Talk:Dál Riata

message: :The main point that seems to be made in favour of Dal Riata is that it is said to be the academically favoured name.  However this seems questionable in that google scholar (which as you know just searches scholarly papers and leaves out all the dross) finds 22 hits for Dal Riata and 155 for Dalriada.  This is quite an interesting case and not really as clearcut as one might think.  Zymurgy 20:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I've just tried that and I get different results. I get 155 hits for Dalriada, but 115 for Dal Riata (increasing to 131 when putting in Dál Riata). I agree it isn't clearcut either way, maybe we need a coin flip? :) I don't think there is a right or wrong answer in this case, which I think might cause problems in the future, regardless of which way the vote ends up. When the vote is finished, be that a move or stay, I think it would be useful to include a summary of the debate at the top of the talk page to try and reduce the change of a future rename debate. (I'm not optimist enough to say it would stop it :) Regards, MartinRe 21:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You still need to exercise discrimination: check the first page or two of hits and make sure that they are what you think they are. The very first Google Scholar hit for Dalriada is an Arthurian piece, as are seven and eight, while number five is on nursing. Searching for "Dal riada" OR "Dál Riada", hits numbers four, five, eight, nine, ten are actually for Dalriada, only hyphenated at a line end (and nine is for nursing to boot). Even "Dal riata" OR "Dál Riata" isn't problem free. Hit number four is that Zeigler woman with her Arthuriana, only this time it finds her quoting Archie Duncan. That's just on the first page of each search, and they don't get any better as they go on. I'm thinking that I should be writing to Sergei to complain. Angus McLellan 01:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Google Scholar test

message: While doing some copy editing in the article I noticed that "Dalriada" is used in the titles and text of a large number of other articles in Wikipedia. "Dál Riata" on the other hand is used in the title of only this article. I still don't have a strong opinion on which spelling is best, but I do think that the encyclopedia should be consistent, and I hope that everyone would agree on that. --Craig Stuntz 20:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move with 8 to 4 against the move. —Nightstallion (?) 20:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency in Wikipedia

message: Quote from main article, The article deals mainly with Scottish Dál Riata, I am really finding it difficult to comprehend this statement. Surely, the Dalriada/Dalriata is a broad subject and should not be held as a mere POV. I somehow get the impression that the main article is being taken over into some sort of quasi ownership. Really this is not what Wikipedia is about. Has this something to do with the change of name? Also I must commend the work recently put into the main article, but it must remain welcomely open to all contributors. Bluegold 00:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's as near to an excuse as I could come up with and still be vaguely encyclopedic in style. It says in the note that follows it ("While in part a defect ..."). I posted a comment about this article on the Irish WPNB in the hope that someone would add more material on Ireland, which I don't have (beware the man of not very many books). All I ask is that the material that's added is verifiable and the references are of the same type as those already there (i.e. pretensions to accuracy and fairly modern, but Ireland before the Vikings would be better than nothing). Did you read the previous article ? It's not as if it had any more Irish content, and what it did have (Kingdom of Oriel instead of Airgíalla for example), wasn't so great. Angus McLellan 02:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think all that Angus is saying is that this article is still incomplete, and the note is an invitation to other editors to help add the relevant missing information - which may (or may not) turn out to be hard to find.  From my knowledge and understanding, the Dal Riata in both western Scotland and Antrim were basically the same people.  However, as I am not yet in a position to dispute anything in the article, or to add and improve it, I'm personally happy enough with the comment that Angus has put there. I'm not sure what any of this would have to do with the name change either.  As an Irish person, I have always known of the kingdom (since I became aware of it anyway) as Dál Riata.  I've also been aware of the other variations of the name, but never considered them to be anything different.  Take the Pretani for example: alternately described also as Pritani, Cruthin, Qretin, Britannic etc.. and even described as Picts, much in the same way as the Dal Riata were described as Gaels. --Mal 06:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, the article is quite complete in regard to Ireland. There was only an Irish Dál Riata as part of the cross-channel Dál Riata; their rulers were the same. I don't see what the supposed problem is supposed to be. Dál Riata was Dál Riata, not Scottish Dál Riata and Irish Dál Riata. - 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't address what (if anything) happened to Dál Riata in Ireland after Mag Rath, and that it doesn't have anything on what happened to the Irish part in the longer run (absorbed by the Dál nAriadi, Airgíalla and Uí Néill it seems, with the Uí Thuirtre having the lion's share, but how and when ?), so in that sense it is lacking. Was there nothing to match the kindreds described for Argyll in Ireland ? This seems unlikely on the face of it, but unless someone can tell me where to find the information (looking through the Rawlinson B.502 genealogies and the like on CELT is excessively difficult for me), that's going to remain unsaid. What royal centres were in the Irish part of Dál Riata ?  Dunseverick I have read, but is there any stuff on the web about that ? Movilla and Saint Finnian, it's a start, but is that it ? I had a look at a map, and Movilla/Newtownards would, like Bangor, more likely have been in "Dalaradia" rather than "Dalriada" (this is the line taken by Ian Adamson in Dalaradia: Kingdom of the Cruthin, where Movilla is claimed for the cruthin: MMV). Angus McLellan 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do the letters MMV stand for in your last comment Angus? --Mal 23:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (Y)MMV == (Your) Mileage May Vary. A disclaimer put on US car ads, here intended to mean that you may disagree. I managed to persuade Google Books to divulge more info on Dál Riata. Charles-Edwards in Early Christian Ireland (pp. 59–61) says (1) the chief place in Ireland was Dunseverick, (2) that the ecclesiastical centre was Armoy (that needs disambiguated as there's an Armoy in Haute-Savoie it seems), Saint Olcán being associated with it, (3) and finally (and I may have this wrong) that the cruithne Uí Chóelbad of Mag Line (one of the royal kin groups in Dál nAraidi/Dalaradia) took over the Irish lands of the Dál Riatans, or at least the Glynns. Angus McLellan 00:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It didn't appear to be related to the vote, so I added a header in front of it. I have changed the section name to something rather anodyne. Please refactor things differently if you think it makes more sense. My comment of 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine Angus, thanks! Bluegold 01:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from vote section to this new section

message: I just wanted to say thank you and congratulations to whoever has been improving this article so much in recent times. I remember it being a longish stub, and little more. Keep up the good work! Canaen 00:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Congratulations 

message: Seeing that Dalriada was originallly a kingdom in old Ireland, this article is primed with a bias. POV debate has being woven into the article, not once, but twice like a mantra to implant a POV unproven and as yet undebated view of historical facts into the readers way. Examples follow:
(1)The traditional view that Dál Riata was an Irish colony in Scotland has lately been questioned, largely on archaeological grounds, but it is not clear that a consensus view has yet been reached.[1]
(2)However, archaeological evidence shows that Argyll and its surrounds were different from Ireland, before and after the supposed migration, but that they also formed part of the Irish Sea province with Ireland, being easily distinguished from the rest of Scotland.[22]  No More POV Please 00:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, not sure what you think is evidence of non-neutrality. Judging from your Contribution History, I would guess you're only putting up a tag because you yourself are POV pushing, and that indeed seems your only reason for this account. What exactly is non-neutral about this article? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, you should read the guidelines on WP:POV and WP:NPOV. You can't just insert a tag; you need to attempt to edit the article to balance it out if you think it is biased, and add your own point of view: Wikipedia should describe all major points of view, when treating controversial subjects. So I'm removing the tag. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV

message: Here in Argyll the usage of the term Dalriata /Dalriada is becoming current for local activities such as "The Dalriada Project" which is working on developing historic sites for tourism and such and "the Dalriada Music festival" and similar activities.
Are there any views on including these developments somewhere —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Argyll Lassie (talk • contribs) .
:They could certainly go in the "Trivia" section (which should probably be renamed "Miscellanea" or "References in popular culture" per WP:TRIVIA). If there are any comparable things in Antrim, they could be included as well. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 09:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modern usage

message: The Irish had been invading Scotland for a long time before 500 AD.
http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1698177&issue_id=14715
http://heritage.scotsman.com/news.cfm?id=1393742006
I note that, googling, 'Dalriada' no longer throws up the wikipedia reference (not within the first handfull of pages or so anyway) but 'Dal Riata' does.  This is a major concern because, other than a few academics, very few of the interested general public would know any other term than 'Dalriada'.  In N.Ireland, the awareness of Dalriada is probably at its greatest among the general public (with schools, hospitals etc named after it) and only the 'Dalriada' spelling is known.  The pronounciation 'Dalriada' is even in common use among many academics at least verbally and as written shorthand.   An entry that can only be found by typing 'Dal Riata' is effectively invisible to the public and pointless.  I have raised my concerns already about this possibility (see above) and they seem to have been realised.  I asked then about the technicalities of search terms etc but got no feedback.  I think that unless there is a simple way of fixing this, the term Dalriada clearly should replace Dal Riata ASAP.  There is no single truly correct term as the language constantly changed-O'Rahilly showed the oldest form may have been redodii or something like that but we would hardly use it as the main title or search term of the article.  Occam's Razor Blades Occam's razor blades 23:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably changing Dalriada from a redirect page to a disambiguation page would move it up the Google rankings. I'll do that and see what happens. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 15:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The English and the Celts aren't so different after all 

message: Minor change, but just in case:
"There is no direct evidence of pre-Christian Dál Riata"
So, Dal Riata was always Christian? Unless it was uninhabited and then settled by christians, this is unlikely. I have changed it to:
"There are no direct records of pre-Christian Dál Riata."
Seems more accurate to me.
Saint yondo 18:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.ccel.org/ccel/bede/history.pdf (archive)
** In Alchfrith of Deira on 2007-08-21 12:56:05, 403 Forbidden
** In Dál Riata on 2008-01-11 17:36:19, 403 Forbidden
The web page has been saved by the Internet Archive. Please consider linking to an appropriate archived version: . --Stwalkerbot 17:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Just wondering what the term "overkingdom" means in the first sentence of this article. I can find no definition or even similar usage of the term through a Google search. What is the difference between a kingdom and an "overkingdom"? If there is none, the term should be changed simply to "kingdom". RJW37 (talk) 06:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that most early medieval kingship in Britain and Ireland was very different to later "monolithic" state-based kingship and existed in a sort of hierarchy with lesser kings accepting authority of greater ones (and that pattern often changing). The term is almost certainly being used here in that sense. A google books search turns up a lot of these types of references, particularly to early medieval Ireland where this has perhaps been the most studied. I would be reluctant to lose the term, but perhaps it needs to be clarified in some way for readers unfamiliar with this concept.--SabreBD (talk) 09:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The word kingdom to me is fine. I don't have much of a problem with "overkingdom" either, though it might confuse the general reader. An overkingdom is after all a kind of "kingdom" and no less so than a centralised bureaucratic kingdom like the 16th century Tudor state. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overkingdom? 

message: This is the English Wikipedia. The English name is "Dalriada" and therefore this article name should also be in English under "Dalriada". Additionally, this "Dál Riata" Gaelic spelling is actually probably more recent than the English one!!! (given that in the original Gaelic the name wouldn't even have been written in the Roman alphabet - doing that is a very recent trend!). The "Ireland" article, after all, is not listed under "Éire"!
The name "Dalriada" is also not merely historical - it is in use today in the 21st century for many Ulster-Scot / Scots-Irish cultural events such as the Dalriada festival (taking place on the Ulster coast this week) and for government-backed heritage schemes in Scotland such as the Dalriada project. IrishBriton (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The English Wikipedia 

message: I think there is too much discussion of Dr Ewan Campbell’s theories, which only creates the impression that there is real debate or uncertainty on the subject of where Dal Riata originated, or even that Dr Campbell’s views are the new consensus, when the reality is that the historiographical consensus is that Dal Riata originated in Ireland. I think discussion of his marginal views should be scaled back considerably and greater prominence given to the historiographical consensus.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.213.173 (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. Cagwinn (talk) 16:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much Campbell... 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion