Talk:Goídel Glas

Untitled
Nice enough article except for 2 things, one all of the words in bold make it hard to read properly and give emphasis that sounds alot like someone is very opionated and two, no in paragraph references are given, we don't know whats being made up and whats from a book. I'm removing the bold words anyways.
 * I'm not sure where this Paultain guy is getting his info, but it sounds rather opionated for one of many possible theories about a minor person in the Ancient World, when we can't even be certain which Pharoah was the Scorpion King. I'm deleting the rest of the stuff he added until someone with sources can put it back sensibly, preferably without just pointing to those sources and saying its all in there, the preference is to put the info out on the page and say you got it from this source and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Quality of content in section headed "Contemporary sources"
This section is basically incomprehensible. Possibly it has been translated from foreign text by the use of a translation script; it is also unpunctuated except for random commas, and is without any sentence structure I can discern.

The source for it is Conócete a ti mismo, a philosophical work written in 1913 by Joaquín Trincado Mateo, so in no way contemporary to Goídel Glas. The article on the book includes this para which is presumably what is referenced here,

"The author says Christ is the Stone of Scone, mystical symbols and more important to the British kings, which under British legend that is the stone on which Jacob's head support in the passage of the Jacob's ladder, and which passed into the hands of the defeated Egyptians, Moses leave in the shores of the Red Sea in middle of Exodus, aitekes (Goidel Glas), chief of the Egyptian army, believing that stone was the god of Moses, called Christ by the Israelites, it aitekes which had seen in the annual festival of the Israelites, is carried convinced that this fetish, was the god of Moses and make him the throne, attached the laws Hebrew calling them Gospel, founding the Christian religion that centuries later the re-founded in Rome the Pharisee Saul of Tarsus."

This is hardly more meaningful than the section I have queried, and as the metaphysical musings of a single philosopher is probably not a useful source. The article on the philosopher and that on the book referenced are both written primarily by the same contributor who provided this section. Even in an article on a legendary/mythological subject I think this may break NPOV guidelines.

Dannuk (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 'section' on the basis that a 220-word single sentence is completely unreadable. There might be some relevant information in there somewhere - but who can tell? Gabhala (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion removed from "Contemporary sources" section
One user added a question to the "Contemporary sources" section of the article, and another user answered. I felt that this casual Q&A did not belong on the article page.

"Did any of that make the least bit of sense to anyone? A: Essentially it is a Irish-Scottish version of the Roman Aeneid, which is trying to give your own people a distinguished and ancient lineage despite being completely fabricated."

I removed this text from the article, but I'm placing it here in case anybody is interested in further discussion. --Joel7687 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)