new subheading upon a reminder from fergananim on this question as raised by him and enthusiastically supported by scolaire i said i'd elaborate a bit here looking though the discussion again i see i have already tried to say something about it anyway i think we should follow the now established historiographical division of of to amend problems the limitations from such a division i'm thinking the we should to the following add a couple of sentences either in the lead or in the historiography section explaining why this division is somewhat problematic mind any division that gets established is problematic for the same reasons have a solid background section to draw the lines from before into our period i've slready started that but it might be expanded have a solid whatever the opposite of background is called in english section drawing lines from our period into the future so to speak don't treat as limit written in stone despite being in the title the second synod of cashel should be discussed here despite being in the career of rory o'connor after the invasion should be included etc etc it's not like i'm married to though but maybe we could wait drawing a conclusion on this until i've gotten around to write something except church history about ireland after might be easier for you to understand my thinking and argue against it if it's in the article and not just in my head best regards