Talk:Red Hand of Ulster

Protected?
Why has the article been protected at the same time as changing 'County Londonderry' (used as per WP:IMOS) to 'County Derry'? &laquo; Keith &raquo; 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorted. &laquo; Keith &raquo; 19:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Symbology?
Things to discuss:

1) In some cases I have seen the hand with the thumb on the right side or the left, spaced away from the hand or next to it. 2) In some cases, there has been a small red symbol underneath the hand 3) Any relation to "being caught red handed" or the concept of theft? 4) In the story of the boat race to win Ireland, who were the rowers? What happened to the winner; did he die of loss of blood, live happily ever after? What is the underlying metaphor in the story? How does this metaphor correspond to Ireland's many wars?

Alter the so called 'original' entry on the history of the Red Hand
Unless you'd like to tell me it's not a copy + paste from the Red Hand Pub's website.

http://www.dorrians.com/nyc/history/index.html

66.176.37.51 (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

—

I've made some small alterations here, adjusting the prose slightly and adding that there is a red hand on the Tyrone flag.

I've also added information on the nature of the myth.

Is there a better - i.e. slightly deeper - red than the one currenty being used on the top right hand side?


 * The Wikipedia article is indeed not a copy and paste of that website. In fact if you check the dates you'll find that the website mentioned in fact has copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around, and naughtily slapped a copyright 2007 notice on it when any lawyer in the world can show that Wikipedia had that text before that date. So no rewording is needed, Wikipedia is in the clear on this one. Ben W Bell   talk  20:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved new discussion to the bottomGnevin (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Scandinavian origins?
1. The tales and the origin of the Red Hand i believe to have been brought into Ulster by the Berserkers associated with the one handed Norse god of war, Tyr. Or possible ancient Germanic Tribe.

2. There was the berserker practice of the Fountain of Tyr in which a berserker would cut his hand and use the blood of his spurting artery to blind a opponent.

3. Nowhere in Europe is there any mention of any men associted with loosing one hand or the practice associted with one hand that only among the Scandinavians. example the saga of the berserker Egil the one handed in the Saga Einhenda ok Asmundar berserkjabana.

4. Tyr, was the chief god of the ancient Germanic tribes the Suebi of southern Germany who settled northern Spain modern day Galicia worshiped the god Tyr by the name Ziu.

Among the Anglo - Saxons and Germanics, Tyr is referred as a star that " Keeps it's faith well with King’s, Princes, and Nobel’s, always in course through the dark of night, it never fails" The sailor's guiding star called “God’s Nail". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redhandking (talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

More should be looked into the origins of the Redhand and the cutting of one's hand by warriors from the Scandinavia and germanic myths since this is not found among the Celts but mainly a practiced found in Germanic myths and tales. Redhandking (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Legend versus fact and article restructuring
Right this issue needs sorted and Wikipedia standards and policies adhered too. Whilst we aren't exactly edit-warring despite our recent contrary edits, whether or not those edits are right or wrong, it does look like it to others hence why an admin blocked page editing, which for the short term is the best solution so this can be sorted in the right place: here.

The last edit I performed preserves the historical and mythical information in he article yet with a proper structure as it was simply a mess with fact, fiction, weasel wording, and unclear and/or poorly cited statements all mixed together. The lede was an overweight mess that basically copied half the article. To state explicitly what my last edit has done:


 * 1) Cut the lede down to the basics: what is the Red Hand and how it is used. All the rest: the historical, mythical and the claims of some historians left out and detailed in the body of the article where it can be put in context with the other stuff that wasn't copied into the lede.
 * 2) Put the historical stuff in a "Historical background" section and the mythical stuff in a "Traditional background" section. This keeps fact away from what is regarded by academics as fiction or semi-fiction by pseudo-historians in the later medieval period, usually chroniclers of the Annals, all of which were highly biased towards their patrons. Historical factual information should always come before the traditional legendary fiction.
 * 3) Each section has a Reference Improve Section tag to show that there are statements without citations in the section, as well as the fact there are relevant statements that preceded a sourced irrelevant statement that may or may not have backed up the previous relevant statement as well. So there is a lack of clarity there.
 * 4) There was repetition, irrelevant information, and OR and or synthesis commentary throughout which is unencyclopedic and against Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Overall you have to admit it looks better now, and covers the legends adequately enough.

Yet that is not the end of the problems with the article. Poor and unreliable sources remain, and whilst I don't disagree or contest some of the things they back up, they are still poor sources that need replaced with better ones. For example:


 * 1) . This is not a reliable source and treats fiction as fact. It really is a joke of a source. You did provide in your last edit a better source for, which should be used to replace this hideous source.
 * 2) . Does not back up the following statement it is attributed too: . The unacademic tourism source states . If there is such a legend, a citation from an actual historian would be better otherwise it is a tourism invention, which would be nothing new.
 * 3) . This is given as a citation for: This source is a mixture of fact and legend and unproveable nonsense masqueraded as fact and thus a poor and unreliable source. Very rarely do you see Irish heraldry use mottos (unless its sites selling heraldic memorabilia), and whilst I don't doubt that their war cry (motto) was "Lamh dearg abu", I'm sure if "Lámh Dhearg Éireann" is really the motto of the O'Neills then there is an academic source that states such.
 * 4) And on that. The source given for is . Seriously this source needs removed and replaced by the recent source you provided for something else entirely, the "History of the Irish Brigades in the service of France" one. Though it doesn't give the translation, which would also needed cited.

Away from the poor citations that need replaced with reliable academic citations I now need to respond to the issues with your edit-summaries and recent edits:


 * 1) . The reference only backed up the last part of the sentence it was attributed too, and I don't think I even added it in the first place. However as already stated and backed up by an actual historian, the first documented use of the Red Hand was by the de Burgh earl of Ulster. The same historian states the O'Neills only adopted it in the 14th-century, which other historians acknowledge was when the O'Neills for the first time ever claimed to be kings of Ulster. Hardly coincidence. I accidentally removed the pre-Norman stuff and forgot to reinsert that bit of information in my restructure and it needs restored when the article can be edited again. However it is even backed up by one of your recently used sources . That last long second sentence in the paragraph after the middle quote corresponds directly to the historical fact that I added into the article.
 * 2) Your follow up to my edit makes strange claims . You have no evidence that the statements are POV or anything. Simply your own personal aversion to the fact there is evidence to contradict your preferred narrative that you seek to enforce on the article. The content of your addition is also verbose and needless for the lede: ignoring the undue weight you are giving to a single tradition when several exist, a tradition that depending on the actual source has different protagonists, which is also remarked in the article body, you are repeating a story already in the actual article. Sure they are focusing on expanding on the legend, but it really belongs in the article of the body not the lede and belongs with other variants of the tale. There was also no need to alter "According to" to "With a theory according", it really is needless verbose. And it is already established that we are dealing with Gaelic Ireland so repeating "Gaelic Irish" is also verbose. Your last addition in this edit is also WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:OR with WP:WEASEL wording in an attempt to explain why there is no documented usage prior to that of the Normans. Your last alteration to what I added is also contrary to the source and entirely changes the entire context of the statement, no doubt as it contradicts your preferred narrative.
 * 3) This edit breaches Manual_of_Style seeing as you provide a direct quote yet don't actually use the Irish spellings stated in the quote! It also breaches WP:OR and WP:WEASEL considering the source doesn't state anything along the line of . At best all you should have provided was the direct quote and by whom and when it was written. I did fix and keep the direct quote as it is relevant to the article and the source backed up what I had added previously. All I removed was your OR.

I don't object to including the myths and legends surrounding the Red Hand and the stories that were created by the annalists and such for the O'Neills to legitimise their conquest of Ulster and usurpation of the title "ri Ulad" that had died out with the MacDonlevy's. I do object however to original research, undue weight, synthesis, weasel wording, POV, ownership and alteration of sourced statements and false claims because they don't agree with what you wish to be the case. And your edits and edit summaries clearly show that you fall foul on all these policies.

If you can abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines in regards to those issues then there is no problem especially if we keep the historical facts to the "Historical" section and the legends to the "Traditional" section. That way the article and thus readers win. If you can't then I will have to seek outside input and possibly administrative action, but I would rather work with you than go that route. Mabuska (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whilst the article is locked from editing, I will copy it into my sandbox and continue to work on it over the next week so that I can show diffs of what further changes and alterations can and should be done to continue bringing this article up to an acceptable standard. Mabuska (talk) 18:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Latest work in progress
. Here is the latest version of the work in progress I've done for this article done in my sandbox. I have more sources to add more to the article and it still needs further work for the stuff that existed in the article prior but I have taken into account your concern about me supposedly taking the Gaelic heritage of the symbol away by putting a line stating its roots in Gaelic Ireland before the first documented use of the symbol - which I also tweaked as that is only in surviving records as who knows what earlier records that were lost may have said, and contrary to your claim of "notorious" oral history, the Irish started recording things around the 6th century (hence why before that is called the prehistoric period of Irish history). And also contrary to your stated belief that I am removing the Gaelic heritage of the symbol, you will find a lot more about the Gaelic heritage of the hand especially in regards to the centuries old dispute over who has the right to bear it and the origin stories they detail, all of which I and even probably you had never heard of before.

Let me know what you think so far. I do however note your silence since the article was locked to editing and your input here would be appreciated and in your favour as otherwise once the article is unlocked you will have little vindication for reverting the work in progress I am doing and presenting here for you as I go along as you didn't participate and collaborate with me during this period. Mabuska (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Latest version at present. Nothing major but still the latest before I sign off. Mabuska (talk) 23:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Latest version at present. Mostly a restructure with some info added and removed and some citation tidying. Mabuska (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Latest version. Quite a bit of extra information, such as the "Other uses" section. Mabuska (talk) 12:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Latest version as of today. This will be the version inserted into the article upon the block expiring unless you wish to voice any concerns or issues with it. Mabuska (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually this version will be used. Got rid of some of the dodgy references, unsourced stuff, fixed other refs, added more info to and rejigged slightly the other uses, and added information from the then The O'Neill in 1908 where he explicitly state's that they adopted the Red Hand from the Magennis' into the dispute section. Mabuska (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I am collating information and in discussions with historians and academics on the topic, hence a rather belated reply. What I am dubious about; and it seems to be somewhat a universal agreement with me in this issue with those in consultation, is namely the claims of its ties of 'Cruithin' origin, its favourable prominence with the McGuinness clan only and the oral Gaelic history being relegated. I don't mind proper references being given if it is warranted, but over the coming weeks I will add to the article in due course bit by bit. I hope such contributions won't be removed as before (such as references from the English historian Peter Berresford Ellis) and I hope references such as 'Clogher Historical Society' pamphlets won't be relied upon either. Eireabu (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Original research does not count and all the points i made at the start in rehards to your edits still fully apply and considering the many issues with your previous additions I'd like you to either: copy the article into your sandbox and add in your stuff there so we can view and discuss it, or post it here in a new discussion on this talk page. That way any issues can be sorted first of all. I'm happy enough to keep mine in my sandbox for the time being to address any issues you may have, though I do find it curious you only responding now once the block is due to expire. Mabuska (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Obviously you haven't bothered looking at the works in progress I posted during the past month going by your comments. On oral history being relegated you will see the large amount of info in my sandbox versions that derive from poems by Gaelic Irish poets who penned their works no doubt based on that oral tradition. Still if a poor angelfire site and Ripleys Believe It Or Not are what you deem worthy sources that trump historical societies and the Royal Irish Academy amongst others then I must seriously doubt your judgment. I suppose you will also reject The O'Neills statement that they adopted it from the Magennis' too? All sides must be presented and I am doing that regardless of whether you like or accept it or not. Mabuska (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll end in this thought though: it's curious why the tale of the race to the land and chopping off of the hand to win it wasn't used to vindicate the O'Neill claim to the symbol in the 1689 poetic dispute. When does this story actually originate? Must be a later invention? Can your experts provide an answer for the article? Mabuska (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You also need to stop with the unsubstantiated claims and puffery you fill your comments and edits with. Firstly the Clogher Record published by the Clogher Historical Society is not a pamphlet, it is a historical journal. The volume in question here is Vol. 17, No. 3, 2002, which consists of 188 pages of that years journal, with Schlegel's own work in consisting of 61 of those pages. That is hardly a pamphlet. Indeed the Clogher Record is part of the renowned JSTOR collection. If you want to know what JSTOR is then see . Please provide a real objection to the source rather than making things up. Also in regards to Ellis - they are a popular historian not an academic historian and prone to making major mistakes, for example read this criticism the source you provide (Erin's Own Blood) by Sean Murphy MA, Centre for Irish Genealogical and Historical Studies.
 * What does this mean? It means that I have provided evidence that your source may have other flaws and can't entirely be trusted. You haven't provided any evidence in regards to Schlegel or the Clogher Recored. Mabuska (talk) 11:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Latest version inserted into article
I added the most recent work (done today, mostly minor fixes, more sourcing and cutting down) I've done into the article. If you give it a good looking over you will see I have taken your concerns into account:
 * You state that its ties to "Cruithin" (why you felt the need to put it in brackets I don't know) is dubious. Well most references to the Red Hand in the article point to the Ui Eachach and the Magennis', and well the Magennis' were the lords of Ui Eachach, and the Ui Eachach are according to contemporary and modern historians part of the Cruthin of Ulaid. Maybe you would prefer we use the sole name used in annals to denote the Cruthin after 773AD instead, the Dál nAraidi? It makes no difference as they are one and the same unless your using Dál nAraidi to specifically refer to the dynasties of Magh Line or the in Tuaiscirt. Regardless I only mention Cruthin three times in the latest version, two times when stating what tribe the Uí Eachach Cobo belonged to, and in O'Curry's statement on Lugaid Lámderg.
 * Why the Magennis/Ui Eachach have favourable prominence of all the Ulaid clans to the symbol? I don't know. Obviously the medieval bard Maol Sheachluinn na n-Uirsgéal Ó hÚigínn knows why. Obviously the Mac an Bhaird bardic family know why. Are you doubting the "notoriously oral" history preserved by the bards even when they write it down?
 * The oral history is actually greatly expanded upon and it is ironic that there are bards that refer to the symbol belonging to the Ui Eachach/Magennis'. Also it is synthesis, original research and downright deceptive and misleading to try to imply that the reason why there is no mention of the Red Hand prior to the Norman use of the symbol in the 13th century is because of "notoriously oral" tradition when the historic period of Ireland (the written history) started around the 5th century! Though to take your concern into account I changed the statement to with the addition of "surviving" because obviously not all written documents survived the passage of time, especially those from before the 11th century and who knows what long lost texts might have said about the hand. I also stuck the rooted in Gaelic culture line from elsewhere in the article to the top of the section to cement its pre-Norman origin in Ireland.
 * If you do decide to provide stuff for the article I implore you to post it here first so it can be measured against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to ensure there is no synthesis, original research, weasel wording, undue weight and the like. Otherwise by simply putting it straight into the article with all the same issues as before will result in reverts once again as before, in which case you should abide by WP:BRD meaning if your challenge is contested, discuss it before reinserting so the issues can be sorted! Mabuska (talk) 22:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 August 2017
Remove non-free images File:Ulster rugby badge.png and File:Tyrone gaa.jpg being used in Red Hand of Ulster. Non-free content is almost never allowed to be used in image galleries per WP:NFCC because such use is considered to be decorative, and the way these files are being used not an exception to WP:NFG. Moreover, these files do not have the separate specific non-free use rationales required for this article by WP:NFCC and a valid rationale cannot be written for either image the way they are being used. So, they should be removed per WP:NFCCE. Links to the stand-alone articles for each entity represented by the logo is more than sufficient per item 6 of WP:NFC and there are more than enough examples using freely licensed Commons images that removing two non-free images would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding in any way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Pinging locking admin to help you. Mabuska (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. They've been removed. Canterbury Tail   talk  12:12, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 August 2017
The file File:Ulster GAA.svg was deleted from commons 9 August 2017 so should be removed as an example. KylieTastic (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Canterbury Tail   talk  19:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)