Talk:Domhnall mac Raghnaill

Error in final quotation?
"Had the their rights" doesn't sound right - is the "the" surplus to requirements? 87.114.135.201 (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Flaith
[Referring to Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill]He would've been a ri anyway, as you argued previously. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:38, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well his brother is in any case more correctly a flaith and there is nothing spurious about that. The term is more widely known than you think. DinDraithou (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I piped it in this case, so that 'chief' is displayed but flaith is linked. I share some of your sentiment about some of these things (it's preposterous that we use the term 'earl' for 12th and 13th century Scotttish mormaers, but we do) ... if we start going ORish like that no-one will take Wikipedia seriously. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deal with it. I've reverted you for perpetuating the use of the wrong term. Chief is wrong. Flaith is right. DinDraithou (talk) 04:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not 'wrong', it's just what such guys are called in modern English. I changed it to 'magnate' to appease you. A pleasure talking with you as always. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 04:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is wrong and your appeal to post-Tudor English convention is disgusting. Also your attitude isn't so great: you don't react well when Gaeldom "intrudes" itself into articles on Gaels. Clearly you're unfamiliar with the term. However since you said hello here I'm convinced it's because I made the edits and you thought you had a chance to look smart. DinDraithou (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * moved from 
 * This is just a Gaelic word for a person of certain social status. It is not as distinct office, and is covered by the English terms 'chief' and 'magnate'. But fine, if you find someone describing him as a flaith, put the citation up and we can evaluate it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure magnate is an improvement over "chief", but at least there's a source for that (though I'm pretty sure there would be sources for "chief" as well). As this is Wikipedia in (modern) English, we have to use English terms, even if they were not in contemporary use - but flaith could certainly be included as well if there are sources for that. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't really know what objections there could be to either magnate or chief. Neither are particularly problematic. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You aren't getting it. A chief is a chief of something, usually a kindred, and likewise a magnate has authority over something, usually a territory. Domhnall was probably a leader of bands but his own sept, not counting his own issue and theirs, did not exist yet. And we can't say for sure he had authority over any territory. All we have is a lineage and a little poetry confirming he was a prince. 95% of the time flaith means prince and the term is widely known. It is no more inappropriate to use it than to use prince itself. It's like saying 7 is a number. DinDraithou (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see you tagged ODNB as an 'unreliable source' ... I think you'll be the first wikipedian to call the ODNB an unreliable source. ;) Anyway, if he is a 'prince', find a source for it; 'flaith' is not an English word (but likewise, if you find a modern historian calling him a flaith, go for it). 'Magnate' describes accurately what Domhnall was. He may or may not have been called a flaith, who knows. He was probably called a fer in addition, but we don't call Domhnall a fer on English wikipedia, he's a 'man'.Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:28, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also wondering about the last little paragraph in the article. OR? Is that what McLeod & Bateman say? It seems to contradict the lead, which says we know nothing for certain about him and can't verify his existence outside of the genealogical tradition. Mull to Kintyre? Source and date of the poem for his son? DinDraithou (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The extant poem is apparently derived from one written by an Irish poet at the beginning of Angus' lordship ... but it comes down to us from much later and isn't reliable. The lead actually summarises the issues quite well. I don't remember what McLeod & Bateman say precisely, as that book is at my office, but the citation is there. Anyway, let's not get sidetracked. You're in agreement with me now, I take it? Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not. It's relevant to whether or not he can be considered to have been a magnate. If it's unreliable then we don't have him over any territory for certain. ODNB is tertiary and not the sort of thing you get to refer to in a case like this. You've had the option of using prince itself for a while now. Furthermore, the last paragraph in Ruaidhri mac Raghnaill appears to me to contradict some amount of what we read in Aonghas Mór. What's going on here? DinDraithou (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can bring up any issues with those there. To return to your topic, ODNB is not a tertiary source; the articles are written by experts on their field. You need to establish some controversy with the term magnate; there is no obvious problem with it. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some people like the sound of its vaguely Roman ring. Concerning ODNB, I don't see it cited in the books I own or anywhere but in Wikipedia. It's tertiary whether written by "experts on their field" or not. Some actually aren't, or aren't written by the best. It's unsatisfactory. And considering how little we know about Domhnall I'll bet that "article" by Munro doesn't even quite say it. He may have been related to certain "magnates". DinDraithou (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're not offering anything that establishes controversy regarding the word magnate. It has "a vaguely Roman ring to it"? Great. It's a word of Latin origin ... so is 'concerning'. Please bare in mind DinDraithou that responding to these comments is eating into my personal time. And this is just wasting it. So either come up with some source or controversy or move on to your next misunderstanding and have someone else coach you through it... Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've offered plenty and you're wasting more of my time. Bottom line, this person is not historical enough to be so called. However at least you're no longer calling him a chief, which is an improvement. Concerning the use of magnate, it is supposed to refer to someone important. Alex Woolf says, as you quote, that we have no explicit evidence of this. DinDraithou (talk) 18:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It does seem the two of you are wasting each others time here, and now probably mine as well :) If we are to keep the lead as it is, let's stick to reliable sources: there is a RS quoted for "magnate" - there's none (yet) for "flaith". However, Domhnall is known mainly as ancestor. What about rewriting the lead to"Domhnall mac Raghnaill is the eponymous progenitor of Clan Donald (Clann Dhòmhnaill, "Children of Donald"). He was active in the Hebrides in the late 12th- and early 13th-century." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnrind (talk • contribs)
 * "Chief", "Magnate", "Figure" or "Noble" - either is fine with me, but I still think my suggestion above without any of these is better. Given the temperature here, I think it would be wise if both DD and DoP posted here before amending the current wording again - and when doing so, please comment on content only. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Illustration
That 19th Century illustration in the infobox doesn't really improve the article IMO, if noone objects I'd rather we remove it. Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was about to object, until I realised that it's not actually an illustration of the the subject of the article, which confuses the article. I'll remove it now.  Giftiger Wunsch   [TALK]  19:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Inconsistency re Kings of Mann
This article has Harold Godredson succeding Harald Olafson in 1249, while Harald I Olafsson as well as our list of kings of Mann (King of Mann) has Ragnvald in between them. Which is correct? Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Raghnall ruled for 24 days according to the Manx Chronicle. The text here doesn't actually say there was no Raghnall in between. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 14:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well and good then :) Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin intervention
I was asked to take a look here. What's the issue exactly? --John (talk) 06:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Deacon was canvassing/campaigning for support, to win the exchange above. We've had conflicts in the past. He seems to think that because he's an admin he should always get his way. The result is the occasional revert of my edits, followed by a cute message on my talk page. Last time I told him to stay away, but after more friendly relations recently he did his thing again. Deacon is also responsible for my only block ever, and once tried to get me banned at the noticeboard in a manner similar to his appearance on your talk page. I wonder who else he has contacted. DinDraithou (talk) 16:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, John is the user who saved you from a block/ban after you were going around making comments about Scottish people not so long ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A block/ban you tried to cause by lying to the community, telling them I was following you around, when in fact the opposite was happening. Also there were no "highly idealogical edits". You made that up too. That discussion then got wild when some guy who wasn't even an admin (and still isn't) came in pretending like he was. DinDraithou (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (non admin intervention) It would serve this project well if we used this talk page to discuss this article, and not the conduct of editors active here. If there is a user conduct problem that requires admin intervention that is better discussed at that users talk page or at the relevant admin noticeboard. I don't see the need for admin intervention at this article (the tools available would be protection or deletion, neither of which is required). I'll be posting on the content of this article right after saving this - let's keep the content discussion there. Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC)