Talk:Dál nAraidi

This article is a joke. Dalriada and Dalnraidh were two of the the three remnants of old Ulidia they never joined and Dalriada became the kingdom of the islands and highlands whereas east and south Antrim dalnraidh withered on the vine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmckilli (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Self-contradictory
This article is terribly self-contradictory. As just one example: "Among the most important kings of the Dál nAraidi, most of whom predate the formation of a kingdom"... —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * At one time the article said "It is doubtful whether the Dál nAraidi kingdom existed, except as a loose confederation of small kingdoms, until the 8th century, long after the Cruithne kings had ceased to have any real control over the high-kingship of Ulster." Perhaps it should say that again, although it would be best if it were referenced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This theory is not been accepted BY reputable scholars its nothing more than sectarian nonsense attempting to excuse the Ulster Scot colonial plantation of Gael Ulster. there is no evidence this was anything other than a Gael tribe.

you already have been informed of this before and this page is astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruthin His theory has been adopted by some Ulster loyalists and Ulster Scots activists to counter Irish nationalism, and was promoted by elements in the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).[24] They saw this new 'origin myth' as "a justification for their presence in Ireland and for partition of the country".[25]

Historians, archaeologists and anthropologists have widely rejected Adamson's theory.[23][24] Prof. Stephen Howe of the University of Bristol argues it was designed to provide ancient underpinnings for a militantly separate Ulster identity.[26] Historian Peter Berresford Ellis likens it to Zionism.[23]