Talk:Lugh

message: The article's introduction includes his Welsh counterpart is Llew Llaw Gyffes. The "Portrayal in Classical Times" section says that The Irish and Welsh cognates of Lugus are Lugh and Lleu, respectively. This confusion continues throughout the article. Different pages on Wikipedia give different opinions about whether Llew/Lleu are the same character, so I am not touching this one. Just a heads-up. :) --Telsa 09:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Welsh counterpart confusion

message: Someone needs to go through this article and remove the heavy Irish connotations that are leant to the God. He was in no way a primarily Irish god, and the idea that the first sentence of the page deems him an "Irish god."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Taintedruins (talk • contribs) 
:Lugh is entirely an Irish figure, testified only in Irish literature. Other articles discuss the early pan-Celtic Lugus and the related Welsh figure Lleu Llaw Gyffes.--Cúchullain t/c 14:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacement of Irish Hubris

message: :I see this article presents a theory of the origin of Lug's fight with Balor, it claims that this story is of Greek and Mesopotamian origin, and it further claims that it is "widely held by scholars"...
:"It is widely held by scholars that the battle between Lugh and Balor reflects a common Indo-European motif, the battle between the youthful hero and his tyrant Grandfather. This motif is likely to have come to the Celtic speaking lands through contact with Greek traders in the colony of Massillia (Marseille), to whom it came from the Persians, and originated in Mesopotamian tradition through the Prophecy of Sargon."
:Well, if it so widely held then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reference or source for this claim/theory. I'm not saying it's not true, but it does seem an odd claim that a Celtic god is inspired by a Sumerian King, anyway the way it's currently put is unacceptable, it needs to be cited and possibly reworded. --Hibernian 04:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myth Origin theory 

message: Is it possible that the words 'Lugh' and 'Loki' have something to do with the English 'Luck', English 'lucky', German 'Glueck' (=Luck), and German 'Luege' (=Lie)? (This would surely explain the function, or role, of these deities (i.e. that of deception), as well as their ambiguity, or ambiguous status: afterall, luck can go either way). -- Lucian.
The English word luck appears to have come from the dutch word "luc". Luck and Lugh seem to be unrelated.--69.245.43.176 (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Following this bit, which I've retained:
:It is widely held by scholars that the battle between Lugh and Balor reflects a common Indo-European motif, the battle between the youthful hero and his tyrant Grandfather.
there was the following bit, which I've removed:
:This motif is likely to have come to the Celtic speaking lands through contact with Greek traders in the colony of Massillia (Marseille), to whom it came from the Persians, and originated in Mesopotamian tradition through the Prophecy of Sargon.
Firstly, this multi-part journey of a single story is absurdly speculative.  We would have a hard time proving even one of the steps.  Second, it completely contradicts the preceding sentence: if it is supposed to be an "Indo-European" tradition, why is being tied to the Mesopotamians?  And finally, if it is indeed supposed to be an Indo-Europeans, there is hardly a need to invent some complicated story explaining its tranmission through the historical placement of peoples.  The Celts spoke an Indo-European language: if they could acquire that in the mists of prehistory, they could easily acquire an Indo-European legend as well. --Saforrest 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for getting rid of that bit, it seemed very suspect to me too. But I think the first part also needs some revision. As I said above, if this interpretation is so "widely held by scholars", then it should be relatively easy to cite a reference for at-least one scholar or book or whatever, that mentions it, otherwise the "widely held" bit must be taken away, as we have no evidence whether it is widely held, or whether it's a fringe theory. And again I'm not saying it's not true, maybe it is, but it needs some citation and explanation. --Hibernian 04:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove section 

message: Why was the "Lugh in other media" section deleted?  The section was far from complete, but the content of the section had begun to present the continuing presence and influence of the mythology of Lugh in modern culture, thereby offering a context in which to appreciate the stories and details presented earlier in the article.  The existence of the section created the opportunity for other editors to contribute and flesh out the subject matter.  The section was deleted without any prior discussion.  No article currently exists on the subject of Lugh's influence on modern culture, and if one were to be created it would likely be suggested for merging with the main Lugh article.  The deletion of this section strikes me as premature, especially since the subject matter seems far from irrelevant.  Why was the section deleted?  Soundout (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They're a Slavic tribe named after Norsemen, which makes this doubly unlikely.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.27.219 (talk) 17:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of "Lugh in other media" section 

message: The first four paragraphs of that section are so messed up, one would almost have to just erase them and start over to fix them. Almost every statement that isn't already given a cite needs to be marked with cite needed or original research tags. I don't have the time or energy to go through all of that, but someone needs to. Whateley23 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lugh's name and nature 

message: I'm no expert on this subject, but the Early Modern Irish text listed for Ar-éadbair/Areadbhair, i.e. Aɼéadḃaiɼ, (Lugh#Areadbhar) seams to be wrong. From what I can tell the ɼ character is simply a phonetic character, and one which isn't currently in use by the IPA at that (see Obsolete and nonstandard symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet). My best guess is that whoever wrote it was attempting to write "insular Rs", i.e. ꞃ. However, the rendering of what is actually there is closer to an insular S (ꞅ). If this is the case then it should be changed to either normal Rs or ꞃ characters. (I suspect the former since strictly speaking insular characters, unlike dotted consonants for example, are simply glyph substitutions rather than characters in their own right.) Could someone please either confirm this or explain why the "tailed r" is used. Thanks. Alphathon /'æɫ.fə.θɒn/ (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transcription of ''Ar-éadbair'' 

message: The article focuses on Ireland, but there is a lot more to Lugh than just Ireland. He was present throughout the Celtic space, as can easily be seen looking at the article in other languages. Thanks, Regards. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Lugh is Irish. For his ancient Celtic counterpart, see Lugus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I see. What is happening, is that whereas there are two articles one Lugh and one Lugus as you rightly pointed out, when you are viewing Lugus in another language and want to switch to English, it goes to Lugh, which is what led me to arrive at that conclusion. Naturally this is not something wrong with the English-WP, but rather a question of the interlinks. Regards, Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 15:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lugh is not Irish, it is Celtic 

message: The connection of lux-words with Apollo (and comparable deities) is bad etymology. -λω is only a suffix here; none of the gods mentioned have a comparable etymology.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 18:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Apollo

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lugh. 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/20101126092115/http://mythicalireland.com/mythology/tuathade/lugus.html to http://www.mythicalireland.com/mythology/tuathade/lugus.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) 13:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I've heard a lot about Lugh's supposed spear Brionac and how it was apparently made up by a JRPG. I don't doubt this for a second, especially after the crap with Ichival and especially Mespyrian, but does anyone know which one it was? With "Ichival", I can point the misinformation about it to FE Genealogy of the Holy War. But does anyone here know which RPG made up Brionac? --Hawkatana (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins of "Brionac"