Talk:List of High Kings of Ireland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fiction?[edit]

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)

I think they're from the Annals of the Four Masters. Different sources give different reign-lengths, so they'll be approximate.--Nicknack009 01:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

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)
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)

Everybody: Would anyone agree with placing the dates of the reigns in their original manner, that is A.M. rather than B.C.? We could place the necessary tranitional dates at opportune points. Please let me know what you think. Fergananim

I'd rather not, at least for now. The Four Masters chronology differs from Ceitinn's chronology, and probably the Lebor Gabala Chronology as well. I'm trying to put together a composite chronology based on all sources which would give a margin for error for the dates. --Nicknack009 07:30, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. Was it yourself that filled in all those previously inactive names? Brilliant stuff! Fergananim

Aye, 'twas. It's given me an excuse to read Keating all the way through. I've read to the end of Book 1 and got to Laegaire , so pretty soon I'll be in the realms of real history. I dunno, I find legend and semi-history much more fun. --Nicknack009 10:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Me too. That's why I spend so much time trying to figure out who was who and when in my own little corner of Ireland. Check out a list of my stuff and see what you think; comments, critisism and advice always welcome. Fergananim

Can't really comment on anything, as its mostly stuff I know nothing about. I got into this through local interest myself, with the Ulster Cycle. Marvellous to think that one of the world's finest bodies of heroic legend comes from my wee bit of this wee island. --Nicknack009 20:49, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would just like to thank whoever made this list, I have been searching for a list of my ancestors to help me with my heraldic research. P.S. anyone know where to find that book. An American O'Neill

I think this text should be removed: "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 until the Normans". First of all I dont quite understand what it means, They? "made it up"? For what reason? I can understand why somkne may of done that as propaganda for their own dynasty, but making a fictional list of high-kings with countless dynasties having several reigning High-Kings, doesnt make any rational sense in that context? As someone already said above,TF O'Rahilly's work CAN be challenged, but its simple enough surely ust to explain that the High-King figure in Ireland is steeped in legend and the historicity of the earlier High-Kings are highly questioned. And most of all... the High-King figure in Ireland DIDN'T become a reality during the time of the Normans? There was only 1 High-King during the time the normans were in Ireland, and when he abdicated the High-King line died out. The only time the High-King ever became close to a reality was under Brian Ború, who lived a century before the Normans! Tíocfaidh ár lá, Éire. (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feidlimid mac Cremthanin[edit]

I added in Feidlimid mac Cremthanin into the list based on a claim in the Annals of Inisfallen.--John Carroll 13:42, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Nice one, but it could do with some expansion, and the red links detract from it. Fergananim

List to table?[edit]

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 The worker's flag is deepest red,/It shrouded oft our martyred dead 21:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that'd be a very good idea. Go for it. --Nicknack009 10:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Another source[edit]

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)[reply]

Surely an important omission has been made in that the High Kings were brought back, in Ulster anyway. Is there not some bloke, an accountant, who got made a king? I am not sure of the exact date, I think around 2000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.102.4 (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edward the Bruce[edit]

See Edubard a Briuis, or Edward Bruce, being listed as the last High-King of Ireland. He was titular head, and only there as a plot to trounce the the English. Surely he should be listed with a strong caveat? If he should be listed at all?--Manopingo 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he may not have been much of a king, but he did have the advantage of being a real person whose existence is certain. That's more than can be said for many of the people on the list. There's not that much to separate Edward from the other ríg Érenn co fressabra kings. If you were meaning to tidy up the list, it would need an awful lot of work. It needs splitting into sections for one thing, and distinguishing between 17th century fairy stories and earlier lists. The earlier ones in turn need split between out-and-out myth (anything before Niall Noigíallach, but whether it should start with Conaire Mór, or Conn Cétchathach, is the question; Conaire Mór was the common ancestor of Irish and Scots kings, allegedly, Conn and the Connachta are probably of more Irish relevance; I'd go with Conn myself), semi-mythical (anything before Diarmait mac Cerbaill), and historical. The historical bit could do with splitting up as well, for ease of editing, maybe into three: Diarmait-Donnchad Midi (arrival of the Vikings), Áed Oirdnide to Máel Sechnaill mac Domnaill, and then the kings with opposition. Angus McLellan (Talk)
Yep, I tend to agree with you. Mythology and history are a precarious mix. Half of history is mythology in any case, and we need look no further than the present century. --Manopingo 01:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two wrongs don't make a right. We can take advantage of written history in his case and record that his High Kingship was largely in his onw mind. --Red King 15:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Failing instruction to the contrary, I will change that piece sometime in the next week. General Michael Collins (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I'd like to ask about the idea that the early Irish Law does not refer to the High Kings. The Senchus Mór seems to refer to them on the opening page, if I'm not mistaken. Take the line - Ocuſ it munda aimſeɼ doib, aimſeɼ Laegaiɼe mic Néil, ɼíg Éirenn; ocuſ Teṫoſiuſ ɼob aiɼd ɼíg in domain. which is translated as And they were composed at the same time in the time of Laeghaire, son of Niall, king of Erin; and Theodosius was monarch of the world[1] . I'm not sure enough of my ground here to edit without some confirmation, but I'll post further references to the High Kings if I find them, and edit if correction is not forthcoming. General Michael Collins (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Split?[edit]

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:

Any thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

I'm going to throw my two cents in, but it will probably only make the issue more complex, rather than make for an easy division. So far the discussion assumes that there are two distinct groups, but there are really more. We start out with divine kings, have a line of Milesian who, most of whom after the start, are just names, and then you start to get legendary kings (i.e. there are legends about them), which shades into the first identifiable real individuals. But, the first of the real individuals weren't high kings of Ireland, they were Kings of Tara who were later associated with the High Kingship. The idea of a high kingship was created and some of the kings began to pretend to that idea until one actually achieved actual dominion and the High Kingship became something yet again different - and even though the successors couldn't actually fully succeed and were in effect High Kings. Most of reigns listed on the page are fictions of some sort or another, just because some of the individuals existed and were kings of part of Ireland doesn't make them any more deserving to be on this list than some of the Gods who appear near its start. I would think that a division of the list that doesn't take into account the various factors would tend to send the message that the kings on the historical list really were High Kings. Personally, I would probably keep it with a stern warning, but I don't really care so long as were careful to say what the non legendary kings really are and possibly to divide them as well. --Buirechain 03:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Succession order and claimants[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

With opposition[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Coat of arms[edit]

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

Capitalization of "high kings"[edit]

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)[reply]

The political union of Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid!![edit]

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)[reply]

Inclusion of Brian Ua Néill (sic) and Edward Bruce[edit]

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)[reply]

Vote to remove anglicised names of Kings - 30 Aug 2015[edit]

Just recently a user called Mhmrodrigues(Talk), made a series of edits and anglicised the names of the High Kings of Ireland on this page. I am very strongly against this practice of anglicising the Irish spelling of the names of the people in the Irish annals. The names should remain, where ever its possible, with a spelling as close to the original spelling as possible.

This discussion is a vote to revert the edits made by user Mhmrodrigues, back to the original Irish spellings that were on this page before hand. If you want you say, please vote and say Keep to vote to keep the new anglicised spellings. Or vote Revert to revert the changes made by Mhmrodrigues back to the Irish spellings. However, I do think its ok to have an anglicised spelling in brackets after the Irish name!

I vote to Revert the anglicised spellings. I want the Irish spellings! John37309 (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edits by user Mhmrodrigues because the spellings of the names used by Mhmrodrigues are anglicised spellings, not listed in any of the primary sources, Lebor Gabála Érenn, Foras Feasa ar Éirinn, Annals of the Four Masters, The Annals of Ulster, Laud 610 or Rawlinson B 502.John37309 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't seen this until now. I agree with your decision to revert the changes. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks NickNack. John37309 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove the king's names in their Irish form. They appear in italic next to the anglicized name. But I'll revert the names. Please at least leave the information table about the monarchs and their numbering, for a better comprehension of them. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing to revert the names. However, medieval Irish kingship is complicated and the scholarly literature on the subject does not identify kings with numbers, but by patronymic and/or epithet. As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RELIABLE, we should do the same. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The patronimic that you're refering is in italic below the name. The numbering is just one way to distinguish them because of their long names. Anyway, the name of the page where the link is redirected shows their patronimics. --Mhmrodrigues (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I'm making is the format you're using is not supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia is supposed to follow what reliable sources say. The numbering is no help in identifying Irish kings, because none of the sources use them, whether primary sources like the Annals or the Lebor Gabála, or reliable secondary sources like modern historians. You will not find a reference anywhere to "Diarmait I" - he is always "Diarmait mac Cerbaill" and is well known under that name, so using the form "Diarmait I" is not informative or helpful. It is a convention that is not used. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also point out that whatever sources you're using (and you're not citing them), they're not entirely reliable on the translations of some of the kings' epithets. Ailill Molt is not "Ailill the Ram". A molt is a wether, i.e. a castrated ram, the ovine equivalent of a bullock or gelding. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with John37309 and Nicknack009. Mhmrodrigues, could you please undo your similar edits concerning ordinal numbers and Anglicisations in other Irish king lists? List of kings of Connacht, List of Kings of Mide, and List of kings of Munster for example.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues - I will give you credit where credit is due. I have seen the nice page formatting work you have done on other pages, and some of it is quite nice. I think its very good to add nice formatting to the pages, and add nice images to make the articles more attractive. But its as simple as this - You cannot under any circumstances change the names of the Irish Kings. Over the last 1000 years, quite literally, thousands of books have been written about the Kings of Ireland and the various legends that surround them. And under no circumstances are you going to get away with Anglicising the names of any of the people in these books because all the original books were written in Irish. These people never had anglicised names when they were alive. And you are only creating confusion by trying to anglicise the names.
Mhmrodrigues, now this is the compromise that I would personally be willing to accept from you. Show some remorse and go back into ALL of the lists of Irish Kings you have edited and change the names back to the original Irish spellings of the pages they link to, just like we have asked you to do. I would personally be willing to accept a compromise where-by you can add the anglicised spellings in brackets after the name of the King. In other words, just reverse what you done. So for example, the name of the High King "Diarmait mac Cerbaill" will appear like this; Diarmait mac Cerbaill (Diarmait I). I don't like it, but I would be willing to accept it as a compromise. And I can only speak for myself, NickNack and Brianann might not like the compromise.John37309 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of Irish kings, not a list of Scottish kings. Irish kings were always named in some form of Gaelic. Scottish kings have Gaelic names and Scots names. I see no reason to provide anglicized names for Irish kings, and if the traditional annals, such as LGE, FFE, and AFM, do not use regnal numbers, we should not use regnal numbers. If someone wants to add a column to the list to provide anglicized names in addition to original Irish Gaelic names, that seems reasonable, but cluttering the list with anglicized names, or with names with regnal numbers, that were never traditionally used in Ireland, seems off the mark. The only issue that I see is whether to use Old Irish or Modern Irish, but that doesn't seem to be what is being argued here. Both the Old Irish and the Modern Irish forms of the name may reasonably used on the article for a king. I see no reason to use anglicized names in this list, but, if there is a reason, it should be in a separate column. A better argument could be made for having separate columns with the names used in the annals and with modern spellings, but that doesn't seem to be the issue. Give the Irish kings, whether historical, semi-historical, or legendary, their Irish names. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, our friend Mhmrodrigues has moved on, today, that is, 5th September, to editing other Irish Kings pages that he had not visited before; See his contribs here. After Mhmrodrigues participated in the discussion here yesterday, he went off today and edited the list of Kings on the Kingdom of Breifne page. At first when I saw the edits, I was very impressed!! I looked at the page and I thought, wow! that looks really great, maybe this guys is trying. --- But no, its only when you examine the individual edits much closer that you see what he is doing. Its horrific, he is not reading any book to reference from. No, he is just randomly forcing the death dates for the kings together to give them, what appears to be, a seamless reign for their kingship. He is not reading it from any book, he is just making it up as he goes along. And in many cases, he is changing real data, death dates of the kings in the annals, and he is changing them to give the appearance of a smooth unbroken kingship, he is changing real death dates for the Kings of Breifne. This person has to be stopped, now! Before he destroys more pages. John37309 (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll correct that now, John37309. And I'm not numbering the kings without any source. Here is the link that I've found where the Irish kings are numbered: [1] Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've already reverted my editions in the page Kings of Breifne, but maintained the ones that are proven in my source. As you can see from it, I didn't number the kings because I simply wanted to, and my source proves that. About Aillil Molt, I have translated the epithet as it is translated on the correponding page, and I think that at least the epithets may be translated, for a better comprehension. It's just an epithet, not the name of the king. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you all agree with the most recent changes that I've made on the page "High Kings of Ireland"? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 01:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the portrait and marriage information for the historical high kings is helpful. However, I can't revert the anglicization of the names, which is just wrong, without reverting the table additions. I am going to have to revert the article, which will remove useful information, in order to remove incorrect information. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues moved on to edit more pages, the List of Kings of Mide. See Mhmrodrigues contribs. Same thing again. Its going to be difficult to clean up after this guy. I am most concerned about the Irish Kings pages. But in reality, this guy has been doing this to Kings lists from countries all over the world. He has been doing it on the Mhmrodrigues account since the 1st of November 2011. And to top that off, on the 1st of November 2011, his "first ever edit on Wikipedia", he starts making, what look to be, very experienced edits, displaying vast experience of editing wiki's. Therefore, I conclude that Mhmrodrigues "might" have been banned before under another account or user name. His first edit on the 1st of November 2011 was not the first time he edited a wiki. John37309 (talk) 09:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the dispute resolution policy. It appears that we have a content dispute, which isn't limited to one article, compounded by a failure to discuss. I would strongly suggest that User:Mhmrodrigues should make no contentious edits to lists of kings without first discussing them on the talk page. Since he doesn't know what edits are contentious, he should make no edits without discussion that go beyond reversion of simple vandalism, correction of typos, etc. User:John37309 - Please avoid casting aspersions and discuss editing behavior rather than speculative history. If all else fails, however, a topic ban on king lists might be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that anyone even gave a look in my source, the site where the kings of Ireland are clearly numbered. You don't need to block me. John37309, I'll try to not change any page form now on. I just don't want to continue this conflict. I'm glad if that makes you satisfied and stop that quarreling. I'll work only in Commons. Mhmrodrigues (talk) 21:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mhmrodrigues - Yes, I did have a look at your "source". When you edited the High Kings of Ireland page, you listed your source as this page; http://sitemaker.umich.edu/mladjov/files/irish_rulers.pdf Which seems to be written by a guy called Ian Mladjov, who might, or might not, have been given a Post-Doc in 2013 from the University of Michigan. Ian Mladjov might possibly hold a Research Associate position at Bowling Green State University Bowling Green, OH, USA, according to this page; https://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/history/faculty-and-staff/ian-mladjov.html . Either way, the document is hosted on a "Do-it-yourself", "site builder", website at University of Michigan; http://sitemaker.umich.edu/ . And when you visit the front page of that "site builder" website, it says, quote; "After 15 years of service, Sitemaker is being gracefully retired.". So Mhmrodrigues, that means that you "source" is about to disappear forever off the internet. And to top that off, Ian Mladjov's Irish Kings document is absolutely riddled with bad and wrong information. Firstly, he anglicised names of Irish Kings, which just proves the man knows nothing about even the most basic Irish History. Secondly, the document is just full to the brim with wrong dates and reign's for the Kings. Thirdly, its one of the worst academic documents I have ever seen because he doesn't quote any source for his information. It like he just made it all up out of his head!
Mhmrodrigues, as far as you, or anyone else, is concerned, there is only one source for lists of High Kings of Ireland. And that is a book called Lebor Gabála Érenn, in English its called "The Book of Invasions of Ireland". And more specifically, its the version of Lebor Gabála Érenn published by R. A. Stewart Macalister between the years 1938 and 1956. You can download the book for free from the Internet Archive, the links are on the R. A. Stewart Macalister page, its a 5 volume book, so its big, about 2000 pages in total. Volume 5, or Part 5, lists all the High Kings. That book is the absolute "Gold Standard" when it comes to lists of High Kings of Ireland. And the Macalister translation trumps all other sources when it comes to quoting lists of Irish Kings. Mhmrodrigues, if you want to work on Irish Wikipedia pages, the Macalister translation of Lebor Gabála Érenn is your primary source. There are about 20 or 30 other primary sources for the text, but none of them can even come close to the Macalister translation of Lebor Gabála Érenn. Its the absolute "Gold Standard" for Irish history before the year AD 1200. John37309 (talk) 11:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To, User:Nicknack009, User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh and User:Robert McClenon,
We need to revert the pages that were edited by Mhmrodrigues. This is a list of "Irish pages" Mhmrodrigues edited;

And to be quite honest, I really don't know what to do about the other lists of Kings from other countries that Mhmrodrigues edited? I'm open to suggestions! John37309 (talk) 11:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the information about that primary source, John37309. In fact I didn't know about it. I'll try to be more careful next time. I'm sorry for the problems that I caused, but I'm not used to see a list of european monarchs without a numbering for the kings and I simply thought that that was missing. And which are the other pages are you refering? Mhmrodrigues (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John37309, I think leave stick to what you know. Leave cultures you're not familiar with to people who are familiar with them - although if there are related Wikiprojects, you might want to alert them.
I'd disagree to an extent about the Lebor Gabála being a "gold standard" for Irish history. It's the point where the standard medieval interpretation of Irish history became canonised, but that's not to say it's actually historically accurate. It's a starting point. Find critical scholars who can interpret it alongside the annals, genealogies etc. But for spelling of names, I'd accept it as an authority.
Mhmrorigues, if you're not even aware of the Lebor Gabála, one of the absolute basics on the subject of Irish kingship, thrn you're seriously out of your depth. You really shouldn't be editing on the subject until you're much better informed. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there were 8 Irish pages edited by Mhmrodrigues. We need to mark these pages so that we know they have been reverted to a date prior to the anglicised names of Kings so the damage is repaired. Starting tomorrow, the 8th September 2015, I will go in an revert all 8 pages, and I will add the same comment to all the reverts linking back to this discussion for an explanation. Some of the reverts are simple and will only take one click, but some of the pages have had multiple edits by other users in between. On the more difficult pages, I will go through the edits one by one and try to put back in valuable edits made by other editors in the mean time. I hope everyone is ok with that. John37309 (talk) 18:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I went through all the pages edited by Special:Contributions/Mhmrodrigues and reverted all the pages, making sure to keep any valuable edits by other users. All my edits are marked with the same date, 8 September 2015‎, and the same explanation message. But it turned out in the end that Mhmrodrigues edited 9 pages, not 8. A user who was not logged in made 4 edits to lists of Irish Kings pages under the IP address Special:Contributions/188.81.125.226, on the 31st August 2015. The person edited the Kings of Uisnech page and the List of Kings of Mide page. And the edits bear a striking resemblance to edits made by Mhmrodrigues, the user anglicised the names of the Kings. So I have reverted the edits. The following is a full list of the 9 pages that were reverted;
John37309 (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Adding dynasties[edit]

I would like to add a new columb to at least some of the tables; which would tell the reader which dynasty each king came from. This is very relevant information, since these king lists can be hard to interpret and I think people would be able to make more sense of the history if they can see how the kingship shifted between the different dynasties (additionally those who know the territories of those kingroups will also be able to immediately understand where that king came from). I would start with the Historical kings (because they're probably the easiest and most reliably known) and then possibly work my way up the page. Obviously if some of the earlier kings don't have clear dynasties, or if it is not applicable for some reason, then we won't add any info there, but I think it's undoubtedly important for the post-400s kings. So, for example, for Máel Sechnaill mac Máele Ruanaid, I would specify; Uí Néill - Clann Cholmáin (for overall dynasty and sept). And for Brian Boru I would put Dál gCais, etc. --Hibernian (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a very good idea, particularly for the historical kings, but also for the legendary ones - it would be useful and informative to know which groups identified which legendary kings as their ancestors. --Nicknack009 (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've started a bit now. I could use some help and opinions on how exactly their dynsties and septs should be designated. For instance, do we want to say that someone is from the Southern Uí Néill, or just the Uí Néill? Should larger, older population groups like the Laigin and Connachta be mentioned (they might be relevent for older kings)? Should we have just the two levels I've suggested (general dynasty and sept/sub-group within that), or more, or less?--Hibernian (talk) 19:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think its a good idea. I like it! I like what you done so far Hibernian. Take a look at what user User:Claíomh Solais done to the other Kings lists, some very useful information added, and nicely formatted with nice little icons to show the family crest of the tribe or clan. Might be nice to see something similar on this page too.
John37309 (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see Nicknack009 has already done the Semi-Historical list and it looks good (I haven't checked them all, but it looks correct). I like the stuff you suggest John37309, though I'm not sure there would be many crests availible for the high kings, as that's more of a later medieval thing (maybe the last few would have them, but not really before that). Also, I don't think we should split the lists up by dynasties like has been done in the Connacht artile, as the listing system of dividing the kings into chronological and histrographic groupings is best. --Hibernian (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did the semi-historical kings earlier and then had to go out, so I couldn't comment until now. Not sure how much heraldry and such is available - I tend to think of the Irish dynastic groups as more like crime families than modern noble houses, with the kings being godfathers and the High Kings as the capo di tutti capi. And some of the semi-historical kings almost certainly didn't belong to the groups they're ascribed to - the genealogies of Muirchertach Mac Erca and Diarmait mac Cerbaill, and no doubt others, are very likely doctored. But it's a useful thing to have the "official" line here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of noting familial groups, but coats of arms are anachronistic and shouldn't be added.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ The Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland. Alexander Thom, 87 & 88, Abbey Street. 1865. pp. 62 & 63.

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List standards[edit]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_High_Kings_of_Ireland&oldid=1202706976"