly "very well known" unsourced material and got run over for it. After a prolonged struggle, it's still there. Your minute tagging here is like a weak, petty form of vandalism. Columba alone is mentioned a dozen times in Byrne 2001. DinDraithou (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know anything about the Bourgeoisie article, but if behaved there as you have here I don't doubt that the working environment proved unpleasant. At any rate, this isn't the talk page for that article. The burden of evidence lies with you to provide reliable sources to verify your claims, and you should behave in a more civil manner if you want others to work in a productive manner with you.--Cúchullain t/c 01:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Gosh you sound important, sir. Okay then. I'll obey and do what you want. Need anything else? DinDraithou (talk) 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, Din, do you have a book that could be used as a source rather than the website (source #14) which I dug up? Books are stronger sources, and if more complete, might also eliminate the need for justifying in the text the English monarchy's ancestry being non-patrilineal in that direction. Arxack (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Good idea. I will see what I can do. DinDraithou (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There is the Eóganachta article for comparison. It's far from perfect, but I put it together from a small stub when I didn't have an account. Have a look at Eóganachta#Later_figures. There might be too much focus on the Dáirine and Uí Fidgenti as other parts haven't been expanded but try to ignore that. I don't know if I should have included John O'Mahony and Jeremiah O'Donovan. Probably not. Also check out Dáire Cerbba, which mentions one modern dynasty and two famous descendants of another sept, not including Mongfind and her brother but that's different, since they're part of Dáire Cerbba's story. Of course the O'Donovans, Daniel O'Connell and Michael Collins were about it for well known these days so it was easy. Take note of the style and arrangement in both articles at least. DinDraithou (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Oh and I sort of do the same thing with the Uí Fidgenti article. Maybe the Uí Néill article could look something like that, except with several subsections for descendants. DinDraithou (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I like how it's laid out in Eóganachta, but of course I don't know whether there are descendants who are (in)famous merchant bankers.  My feeling is one should stick to descendants who are quite tightly 'in the family' (everyone is someone's sixtyfourth cousin), and to be honest, to persons who are of some significance in past or current Irish history or society, unless it is really someone quite striking like a US president.  For that reason (and not for any issue of class) I would agree that our American professor, while someone might care to mention it in his article, probably doesn't want to be listed in this article.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Notability

message: We have a problem. I hadn't gotten around to looking at that site and but I just did. The material happens to be from O'Hart's Irish Pedigrees, usually a great reference, but it appears to have their descent come through Erc of Dalriada, which I coincidentally found I had to correct right before I established my account. Erc did not actually belong to the Uí Néill. So we have to remove the whole line until one of us comes across what will likely come out to be a more direct and recent contribution via Ulster or maybe Leinster. We could talk about it coming through Erca, which it might, but she is too legendary. See Muiredach mac Eógain and Muirchertach mac Muiredaig. What a mess. I'll go ahead and remove the line. DinDraithou (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: British royal family

message: A great problem is that the subclade defined by the presence of R-M222 is found among the Connachta (Uí Briúin and Uí Fiachrach) as well, and also in southern Scotland in former Northern Briton territory. The former is explained by the Uí Néill as offshoots of the Connachta or both as branches of Dál Cuinn, but the link with Britain is a mystery. It might have made T. F. O'Rahilly unhappy. The genetic genealogists do not appear to have an idea yet about the early direction of radiation. DinDraithou (talk) 20:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  R-M222 (Northwest Irish/Lowland Scots) 

message: Centralised discussion at Talk:Irish people#Coat of arms. O Fenian (talk) 10:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coat of arms

message: I'm trying to make sense of an obvious logic gap and would prefer a consultation before blindly jumping in. The problem area is quoted below:
"Rather, R-M222's emergence is now believed to precede the Connachta in general, as both the O'Doherty chief[16] and the O'Conor Don[17] (who claim a most recent common patrilineal ancestor in Eochaid Mugmedon) belong to this haplogroup. Thus, at least some members of R-M222 are neither descendants of the Uí Néill nor of the Connachta."
Eochaid Mugmedon is descended from Conn Cetchathac, as he was reportedly Niall's father, and so the argument concerning the O'Doherty and O'Conor Don claiming heritage from Eochaid Mugmedon as evidence of the distinction between those with the R-M222 and those who descend from Ui Niall and/or the Connachta is not sufficiently clear. This needs either more references and a rewrite, or should be removed.
--Charles Ross  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.34.38.183 (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed all that. We're supposed to stick to reliable sources after all.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family and Descendants 

message: , I will repeat: your demand for detailed citation of primary sources to confirm that other annals than the Four Masters are relevant sources is an abuse of the "citation needed" tag. As I said in reply to your comment on my talk page:
:That would be original research, and inappropriate for the lede. The early annals mostly start after his death, but contain many references to his sons and associates, and as such are an important source, and a far more useful historical source than the much later Four Masters, if one that has to be read very critically. I have cited it to Chapter 5 Byrne's Irish Kings and High-Kings, which summarises the sources for Niall.
Wikipedia's citation system uses secondary, not primary sources. However, I will indulge you to an extent here on the talk page. The Chronicon Scotorum refers to the beginning of Niall's reign at AD 384 and the date and circumstances of his death at AD 409. The Annals of Ulster refers to Niall's sons, including the obits of Laegaire at 462, Eogan at 465, Conall at 480, and battles fought by Coirpre at 485 and 494, and Fiacha at 510. This is an important source because the implausible duration the annals credit a single generation is one reason historians have concluded that Niall's traditional dates are inaccurate. Other Annals, such as the Chronicon Scottorum, the Annals of Tigernach and the Annals of Inisfallen, which, like the Annals of Ulster, go back to a hypothetical Chronicle of Ireland, include a lot of the same data.
I trust I have made my point that the annals are an important source for Niall. I trust I have also made clear why a "citation needed" tag is not the appropriate way of discussing it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comprehension of WP:OR is faulty.  We are not prevented from citing primary sources.Wjhonson (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens every single time I make any effort on this site. Lazy people see me willing to do some work, and say "I've successfully yanked his chain once, why don't I do it again?" Go away. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

text: All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quoting a primary source is not analysis or interpretation.  Do not remove my request for exact citation unless you provide an exact citation.  This includes page numbers, not an entire book.Wjhonson (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You've been cited a chapter, not a whole book. Read it. Discuss what I've said above. Raise objections. Anything. Don't just keep saying "oh yeah?" And stop taking the piss out of editors who are willing to do the work you're not. --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Nicknack009, the demand for primary sources here seems pedantic and needless, robust secondary sources have been used well in this article. There is no need for a maintenance tag at all. Smirkybec (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demand for primary sources 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Niall of the Nine Hostages. 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/20080613220758/http://www.rsai.ie/index.cfm?action=obj.display&obj_id=165 to http://www.rsai.ie/index.cfm?action=obj.display&obj_id=165
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080507075211/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/kings/Aided_Chrimthainn_meic_Fhidaig.htm to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Aided_Chrimthainn_meic_Fhidaig.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120081316/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Echtra_Mac_nEchach_Muigmedoin.htm to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Echtra_Mac_nEchach_Muigmedoin.htm
*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) 02:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Niall of the Nine Hostages. 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/20081120065432/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Aided_Neill.html to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Aided_Neill.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081007000905/http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Orcuin_Neill.html to http://www.hastings.edu/academic/english/Kings/Orcuin_Neill.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) 09:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)