Talk:Cassi

[Untitled]
Much of the material added by PsychoV appears to echo the speculative or fictional material created for the Europa Barbarorum mod for Rome Total War. PsychoV is also the forum nickname of one of the team who created the mod. Is this an attempt to make the Wikipedia entry resemble their version of history? Paul S (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Now it's just the facts, seems a pretty pointless article. :-)--Doug Weller (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The material added by PsychoV echos the material cited by several recent sources, least of which includes research from the University of Dublin and that of O'Hogain, as referenced. It is no more "speculative or fictional" than any like summation dealing with other ancient peoples, places and material cultures.

Further, any perceived likeness or association with the aforementioned “mod” is consequential to the pre-existing data and not a subsequent endeavour to add credibility there-in. If the former poster / editor has a personal problem with the aforementioned mod or persons so involved, they should avoid employing their personal bias as a plum line by which the value of data is measured. If such an individual has information that proves the stated scholarly hypothesis to be false, I encourage he/her to post the said information.

talk) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia doesn't work that way, you have to have reliable sources and verifiable. 'several recent sources' are not something anyone can verify. O'Hogain is a folkloreist, which is a reputable thing to be but doesn't make him an expert in ancient history, archaeology, etc.--Doug Weller (talk) 09:58, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify another point of confusion, yes O'Hogain lectures in Irish folklore at the University College of Dublin, but I believe it a grave injustice to merely dismiss him as "folkloreist". More correctly he should be regarded an historican, and if one is familiar with the ongoing contention between the two disciplines of archeology and history, one would be well aware why those who focus on the material culture are more reluctant to accept the hypothesis of others facilitated by alternate forms of evidence.--PsychoV(talk) 12:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dr. Ó hÓgáin is not a historian because he wrote a general introuductory book; he doesn't claim to be and the blurbs on his books don't make any such claim either. Read his biog on Irish Wikipedia The relevant section in the second paragraph means "an MA in Gaelic Language and Literature and a PhD in folklore" Paul S (talk) 11:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Plus of course he doesn't mention the Cassi at all, and his other statements about the various 'Casses' are not referenced and are speculation by him.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Semantics. Cassi or Casse, either / or depending on the degree of one's love of Latin.--PsychoV(talk) 13:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Dáithí Ó hÓgáin
It turns out that he does not, as Psycho suggested, mention the Cassi. (which is sadly unreferenced. Found some interesting but not helpful in the end discussions at the Totalwar forum, eg but I've now edited the article to show what we know plus what good sources say may have happened.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you're in error Doug. The Cassi, or Casses as he prefers to call them, are indeed mentioned. Please check your assertions before jumping to conclusions.--PsychoV(talk) 12:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I read it, he does not mention the Cassi. You think he does, because you identify the Cassi with his Veliocasses,  Baiocasses, Viducasses, Tricasses, or Vadicasses but that's your personal interpretation. And in any case, he gives no references and he admits he is only speculating by using the word 'likelihood'. You presented his speculation as fact. But the bottom line is that he does not mention any tribe called Cassi and thus he can't be used as a reference for the Cassi.--Doug Weller (talk) 07:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Doug, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but most of our “understanding” of the period is speculation and personal interpretation. The very nature of Science, despite the discipline, operates on the function of speculation and personal interpretation, the formulation of a hypothesis of the most likely scenario. To dismiss this protocol out of hand because there remains some uncertainty would not only dismiss a great deal of what our society currently accepts as “fact” but relegate most of our human history to the very isles of fiction and folklore to which you apparently take such umbrage.


 * In any case, if you or others here wish to persist in this thinking due to some personal bias toward a given group (to which I might add, I have no current affiliation), I will neither labour the point nor waste further effort. The patrons of Wiki are the loosers--PsychoV(talk) 13:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Speculation and personal opinion by its editors is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I have no problem with speculation and personal opinion in the appropriate places, and I certainly have no idea what bias you are accusing me of having. None of this changes the fact that he writes Casses and not Cassi, and our opinion of what he meant can't be included in Wikipedia, only what he wrote. The patrons of Wikipedia (I think you actually mean the readers, not those who donate to it) are the winners because of that. Doug Weller (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't go changing the context. We were discussing 'speculation and personal opinion' espoused by historical scholars..NOT by Wikipedia editors. None of the aforementioned was 'speculation' or 'personal opinion' on my behalf. I, like all others here that cite references, was merely referring to the work of others more authoritive.


 * With regard to the Casses / Cassi issue, please see my previous response. Your supposition is as ridiculous, for example, as claiming that a scholarly reference to gaol is fundamentally different to that of jail. Semantics!


 * And yes, the patrons of Wikipedia (yes readers) are the loosers because individuals here wish to use erroneous technicalities to dismiss data they apparently have some personal problem with. --PsychoV(talk) 13:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this still going on? Cassi and Casses are not the same! The first would be an O-stem and the second and I-stem in Gaulish. Paul S (talk) 13:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)