Talk:Iverni

Hibernia?
Why is there no mention of the theory that the Iverni gave the name Hibernia to Ireland? It is mentioned on lots of other Wiki pages. --Hibernian 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "names" and the Iverni's influence on them - do we have a reference for the comment that County Cork and Cork derive their name from the "Corcu Loígde"? This comment conflicts with the Cork (city) article ("The city's name is derived from an Irish word corcach meaning 'marshy place'") and - frankly - everything I ever learned from primary school. Guliolopez 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Belgae
Their association with the Belgae is now much in doubt? I was always told the Belgae were the first Celtic tribes to settle in Ireland before the Gaels arrived. Many references support that theory so I was surprised to find this sentence here. Jorgenpfhartogs 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The below comments were moved from the merged article Eueriio.

Ptolemy
I've marked the reference to Ptolemy with {fact} as the original text said that Ptolemy's account dated from c.325 B.C., however that date is about 400 years before Ptolemy was born. --sony-youth pléigh 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with that version of Ptolemy's map - he surely didn't mark "Emhain Macha" on it. -- Paul S 17:50 29 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.166.205 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd love to know how this map does not constitute WP:OR. RashersTierney (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't have it to hand, but there's certainly an inspired-by-Ptolemy map in Duffy's atlas of Irish history which could be used as the basis of one for this and other articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any ref. to previously published material would be better than the current situation. It always amazes me the latitude that appears to be given on Wikipedia to creators of graphics when it comes to OR (and particularly synthesis). In other instances I've seen, its nothing more than a device for pushing a POV. Anyone know if there's a worked-out policy? RashersTierney (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a common enough complaint, but there's no policy that I know of, nor is there likely to be given the constraints we face. It's hard to paraphrase or summarize a map in the same way as you'd do with text. Using a copyright-expired map from some Victorian piece of nonsense book is not a great idea, and non-free use policy certain excludes scanning maps from modern works. I think you just need to use your judgement in each case. So far as the Navan is concerned, Ptolemy surely did not mention Emain any more than he mentioned Dublin. But even so, the map here is likely no worse than those you'd find in some books. Misleading, and probably not even wrong, but else what would you expect from something based on trying to make sense of the work of a geographer in Antiquity? What would concern me though is the fact that the map appears to be very similar indeed to the one here. How very odd. Probably better to use the first one here instead and then we can use the caption (and alt text) to explain the image. Or even the one here, but that's ugly as anything. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for considered and comprehensive reply. In trying to come up with something myself, I'd 'found' the first two examples you give, and wondered how linking them might be useful. It was at that point I thought about the more general issue of graphics and OR, and to be honest, just gave up. RashersTierney (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup: Original research/interpretation of primary sources
To my reading, this article has considerable WP:OR, ESSAY, WP:TONE and other issues.

Firstly, there is (now) no definition or explanation given for the title - until almost the end of the article.

Secondly, from an Original Research perspective, the use of the qualifiers "probably", "seem to have", etc., suggest that much of the content is either contentious, or represents interpretation of other sources. Given the antiquity of the topic, some qualification of the accuracy of the content is perfectly understandable. However, there are better ways to represent "unknowns". Specifically, in such cases, it may be more appropriate to state the source and theory, rather than just expressing the theory blindly. (EG: Instead of "The newcomers probably overran the whole island", state (if accurate) that "O'Rahilly postulates that the Inverni were present throughout the island", etc.)

Finally, recent changes make the article read like an ESSAY style "exploration"/synthesis of other published works. For example, the use of constructs like "not until we reach Ptolemy", "As we should expect from our knowledge of later Irish history", etc., are likely inappropriate under WP:TONE.

I would clean up myself, but I am not fully familiar with the relevant sources. Or the accuracy of the current interpretation. Guliolopez 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not the issue. That the source of the content is "reputable" doesn't make how it is imparted or described here either appropriate or relevant. The practices and policies of this project still apply.
 * As noted above, the guidelines of this project mandate a lead/intro section "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". As above, the "context" for the article title here isn't evident until the end.
 * Beyond that, the guidelines of this project (possibly different from Britannica) are to avoid first, second and third-person pronouns. They abound here, putting the reader in some mystical "we" category (of people who know a lot about "later Irish history"), and in doing so they compromise the encyclopedic tone, and contribute to the "essay" qualities of the text. Guliolopez 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

no problem with tidying it up Guliolopez, but was just trying to insure people understood none of it was original research, rather a composite of authored and encyclopic sources Caomhan27 01:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Merge?
As part of the recent cleanup, the "guts" of this article now deal with the Iverni, their "arrival" in Ireland, Ptolemy's writings on them, and the derivation of "Hibernia" from "Ivernia".

The articles titular subject, Eueriio (Ostensibly the Iverni's label for their home) is just a subtext.

To my mind the main content of this article should therefore either be merged to Iverni or (with some further tweaking) be merged with O'Rahilly's historical model (or some other article which generally discusses the "ancient tribes of Ireland").

Thoughts? Guliolopez 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Bal o dia ar an obair
This is a very fine article. In depth and easy to read. Never thought I'd see so much on them in one place. Fergananim (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree it now looks surprisingly spectacular. In my personal opinion the Érainn are most interesting not for their chaotic and thus ultimately limited career (they are most like the Vikings of all the early Irish), but for their apparently hyperactive religious cults, which for all we know were a major part of their problem. For some reason they showed a limited ability to adapt and quickly found themselves no longer in charge without even being properly conquered. Certain tales suggest bad, possibly harsh government. It is possible I will author a paper on this subject someday, but I still have a lot of papers to read before I can do that confidently. DinDraithou (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)