This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On April 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Lebor Gabála Érenn to Book of Invasions. The result of the discussion was opposed. |
Is it possible that Fir Bolg = Men of the Bags refers to BAG PIPES?? Alternatively, Fir (Celtic) = Vir (Latin) = Wer (Germanic) = Man, and Bolg (Celtic) = Vulgus (Latin) = Folk (Germanic) = People, so that Fir Bolg = Men Folk.
Also, the Pretanic Invasion of c. 600 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celtic outpourings of men into Italy of Bellovesus in the early 6th century BCE.
Also, the Laginian invasion of c. 300 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celtic outpourings of men into Greece and Asia Minor in c. 278-75 BCE...
While the Goidelic invasion of c. 100 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celto-Germanic outpourings of men into Gaul, Spain, and Italy of the Cimbri and Teutones (who were defeated by Marius in 101 BCE at Vercellae.
This isn't a subject I claim to know much about, but I'm wondering what other users think of the NPOV in the article? I'm particularly worried about this sentence:
Is there another way of saying this? "might be described without exaggeration", "political propaganda" and "barefaced lies" seem against the spirit of WP:NPOV. Kaid100 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The author of this article is most certainly biased. While embellishment is evident, the events and people have archealogical and anthropological vindication. by crossing the description of battles, migrations, people, kingships, etc. with other sources which are contemporary and compairing burial sites and dwelling remains, the jist of the book is reliable. i.e. whether or not Cu Chullain actually beheaded hundreds of mercinaries, single handedly and with multiple wounds, is up for debate. But, even though it sounds larger than life, it is still possible and there really is no way to prove it did not happen. It is a blurred truth from which we can still benefit. GomerianGod 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm flagging this article with a POV tag, the author is at times quite frankly insulting and unbiased. This article needs a very serious cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.80.197 ( talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've edited sections for NPOV. Does anyone still have any objections? Can we remove the POV tag? Eroica ( talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to see some analysis of why it may be inappropriate to critique a history that likely has its basis in oral tradition. Indigenous storytelling is seldom derided in this way if details are not crossreferenced with external historic sources. There are consequences to such criticism, namely adding to a long list of oppressive attitudes that have affected self-perception and self-determination for members of endangered language groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.219.99 ( talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Need I say more? Alai 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Na Lebor Gabala Erenn (a.k.a. The Book of invasions of Ireland, Leabhor Gabhala Eirinn) was the 17th century reprise of the preexisting Lebor Na Huidhre (a.k.a. Book of the Dun Cow, Leabhor Na Huidhre). The reprise was the work of Michael O' Cleirigh at the request of Brian Maguire and was completed in 1631. The Lebor Na Huidre was a compilation of five books that existed in Ireland. This original compilation was made in 1106AD by Mael Muire Mac Célechair (Galleghar) at Clonmacnoise. It was written in Gaelic using the Romanized Irish Alphabet.[Royal Irish Academy: Manuscript Records] GomerianGod 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"And the first two "takings" of Ireland — those of Cessair and Partholón, both taking place before the Flood — seem to be wholly fanciful" vs. "Three hundred years after the Flood, Partholón, who, like the Gaels, is a descendant of Noah's son Japheth, settles in Ireland." I checked the online version and it says " till Partholon s. Sera s. Sru came to it. He is the first who took Ireland after the Flood", so I'm removing the "both taking place before the Flood". If anyone can read old Irish, they might wanty to check the original. Vultur ( talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some edits by Valkyree, which were clearly intended to push the agenda that LGE is accurate history. This is not the place to argue your case. Referenced citations (e.g. the quote from Charles Squire, which I have kept, but moved to the relevant section) are, of course, another matter. Eroica ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
the origins section of this article does not have a neutral point of view and I am not the first one to point this out - but good work here from the thought police editing my changes in less than 24 hours - of course the LGE is not completely accurate history but neither is it completely derived from the imaginations of medieval monks - valkyree 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Legendary history is a more accurate phrase than pseudo-history and is in keeping with the fact almost all peoples have some legendary history (containing 'fantastic' elements)that pre-dates their verifiable historical history - that is an appropriate change. "Purporting to be ..." at the beginning of the section is similar and for the same reason - all legendary histories "purport to be..." and others are accepted as the earliest histories without need for the loaded words "purporting to be..." (which carries a negative connotation). valkyree - April 29,2012 valkyree 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Most people are not western academic historians - the fact we still know these stories attests to the fact legendary histories are still told and passed on from generation to generation all around the world valkyree 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Opposed. -- Jamie u t 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Lebor Gabála Érenn →
Book of Invasions – Move requested to "
the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". This
was brought up once before but never discussed or formally rqeuested. Evidence in support: Google Books results for
"Book of Invasions" c.42 pages,
"Lebor Gabala Erenn" c.22 pages,
"Lebor Gabála Érenn" c.10 pages (
ngram viewer); Google News Archive results for
"Book of Invasions" 6 pages,
"Lebor Gabala Erenn" 1 page,
"Lebor Gabála Érenn" 1 page. As this move would also require the main body the be slightly rewritten I've provided a
rough version that can be copied over once the page is moved. -- Jamie
u
t
11:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the caption of the picture. The OFFICIAL NAME of the city where the Tower is placed is " A Coruña " written in galician (according to the spanish Law) . The designation of " La Coruña " in castilian is wrong (and illegal in spain).
Please correct the mistake. BeroBreo ( talk) 22:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
NORMATIVA SOBRE NOMBRES GEOGRAFICOS EN ESPAÑA:
[1]
INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO NACIONAL:
[2]
FIRST: The name of the city IS A GALICIAN NAME of a galician city.
SECOND: IT IS ILLEGAL. I have attached documents about the spanish law regarding these matters. Please read them before making any judgement.
THIRD: The ″Real Academia Española recommends using La Coruña when writing in Castilian″. The present article is written in english, not in castilian.
FOURTH: The term ″español″ is used to refer the castilian language. The other spanish languages recognised in the spanish constitution are: Galician, Basque and Catalan.
For all that reasons I must conclude that the argument: I find it very hard to believe that it's illegal in Spain to use a Spanish name it has been written under only two possible scenarios. It its bad intended or it is a simple expression of ignorance. I strongly recommend you to inform about the spanish laws. Please read the Constitution.
I have relatives which have been killed under franco's regime, I know about their idea of tolerance.
Please modify the article. Thanks. -- BeroBreo ( talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with Moonraker. This article is written in english, not in castilian. Therefore I accept the suggestion of using Corunna, including a link to
A Coruña.
I just cannot accept that people using other language than castilian, refer to galician names using castilian. This behaviour tends to extend the false idea that in spain there is only one language, namely spanish. The term "spanish" is used to design the castilian language, which is a designation based only on political criteria not on linguistics.
For those who my be interested, here is the law that shows that A Coruña is the official name
[3].
Earlier today I modified the article so that it reads "A Coruña". I did so because I will not accept any decision of a person whose arguments are like this ″You are a ridiculous troll. Go away.″ -- BeroBreo ( talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone got any objections to me changing and moving around some of the images on this Lebor Gabála Érenn page? And maybe adding some more images that are appropriate to the different parts of the story?
The current image at the top of the page is a picture of the Tower of Hercules in Spain. Now yes, this is indeed part of the Lebor Gabála Érenn story, but its not an appropriate image that represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story as a whole, and Irish History. The story is about the History of Ireland, and the Tower of Hercules is in Spain. I think the Tower of Hercules image should be moved down the page to the section called "Early history of the Gaels", because that is where the Tower of Hercules is discussed in the story.
And instead I can make several suggestions for a more appropriate image for the top of the page that better represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. Here are some suggestions;
Or I am open to any suggestions for other images that would better represent Lebor Gabála Érenn and the History of Ireland. John37309 ( talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
"Purporting to be a history of Ireland and the Irish, Lebor Gabála Érenn (hereinafter abbreviated as LGE) may be seen as an attempt to provide the Irish with a written history comparable to that which the Israelites provided for themselves in the Old Testament. Drawing upon the pagan myths of Gaelic Ireland but reinterpreting them in the light of Judeo-Christian theology and historiography, it describes how the island was settled six times by six groups of people. Biblical paradigms provided the mythologers with ready-made stories which could be adapted to their purpose. Thus we find the ancestors of the Irish enslaved in a foreign land, or fleeing into exile, or wandering in the wilderness, or sighting the "Promised Land" from afar."
The words "may be seen" indicate the initial problem. Whats being presented here is vague theory or an attempt at original research with no actual basis in fact. There are assumptions made about how the LGE was created which have no foundation in facts. Its impossible to know the motives of those involved. Its impossible to know that they were "reinterpreting". Further, to suggest that stories of enslavement in foreign lands, fleeing into exile, wandering or viewing a shore from the sea are somehow only Judeo-Christian narratives is utterly false. Those sorts of stories can be found all over Europe and beyond in a variety of different narrative histories. That there are zero citations in any of the quoted material above makes it all the worse.
Its accurate to say that we know very little about the LGE, what the motives were in creating it, what methods were used and what sources were involved. There have always been people who have made extravagant claims one way or the other, but those sorts of claims should not be dictating the core of an encyclopedic article. The article should be focused on explaining the known history of the documents rather than being focused from start to finish on the question of their value (and/or lack thereof) as historical documents. I came to this article looking for factual information about the know history of the LGE, its structure and the actual contents of the LGE. What the article provides is mostly a monologue fighting over the uninteresting topic of historical accuracy. This article is another poster child for why large parts of Wikipedia are useless. 75.17.124.191 ( talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple references to an author called "Monaghan" in the text, but no date, title, or other description 5.198.10.236 ( talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The subject line is an automatic Wiki redirect to the article. Since many non-Gaelic/Irish speakers know the manuscript by this name, I've included it in the lede for clarity's sake. Yes, I speak and write Irish, and Yes, I'm aware that the term is a highly questionable translation, but I don't include it as such; rather as a signpost to help navigate those who may think they've stumbled on the wrong piece. Hanoi Road ( talk) 20:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's look at the various things Gemmathegael and her sockpuppets wanted to insert into the article.
I think that covers everything. Hopefully when Gemmathegael's block expires and she's calmed down a bit, some discussion can ensue. -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
will remove judeo Christian.. It was Pre-Christian - Christian collection of documents..
Nennius has been on the page for 15 years, only when I point out he was not a priest but a monk was he removed.. "attributed to" instead of a complete removal would have sufficed if you took issue with the provenance.. Nennius used Irish texts to compile his work . according to MACALISTER . LEBOR GABALA ERENN , THE BOOK OF THE TAKING OF IRELAND Part I BY R. A. STEWART MACALISTER, on Nennius
For convenience I assume the historical existence of "Nennius": after all, someone must have written the book which bears his name. Also for convenience I call him by the old-established form of his name, rather than by the less familiar "Nemnius. "
INTRODUCTION. xxix
this misunderstood word is a valuable testimony that for this part of the history Nennius had a written text in the Irish language at his elbow.
unless R. A. STEWART MACALISTER is unrelaible , in that case i request a removal of all MACALISTER
best Gemmathegael ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
as it seems only a limted stable of "soucres are allowed" for eg I count ... Carey ref 11 times including ref 28 , Op Ed with Koch “ did the Irish come from Spain”Koch listed at least 5 times and included in ref 28 “ did the Irish come from Spain..MACALISTER 4 times,, however a recent addition of 27 ie Monaghan, Patricia. The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore. Infobase Publishing, 2014. its page 53 ...that is MACALISTER again in a compendium so 5 times. no bias there I see!
on Bardic History and of note the comments left which are discriminatory towards Irish culture.
" Attempts to cite "Irish bardic history" as if that was an authority. "Bardic history" is a construct of 18th/19th century wish-fulfillment, based on discredited notions of the accuracy of preservation and transmission of oral tradition. "
"Sure: "Irish Bardic history" is credulous romantic nonsense"
i will cite Koch , unless there is an objection , if there is I request all Koch is removed from the page as an unreliable source.. Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia Hardcover – 15 Mar 2006 by John T. Koch Koch on Bards.. bard page 171 “ Bards of earlier middle ages
Poets in medieval Ireland appear to have had a considerable degree of professional organization, and seven grades of poet, parallel to the seven ecclesiastical grades, had been established by the 8th century (see bardic order).
Medieval Irish treated the terminology of poets and poetry somewhat differently, calling the poet file (pl. filid) for the most part, as does Modern Irish, while reserving bard (pl. baird) for an inferior grade of poet. However, bardic poetry—eulogy, elegy, and, in all likelihood, satire—was as important an institution in Ireland as ever it was in Wales, and lasted longer “
Koch on Druids
In early Irish literature, human actions are often constrained by a taboo (geis) verbally imposed by another person. Magical force can also be exerted by ritual fasting (Old Irish troscad). Responsible for cult and ritual was the priestly caste of the druids (cf. Caesar, De Bello Gallico 6.13f., 16, 18). Besides the druids, several names for priests survive: for example, gutuater ‘father of the voice’ (?), aegones ‘belonging to the oaks’. Nothing is known of the relationship between the druids and these other types of priests. The priestly caste of the ovates is the result of a misreading of v\tes, which described an inspired seer. Borrowed from Celtic, the word was also used in Latin, meaning ‘poet’.
Gemmathegael (
talk)
23:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
more on edit war on sources .. of note
1/ recent insertions when i requested citations re: Graves + The White Goddess. the two sources added refer to his work on the Dana not the Lebor Gabála Érenn.. the wording of the sentence opens up for critsicms of the White Goddess.. thus the requirement placed on me here == Also, the use of DNA or archaeological sources to argue about the historicity is inappropriate, unless of course those sources discuss the topic" is void when i attempted to introduce critiscims on any work of MACALISTERS... cant have it both ways..
2/ multiple use of the same source,ie Monaghan in her collection uses MACALISTER ..its not a standlaone source and for someone to use her twice because a paragraph is split in two pages is dishonest. i refer to use of source 42 + 27 as split paragrpah.
3/Christian pseudo-histories of Saint Jerome and Isidore.[35][36] .. Pseudo will be removed from the work of Saint Jerome and Isidore. unless you object. I read that source from Carey, whoever put that as a source is dishonest. I doubt Carey would have the g's to write Jerome and Isodore as psuedo, and quite frankly the page is not about Carey and his phraseology. The work of these Christian monks are as valid as other religious writers.
be mindful of the Code of conduct policy and comments made prior: The Foundation will not practice or tolerate discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, political or religious affiliation, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I remind people of the code of conduct and point out disparaging remarks based on ethnicity and my cultural heritage and you see that as a threat to you.. can you explain that please. Mediation is needed Gemmathegael ( talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Gemmathegael ( talk) 14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)== Names: Bartholomew, Nemed and Fir Bolg ==
Here's what Carey actually says. "a glimpse of the rich interplay of native and imported ideas which went into the making of the pseudohistorical schema. Partholon is the Irish form of the name ‘Bartholomew’: and Kuno Meyer made the ingenious and convincing suggestion that this name was assigned to the first man to settle in Ireland after the Deluge because it was interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to mean ‘the son of the one who holds up the waters.’[1] The name Nemed, by contrast, is pure Celtic, an extremely important word whose field of meanings includes the senses ‘sacred object’ or ‘sacred enclosure’ and ‘legal rank’ or ‘legal privilege.’[2] With Mil Espdne or ‘the Spanish soldier’ we are back with foreign influence — and I should perhaps point out explicitly that the name Mil Espdne is neither more nor less than a direct borrowing into Irish of the Latin phrase miles Hispaniae which we find in the Historia. ... As for the Builg or Fir Bolg, an ambiguous but cumulatively persuasive body of evidence suggests that they were in fact a powerful and important group at a very early date: their name seems to be closely related to that of the Belgae, a group of warlike Celtic tribes who flourished on the Continent until Caesar’s time.[3]
At the very first stages of trying to assess the evidence, then, we get a curiously mixed impression of the kind of material with which we are dealing. Partholdn and Mfl Espdne look like scholarly constructs, the figments of men steeped in Jerome and Isidore; but Nemed and the Fir Bolg cannot be so easily accounted for, and they appear to reflect — at whatever remove — indigenous memories and speculations about the peopling of Ireland." Apologies for not fixing the OCR errors, and see the original for more details and sources. [3] If nothing else we need to rewrite the bit about Bartholomew and Partholon as it doesn't accurately reflect Carey and problem add what Carey says about the other names.
I'll also note that most of this article was written by two editors, User:Eroica who only edits sporadically now, and User:Asarlaí who is more active. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This page is not about Carey regardless of how many times in the past he has been inserted as an expert..last count 12 times repeating the same source.
I pointed out Carey used as a source for calling the work of Christian scribes isodore and St Jermome pseudo was incorrect, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
bias how many times have you used one paper from 1994 by Carey now? 16 times ..
I notice my attempts to remove pseudo again have been removed, a blanket term used on this page in relation to all Christian writers. Gemmathegael ( talk) 11:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC) thus we will need to insert pseudo work from Medieval Rabbis and Imams for context and balance, we are just talking about the writing style of the medieval times here ? or just Christian writing ? explain what you are trying to achieve here please..
the use of one source 16 + times to push an agenda..and thats not even including insertion of his same work, source disguised in various "celtic" collections
Doug Weller talk contribs 40,597 bytes +7 Undid revision 939864558 by Gemmathegael (talk) misrepresentation of sources, they say pseudohistory, not history,. editor still trying to force his views in
<<== as per your note in the revsison History ...can you please enlighten who is they, "they" denotes plural or multiple, you have only included one paper from Carey from 1994 for the 16th time as a source and still continue to edit out, revert and delete attempts to include other scholars work on the LGE
please clarify to me, and others after me, who is they, your sources should be relative to that LGE and Isodore notes on Isodore by Carey for others to view context because the page is about Carey it seems..
page 9 the opinion on Carey…
Partholon and Mil Espane look like scholarly constructs , the figments of men steeped in Jerome and Isidore
“ The Irish Scholar who invented the story of the Scythian noblemen was trying to do what Cassiodorus and Iordanes and “ Fredegarius” and Isidore had done— but he achieved it in his own way. The context is that which we find in other barbarian historiographers, but the story itself appears to be an independent invention. History Brittonum is in fact the ideal showcase for this originality..
page 13
and the genealogical doctrine according tot which the Gael and Scythians descend from the Magog is only a step removed from Isidore’s assertion that Magog was the ancestor of the Goths and Scythians.. Although the current orthodoxy appears that the History of the Goths did not circulate outside of Sapin…
Isodores work furnished seventh - century Irish scholars with a model of barbarian pseudo history.
Partholón insertion of Parthanán .. source in Monaghan.. Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore Monaghan, Patricia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gemmathegael (
talk •
contribs)
13:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
have included work by STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. ie there is no Archaeological evidence of the exodus.. he also states there is no evidence in Egyptian records to support it. It is relative to the LGE as mentioned in the exodus, and the views of R. A. Stewart Macalister in 1937 on the exodus, science is shedding light on History. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gemmathegael (
talk •
contribs)
13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
have included the recent work by John Koch , seems he is an acceptable source as used before... his research on the link between south-west Iberia and the Atlantic Late Bronze Age. relevant here in name foundation, langauge.. "It has long been recognised that the V-notched shields, leaf-shaped swords and ogival-headed spears of the Iberian warrior stelae have close counterparts among actual artefacts of the Irish late Bronze Age. Therefore, if we can reorientate our thinking away from Hallstatt and La Tène to look instead at Ireland’s overseas affinities during its spectacularly wealthy late Bronze Age, the fact that Tartessos should now be giving up some of its mysteries in a language comparable to Irish may not be so surprising." article includes phrase the Book of Invasions.
Gemmathegael (
talk)
14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
have included Macalister, LGE, Vol. 2, p. 168, 235, 238 and his notes on Bronze Age – The names of Cessair and her foster-father Saball.. including the A bronze age carn on Sliab Beagh “has been referred to by the Four Masters (A.M. 2242) as the grave of Bith.
Gemmathegael (
talk)
14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
on recent edit and removal of my source STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. ie there is no Archaeological evidence of the exodus.... it is relative to pseudo history..there is no evidence but what is written, describing Christian sources as pseudo and sources from the Torah are not ? no other pov? explain please. my source is relative to the exodus. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gemmathegael (
talk •
contribs)
15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
will reword so not copyright violation.. and reinsert.. it has the book of invasions at the end and anyone can follow the link and read if they wish.. its relative to the reserach furher he has worked on the LGE as can be seen from other sources, you dont like his new work?
here is the criteria you placed on me doug.. must include the LGE , IT DOES.sorry you are but one editor and dont own the page.. what you think of what Koch wrote on his more recent work is an issue you should take up with him, as koch has been on this page as a source at least 7 times i wil reinsert.. this is at the stage for mediation as you clearly have a biased POV and will not allow me to edit with recent work, you prefer old sources that adhere to your bias and on last count had 17 citations of Carey from 1994.. i'm glad most people read the talk pages now as wiki has a reputation.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
read your issues.. i updated copyright issues and will add more of John Kochs work on the LGE .i see he is a fav of the page based on citations alone.. hence why i made a point of using the fav " stable" of sources used by certain editors. as i said its up to people to judge .. it mentions the LGE .. as he did in his earlier work prior.. dont worry about the last line, he elaborates fully in his paper which i will link thanks for the concern. Gemmathegael ( talk) 16:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
would like again to point out the terms and conditions and ethics of wiki re: discrimination Doug be mindful
you state = The Torah is a religious text, it isn't history so can't be pseudohistory. Your sources are not the Bible but simply from Christian writers. Gemmathegael ( talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
attacking the work of what many hold as Christian Saints as just Pseudo Christian writers as a blanket term and thus not on par with the Torah is infact discriminatory
belittling the history of Ireland with remarks on Bards is discriminatory on the basis of culture and ethnicity. so yes i will reiterate this and note it here.. how is that a threat. please advise? i posted the wiki code as a reminder..
Koch in the sources has named the LGE, in the two citations. have no idea what the Drumanagh issue is/ was.
I will point out discrimination and the wiki code of conduct if I feel a line has been crossed yes.. had no idea one had to argue to edit wiki.. Gemmathegael ( talk) 20:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I've brought this up at WP:NORN#Interpretation of a source at Lebor Gabála Érenn as Koch doesn't seem to be saying what User:Gemmathegael has written. )(well, he does say the bit about "paid-up member" but I don't know what that has been included, surely not to push a pov?) Doug Weller talk 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
no problem. please all feel free to read his more recent work with Barry Cunliffe in Celtic from the West 3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages questions of ...
edited by John T. Koch, Barry Cunliffe
the third argument: the loss of the voicless labail obstruent
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On April 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved from Lebor Gabála Érenn to Book of Invasions. The result of the discussion was opposed. |
Is it possible that Fir Bolg = Men of the Bags refers to BAG PIPES?? Alternatively, Fir (Celtic) = Vir (Latin) = Wer (Germanic) = Man, and Bolg (Celtic) = Vulgus (Latin) = Folk (Germanic) = People, so that Fir Bolg = Men Folk.
Also, the Pretanic Invasion of c. 600 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celtic outpourings of men into Italy of Bellovesus in the early 6th century BCE.
Also, the Laginian invasion of c. 300 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celtic outpourings of men into Greece and Asia Minor in c. 278-75 BCE...
While the Goidelic invasion of c. 100 BCE seems to be associated with the large Celto-Germanic outpourings of men into Gaul, Spain, and Italy of the Cimbri and Teutones (who were defeated by Marius in 101 BCE at Vercellae.
This isn't a subject I claim to know much about, but I'm wondering what other users think of the NPOV in the article? I'm particularly worried about this sentence:
Is there another way of saying this? "might be described without exaggeration", "political propaganda" and "barefaced lies" seem against the spirit of WP:NPOV. Kaid100 19:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The author of this article is most certainly biased. While embellishment is evident, the events and people have archealogical and anthropological vindication. by crossing the description of battles, migrations, people, kingships, etc. with other sources which are contemporary and compairing burial sites and dwelling remains, the jist of the book is reliable. i.e. whether or not Cu Chullain actually beheaded hundreds of mercinaries, single handedly and with multiple wounds, is up for debate. But, even though it sounds larger than life, it is still possible and there really is no way to prove it did not happen. It is a blurred truth from which we can still benefit. GomerianGod 19:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm flagging this article with a POV tag, the author is at times quite frankly insulting and unbiased. This article needs a very serious cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.80.197 ( talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've edited sections for NPOV. Does anyone still have any objections? Can we remove the POV tag? Eroica ( talk) 12:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to see some analysis of why it may be inappropriate to critique a history that likely has its basis in oral tradition. Indigenous storytelling is seldom derided in this way if details are not crossreferenced with external historic sources. There are consequences to such criticism, namely adding to a long list of oppressive attitudes that have affected self-perception and self-determination for members of endangered language groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.35.219.99 ( talk) 15:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
From the article:
Need I say more? Alai 05:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Na Lebor Gabala Erenn (a.k.a. The Book of invasions of Ireland, Leabhor Gabhala Eirinn) was the 17th century reprise of the preexisting Lebor Na Huidhre (a.k.a. Book of the Dun Cow, Leabhor Na Huidhre). The reprise was the work of Michael O' Cleirigh at the request of Brian Maguire and was completed in 1631. The Lebor Na Huidre was a compilation of five books that existed in Ireland. This original compilation was made in 1106AD by Mael Muire Mac Célechair (Galleghar) at Clonmacnoise. It was written in Gaelic using the Romanized Irish Alphabet.[Royal Irish Academy: Manuscript Records] GomerianGod 19:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
"And the first two "takings" of Ireland — those of Cessair and Partholón, both taking place before the Flood — seem to be wholly fanciful" vs. "Three hundred years after the Flood, Partholón, who, like the Gaels, is a descendant of Noah's son Japheth, settles in Ireland." I checked the online version and it says " till Partholon s. Sera s. Sru came to it. He is the first who took Ireland after the Flood", so I'm removing the "both taking place before the Flood". If anyone can read old Irish, they might wanty to check the original. Vultur ( talk) 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have removed some edits by Valkyree, which were clearly intended to push the agenda that LGE is accurate history. This is not the place to argue your case. Referenced citations (e.g. the quote from Charles Squire, which I have kept, but moved to the relevant section) are, of course, another matter. Eroica ( talk) 16:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
the origins section of this article does not have a neutral point of view and I am not the first one to point this out - but good work here from the thought police editing my changes in less than 24 hours - of course the LGE is not completely accurate history but neither is it completely derived from the imaginations of medieval monks - valkyree 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Legendary history is a more accurate phrase than pseudo-history and is in keeping with the fact almost all peoples have some legendary history (containing 'fantastic' elements)that pre-dates their verifiable historical history - that is an appropriate change. "Purporting to be ..." at the beginning of the section is similar and for the same reason - all legendary histories "purport to be..." and others are accepted as the earliest histories without need for the loaded words "purporting to be..." (which carries a negative connotation). valkyree - April 29,2012 valkyree 19:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Most people are not western academic historians - the fact we still know these stories attests to the fact legendary histories are still told and passed on from generation to generation all around the world valkyree 19:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Opposed. -- Jamie u t 11:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Lebor Gabála Érenn →
Book of Invasions – Move requested to "
the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language". This
was brought up once before but never discussed or formally rqeuested. Evidence in support: Google Books results for
"Book of Invasions" c.42 pages,
"Lebor Gabala Erenn" c.22 pages,
"Lebor Gabála Érenn" c.10 pages (
ngram viewer); Google News Archive results for
"Book of Invasions" 6 pages,
"Lebor Gabala Erenn" 1 page,
"Lebor Gabála Érenn" 1 page. As this move would also require the main body the be slightly rewritten I've provided a
rough version that can be copied over once the page is moved. -- Jamie
u
t
11:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the caption of the picture. The OFFICIAL NAME of the city where the Tower is placed is " A Coruña " written in galician (according to the spanish Law) . The designation of " La Coruña " in castilian is wrong (and illegal in spain).
Please correct the mistake. BeroBreo ( talk) 22:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
NORMATIVA SOBRE NOMBRES GEOGRAFICOS EN ESPAÑA:
[1]
INSTITUTO GEOGRAFICO NACIONAL:
[2]
FIRST: The name of the city IS A GALICIAN NAME of a galician city.
SECOND: IT IS ILLEGAL. I have attached documents about the spanish law regarding these matters. Please read them before making any judgement.
THIRD: The ″Real Academia Española recommends using La Coruña when writing in Castilian″. The present article is written in english, not in castilian.
FOURTH: The term ″español″ is used to refer the castilian language. The other spanish languages recognised in the spanish constitution are: Galician, Basque and Catalan.
For all that reasons I must conclude that the argument: I find it very hard to believe that it's illegal in Spain to use a Spanish name it has been written under only two possible scenarios. It its bad intended or it is a simple expression of ignorance. I strongly recommend you to inform about the spanish laws. Please read the Constitution.
I have relatives which have been killed under franco's regime, I know about their idea of tolerance.
Please modify the article. Thanks. -- BeroBreo ( talk) 21:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I fully agree with Moonraker. This article is written in english, not in castilian. Therefore I accept the suggestion of using Corunna, including a link to
A Coruña.
I just cannot accept that people using other language than castilian, refer to galician names using castilian. This behaviour tends to extend the false idea that in spain there is only one language, namely spanish. The term "spanish" is used to design the castilian language, which is a designation based only on political criteria not on linguistics.
For those who my be interested, here is the law that shows that A Coruña is the official name
[3].
Earlier today I modified the article so that it reads "A Coruña". I did so because I will not accept any decision of a person whose arguments are like this ″You are a ridiculous troll. Go away.″ -- BeroBreo ( talk) 23:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone got any objections to me changing and moving around some of the images on this Lebor Gabála Érenn page? And maybe adding some more images that are appropriate to the different parts of the story?
The current image at the top of the page is a picture of the Tower of Hercules in Spain. Now yes, this is indeed part of the Lebor Gabála Érenn story, but its not an appropriate image that represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story as a whole, and Irish History. The story is about the History of Ireland, and the Tower of Hercules is in Spain. I think the Tower of Hercules image should be moved down the page to the section called "Early history of the Gaels", because that is where the Tower of Hercules is discussed in the story.
And instead I can make several suggestions for a more appropriate image for the top of the page that better represents the Lebor Gabála Érenn story. Here are some suggestions;
Or I am open to any suggestions for other images that would better represent Lebor Gabála Érenn and the History of Ireland. John37309 ( talk) 18:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
"Purporting to be a history of Ireland and the Irish, Lebor Gabála Érenn (hereinafter abbreviated as LGE) may be seen as an attempt to provide the Irish with a written history comparable to that which the Israelites provided for themselves in the Old Testament. Drawing upon the pagan myths of Gaelic Ireland but reinterpreting them in the light of Judeo-Christian theology and historiography, it describes how the island was settled six times by six groups of people. Biblical paradigms provided the mythologers with ready-made stories which could be adapted to their purpose. Thus we find the ancestors of the Irish enslaved in a foreign land, or fleeing into exile, or wandering in the wilderness, or sighting the "Promised Land" from afar."
The words "may be seen" indicate the initial problem. Whats being presented here is vague theory or an attempt at original research with no actual basis in fact. There are assumptions made about how the LGE was created which have no foundation in facts. Its impossible to know the motives of those involved. Its impossible to know that they were "reinterpreting". Further, to suggest that stories of enslavement in foreign lands, fleeing into exile, wandering or viewing a shore from the sea are somehow only Judeo-Christian narratives is utterly false. Those sorts of stories can be found all over Europe and beyond in a variety of different narrative histories. That there are zero citations in any of the quoted material above makes it all the worse.
Its accurate to say that we know very little about the LGE, what the motives were in creating it, what methods were used and what sources were involved. There have always been people who have made extravagant claims one way or the other, but those sorts of claims should not be dictating the core of an encyclopedic article. The article should be focused on explaining the known history of the documents rather than being focused from start to finish on the question of their value (and/or lack thereof) as historical documents. I came to this article looking for factual information about the know history of the LGE, its structure and the actual contents of the LGE. What the article provides is mostly a monologue fighting over the uninteresting topic of historical accuracy. This article is another poster child for why large parts of Wikipedia are useless. 75.17.124.191 ( talk) 07:17, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple references to an author called "Monaghan" in the text, but no date, title, or other description 5.198.10.236 ( talk) 14:39, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
The subject line is an automatic Wiki redirect to the article. Since many non-Gaelic/Irish speakers know the manuscript by this name, I've included it in the lede for clarity's sake. Yes, I speak and write Irish, and Yes, I'm aware that the term is a highly questionable translation, but I don't include it as such; rather as a signpost to help navigate those who may think they've stumbled on the wrong piece. Hanoi Road ( talk) 20:38, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Let's look at the various things Gemmathegael and her sockpuppets wanted to insert into the article.
I think that covers everything. Hopefully when Gemmathegael's block expires and she's calmed down a bit, some discussion can ensue. -- Nicknack009 ( talk) 17:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
will remove judeo Christian.. It was Pre-Christian - Christian collection of documents..
Nennius has been on the page for 15 years, only when I point out he was not a priest but a monk was he removed.. "attributed to" instead of a complete removal would have sufficed if you took issue with the provenance.. Nennius used Irish texts to compile his work . according to MACALISTER . LEBOR GABALA ERENN , THE BOOK OF THE TAKING OF IRELAND Part I BY R. A. STEWART MACALISTER, on Nennius
For convenience I assume the historical existence of "Nennius": after all, someone must have written the book which bears his name. Also for convenience I call him by the old-established form of his name, rather than by the less familiar "Nemnius. "
INTRODUCTION. xxix
this misunderstood word is a valuable testimony that for this part of the history Nennius had a written text in the Irish language at his elbow.
unless R. A. STEWART MACALISTER is unrelaible , in that case i request a removal of all MACALISTER
best Gemmathegael ( talk) 22:48, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
as it seems only a limted stable of "soucres are allowed" for eg I count ... Carey ref 11 times including ref 28 , Op Ed with Koch “ did the Irish come from Spain”Koch listed at least 5 times and included in ref 28 “ did the Irish come from Spain..MACALISTER 4 times,, however a recent addition of 27 ie Monaghan, Patricia. The Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore. Infobase Publishing, 2014. its page 53 ...that is MACALISTER again in a compendium so 5 times. no bias there I see!
on Bardic History and of note the comments left which are discriminatory towards Irish culture.
" Attempts to cite "Irish bardic history" as if that was an authority. "Bardic history" is a construct of 18th/19th century wish-fulfillment, based on discredited notions of the accuracy of preservation and transmission of oral tradition. "
"Sure: "Irish Bardic history" is credulous romantic nonsense"
i will cite Koch , unless there is an objection , if there is I request all Koch is removed from the page as an unreliable source.. Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia Hardcover – 15 Mar 2006 by John T. Koch Koch on Bards.. bard page 171 “ Bards of earlier middle ages
Poets in medieval Ireland appear to have had a considerable degree of professional organization, and seven grades of poet, parallel to the seven ecclesiastical grades, had been established by the 8th century (see bardic order).
Medieval Irish treated the terminology of poets and poetry somewhat differently, calling the poet file (pl. filid) for the most part, as does Modern Irish, while reserving bard (pl. baird) for an inferior grade of poet. However, bardic poetry—eulogy, elegy, and, in all likelihood, satire—was as important an institution in Ireland as ever it was in Wales, and lasted longer “
Koch on Druids
In early Irish literature, human actions are often constrained by a taboo (geis) verbally imposed by another person. Magical force can also be exerted by ritual fasting (Old Irish troscad). Responsible for cult and ritual was the priestly caste of the druids (cf. Caesar, De Bello Gallico 6.13f., 16, 18). Besides the druids, several names for priests survive: for example, gutuater ‘father of the voice’ (?), aegones ‘belonging to the oaks’. Nothing is known of the relationship between the druids and these other types of priests. The priestly caste of the ovates is the result of a misreading of v\tes, which described an inspired seer. Borrowed from Celtic, the word was also used in Latin, meaning ‘poet’.
Gemmathegael (
talk)
23:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
more on edit war on sources .. of note
1/ recent insertions when i requested citations re: Graves + The White Goddess. the two sources added refer to his work on the Dana not the Lebor Gabála Érenn.. the wording of the sentence opens up for critsicms of the White Goddess.. thus the requirement placed on me here == Also, the use of DNA or archaeological sources to argue about the historicity is inappropriate, unless of course those sources discuss the topic" is void when i attempted to introduce critiscims on any work of MACALISTERS... cant have it both ways..
2/ multiple use of the same source,ie Monaghan in her collection uses MACALISTER ..its not a standlaone source and for someone to use her twice because a paragraph is split in two pages is dishonest. i refer to use of source 42 + 27 as split paragrpah.
3/Christian pseudo-histories of Saint Jerome and Isidore.[35][36] .. Pseudo will be removed from the work of Saint Jerome and Isidore. unless you object. I read that source from Carey, whoever put that as a source is dishonest. I doubt Carey would have the g's to write Jerome and Isodore as psuedo, and quite frankly the page is not about Carey and his phraseology. The work of these Christian monks are as valid as other religious writers.
be mindful of the Code of conduct policy and comments made prior: The Foundation will not practice or tolerate discrimination on the basis of place of origin, ethnicity, citizenship, gender, age, political or religious affiliation, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael ( talk • contribs) 05:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I remind people of the code of conduct and point out disparaging remarks based on ethnicity and my cultural heritage and you see that as a threat to you.. can you explain that please. Mediation is needed Gemmathegael ( talk) 11:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Gemmathegael ( talk) 14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)== Names: Bartholomew, Nemed and Fir Bolg ==
Here's what Carey actually says. "a glimpse of the rich interplay of native and imported ideas which went into the making of the pseudohistorical schema. Partholon is the Irish form of the name ‘Bartholomew’: and Kuno Meyer made the ingenious and convincing suggestion that this name was assigned to the first man to settle in Ireland after the Deluge because it was interpreted by the Fathers of the Church to mean ‘the son of the one who holds up the waters.’[1] The name Nemed, by contrast, is pure Celtic, an extremely important word whose field of meanings includes the senses ‘sacred object’ or ‘sacred enclosure’ and ‘legal rank’ or ‘legal privilege.’[2] With Mil Espdne or ‘the Spanish soldier’ we are back with foreign influence — and I should perhaps point out explicitly that the name Mil Espdne is neither more nor less than a direct borrowing into Irish of the Latin phrase miles Hispaniae which we find in the Historia. ... As for the Builg or Fir Bolg, an ambiguous but cumulatively persuasive body of evidence suggests that they were in fact a powerful and important group at a very early date: their name seems to be closely related to that of the Belgae, a group of warlike Celtic tribes who flourished on the Continent until Caesar’s time.[3]
At the very first stages of trying to assess the evidence, then, we get a curiously mixed impression of the kind of material with which we are dealing. Partholdn and Mfl Espdne look like scholarly constructs, the figments of men steeped in Jerome and Isidore; but Nemed and the Fir Bolg cannot be so easily accounted for, and they appear to reflect — at whatever remove — indigenous memories and speculations about the peopling of Ireland." Apologies for not fixing the OCR errors, and see the original for more details and sources. [3] If nothing else we need to rewrite the bit about Bartholomew and Partholon as it doesn't accurately reflect Carey and problem add what Carey says about the other names.
I'll also note that most of this article was written by two editors, User:Eroica who only edits sporadically now, and User:Asarlaí who is more active. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
This page is not about Carey regardless of how many times in the past he has been inserted as an expert..last count 12 times repeating the same source.
I pointed out Carey used as a source for calling the work of Christian scribes isodore and St Jermome pseudo was incorrect, misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael ( talk • contribs) 11:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
bias how many times have you used one paper from 1994 by Carey now? 16 times ..
I notice my attempts to remove pseudo again have been removed, a blanket term used on this page in relation to all Christian writers. Gemmathegael ( talk) 11:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC) thus we will need to insert pseudo work from Medieval Rabbis and Imams for context and balance, we are just talking about the writing style of the medieval times here ? or just Christian writing ? explain what you are trying to achieve here please..
the use of one source 16 + times to push an agenda..and thats not even including insertion of his same work, source disguised in various "celtic" collections
Doug Weller talk contribs 40,597 bytes +7 Undid revision 939864558 by Gemmathegael (talk) misrepresentation of sources, they say pseudohistory, not history,. editor still trying to force his views in
<<== as per your note in the revsison History ...can you please enlighten who is they, "they" denotes plural or multiple, you have only included one paper from Carey from 1994 for the 16th time as a source and still continue to edit out, revert and delete attempts to include other scholars work on the LGE
please clarify to me, and others after me, who is they, your sources should be relative to that LGE and Isodore notes on Isodore by Carey for others to view context because the page is about Carey it seems..
page 9 the opinion on Carey…
Partholon and Mil Espane look like scholarly constructs , the figments of men steeped in Jerome and Isidore
“ The Irish Scholar who invented the story of the Scythian noblemen was trying to do what Cassiodorus and Iordanes and “ Fredegarius” and Isidore had done— but he achieved it in his own way. The context is that which we find in other barbarian historiographers, but the story itself appears to be an independent invention. History Brittonum is in fact the ideal showcase for this originality..
page 13
and the genealogical doctrine according tot which the Gael and Scythians descend from the Magog is only a step removed from Isidore’s assertion that Magog was the ancestor of the Goths and Scythians.. Although the current orthodoxy appears that the History of the Goths did not circulate outside of Sapin…
Isodores work furnished seventh - century Irish scholars with a model of barbarian pseudo history.
Partholón insertion of Parthanán .. source in Monaghan.. Encyclopedia of Celtic Mythology and Folklore Monaghan, Patricia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gemmathegael (
talk •
contribs)
13:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
have included work by STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. ie there is no Archaeological evidence of the exodus.. he also states there is no evidence in Egyptian records to support it. It is relative to the LGE as mentioned in the exodus, and the views of R. A. Stewart Macalister in 1937 on the exodus, science is shedding light on History. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gemmathegael (
talk •
contribs)
13:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
have included the recent work by John Koch , seems he is an acceptable source as used before... his research on the link between south-west Iberia and the Atlantic Late Bronze Age. relevant here in name foundation, langauge.. "It has long been recognised that the V-notched shields, leaf-shaped swords and ogival-headed spears of the Iberian warrior stelae have close counterparts among actual artefacts of the Irish late Bronze Age. Therefore, if we can reorientate our thinking away from Hallstatt and La Tène to look instead at Ireland’s overseas affinities during its spectacularly wealthy late Bronze Age, the fact that Tartessos should now be giving up some of its mysteries in a language comparable to Irish may not be so surprising." article includes phrase the Book of Invasions.
Gemmathegael (
talk)
14:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
have included Macalister, LGE, Vol. 2, p. 168, 235, 238 and his notes on Bronze Age – The names of Cessair and her foster-father Saball.. including the A bronze age carn on Sliab Beagh “has been referred to by the Four Masters (A.M. 2242) as the grave of Bith.
Gemmathegael (
talk)
14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
on recent edit and removal of my source STEPHEN GABRIEL ROSENBERG Senior Fellow at the W. F. Albright Institute of Archaeological Research, Jerusalem. ie there is no Archaeological evidence of the exodus.... it is relative to pseudo history..there is no evidence but what is written, describing Christian sources as pseudo and sources from the Torah are not ? no other pov? explain please. my source is relative to the exodus. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Gemmathegael (
talk •
contribs)
15:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
will reword so not copyright violation.. and reinsert.. it has the book of invasions at the end and anyone can follow the link and read if they wish.. its relative to the reserach furher he has worked on the LGE as can be seen from other sources, you dont like his new work?
here is the criteria you placed on me doug.. must include the LGE , IT DOES.sorry you are but one editor and dont own the page.. what you think of what Koch wrote on his more recent work is an issue you should take up with him, as koch has been on this page as a source at least 7 times i wil reinsert.. this is at the stage for mediation as you clearly have a biased POV and will not allow me to edit with recent work, you prefer old sources that adhere to your bias and on last count had 17 citations of Carey from 1994.. i'm glad most people read the talk pages now as wiki has a reputation.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemmathegael ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
read your issues.. i updated copyright issues and will add more of John Kochs work on the LGE .i see he is a fav of the page based on citations alone.. hence why i made a point of using the fav " stable" of sources used by certain editors. as i said its up to people to judge .. it mentions the LGE .. as he did in his earlier work prior.. dont worry about the last line, he elaborates fully in his paper which i will link thanks for the concern. Gemmathegael ( talk) 16:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
would like again to point out the terms and conditions and ethics of wiki re: discrimination Doug be mindful
you state = The Torah is a religious text, it isn't history so can't be pseudohistory. Your sources are not the Bible but simply from Christian writers. Gemmathegael ( talk) 16:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
attacking the work of what many hold as Christian Saints as just Pseudo Christian writers as a blanket term and thus not on par with the Torah is infact discriminatory
belittling the history of Ireland with remarks on Bards is discriminatory on the basis of culture and ethnicity. so yes i will reiterate this and note it here.. how is that a threat. please advise? i posted the wiki code as a reminder..
Koch in the sources has named the LGE, in the two citations. have no idea what the Drumanagh issue is/ was.
I will point out discrimination and the wiki code of conduct if I feel a line has been crossed yes.. had no idea one had to argue to edit wiki.. Gemmathegael ( talk) 20:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I've brought this up at WP:NORN#Interpretation of a source at Lebor Gabála Érenn as Koch doesn't seem to be saying what User:Gemmathegael has written. )(well, he does say the bit about "paid-up member" but I don't know what that has been included, surely not to push a pov?) Doug Weller talk 16:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
no problem. please all feel free to read his more recent work with Barry Cunliffe in Celtic from the West 3: Atlantic Europe in the Metal Ages questions of ...
edited by John T. Koch, Barry Cunliffe
the third argument: the loss of the voicless labail obstruent