Talk:Fomorians

Fomorians vs. Partholonians as remebrance of Mesolithic to Neolithic transition
Has anybody any evidence that this has been suggested? Without citation in this article, it appears like original research. Theelf29 14:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember John Morris saying something along those lines in The Age of Arthur, but I don't have a copy I can check. --Nicknack009 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've got the reference: -

"The artefacts of mesolithic food gatherers have been observed, and tradition remembers the first inhabitants as men who 'lived on fishing and fowling till the coming of Partholon'. (p.148)"
 * Theelf29 01:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of the Other Media section
Why was the "Other Media" section deleted from the Fomorians article? This article has gone into extensive detail regarding references to the Fomorians in many and various segments of popular culture, from roleplaying games and trading card games to comic books. The content of the "Other Media" section was the inclusion of a Fomorian character in a nationally-broadcast radio series. This would be relevant to the topic and in keeping with the nature of the other popular-media references listed above it. Why was this section deleted from the Fomorians article? Soundout (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fomorians In Comic Books
The Fomorians are also found in several comic book series including Slaine and the Avengers at Marvel Comics. This should also be added to the article to round it out more in relation to entertainment. Since the comic book versions are derived from myth, this I think many would agree should also be added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sl%C3%A1ine_(comics) http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix/fomore.htm

(Armorbeast (talk) 09:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC))
 * I would not. This article is about the myth, and elementary reference and allusion that show no evidence of impacting general perception of the primary subject do not belong here. Mintrick (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that logic. It is common practice in Wikipedia articles to include a list of media references to a topic, including fictional ones.  Is there some reason Fomorians should be an exception? Exaybachay (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Etymology
mor- in morbid is not a word but a root —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.42.25 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuada?
Why does Nuada appear in the list of Fomoire? Is that a mistake? vandalism? Or should somebody knowledgeable make a mention of the Fomorian Nuada, as opposed to the Dé Danaan king who is abundantly mentioned?--Svartalf (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The suggested "name origin" in the current article
The text of the "Name" section says that "In 1888, John Rhys was the first to suggest ...". William Forbes Skene made this particular suggestion in 1861, in this article: His discussion of the Fomorians begins on page 179.

He also includes a suggestion for the meaning of "under/below" sea. I think that Frisian/Saxon emigration from the coastal Continent was an historical event occurring c. 350–400, but perhaps beginning as early as 250. Their departure was a reaction to the early stages of a marine transgression sometimes called the "Dunkirk (or Dunkerque) II transgression", which continued to worsen.

I'm not familiar with the origins of the Irish stories, and have no idea whether the suggestion is credible (in particular, the part about stone fortresses sounds out-of-character for the Frisians/Saxons).

The wikipedia article doesn't give dates. If the Irish stories pre-date the time when Frisians/Saxons were emigrating, that would refute the suggestion. Even if the stories post-date that time, the reasoning to obtain the suggestion might still be wrong. At any rate, Skene's suggestion pre-dates that of Rhys. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nature of the Fomorians & comparative mythology
My interest is piqued here after comparing the Fomorians and the aos sí. Based on what I've found among existing articles, it seems like the aos sí are comparably more malevolent in nature. The Fomorians are not necessarily as malevolent as the article suggests considering their mixed relationship with the Tuatha Dé Danann.

From what little I know, it's suggestive that a comparative relationship among these classes of deities and other pantheons may exist as follows:
 * Celtic → Greek → Norse → Indian
 * Tuatha Dé Danann → Olympians → Æsir → Devas
 * Fomorians   → Titans →     Vanir → Asura
 * Aos sí    → Giants → Jötnar → Kālakeyas, etc.

Is it possible that the evil nature of the Fomorians is overemphasized in the article? It seems like a lot could be improved on this side of the Mythology portal. I'm not very familiar with this pantheon and am eager to gather input from those who are. --Invokingvajras(talk) 21:58, 26 September 2019 (UTC)