User talk:Fergananim/ArchiveIV

Rónán mac Colmáin
Have a peek and check that Rónán mac Colmáin makes sense to you. Imagine being evil enough to have two people called Rónán mac Colmáin in the same place at the same time, more or less. Just trying to make our lives difficult that is! Mac Cairthinn mac Coelboth looks good. Were you planning to write Uí Enechglaiss and Dáibhí Ó Cróinín? I'll try and bodge something up on Brega at the weekend. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Good to hear from you. We've already got a Cerball mac Dúnlainge article, but it could do with your expert attention! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Archive?
Hi Ferg, long time no message etc. Hope all is well. I need some advice. How do you archive old versions of your talk page? Jdorney 10:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

The Carricks and the Tyrones
I posted this originally for Angus, but thought you too might be interested. Just writing to see if you know about G. W. S. Barrow's new belief regarding the decent of Robert I. The theory is that Nicholas, the son of Donnchad mac Gille Brigte, earl of Carrick, married the daughter of Niall Ruadh O'Neill, giving the following genealogies:


 * Niall Ruadh O'Neill
 * Brian mac Neill O'Neill
 * Domnall mac Brian Ó Néill, the kinglet who arranged the crowning of Edward de Brus


 * Niall Ruadh O'Neill
 * x inghean Neill Ruaidh O'Neill
 * Niall mac Donnchada, earl of Carrick
 * Marthok inghean Neill, countess of Carrick
 * Robert I, King of Scots & Edward, Lord of Galloway/Earl of Carrick

This makes Donal O'Neill the granduncle of Edward, which would help explain Edward's probable fosterage with him. Anyways, Barrow arrived at this conclusion after consulting with a genealogist named B. MacEwen. It's in the new edition of his Robert Bruce book. It would also potentially make King Robert the great, great grandson of Rory O'Connor, as Niall Ruadh's wife was his daughter. It was mentioned here before the publication of Barrow's new edition. I haven't yet decided whether or not I buy it. "Nicholaus" seems a little far-fetched a name for that cultural millieu (... who else would have had that name?), and the idea that "Nicholaus" was just an attempt to culturize the foreign name "Niall" seems a pretty good explanation. On the other hand, the argument has convinced Barrow and does have its strengths. If true, it does make you wonder how "Scottish", as opposed to trans-channel, the Carrick world view really was ... esp. considering Robert's marriage with the de Burgh earls of Ulster. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Usage of "Irish people" category
If an article is in a category of "Natives of county Meath", or other counties, I wouldn't feel it needs categorizing with "Irish people" as well. Since "Irish people by counties" is a sub category of "Irish Poeple". I removed your last category edit on Turlough O'Carolan. I would use "Irish people" only if I didn't know their native county. Please tell me if you disagree. Spelemann 15:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I refer to my comments on User talk:Spelemann. Cheers! Spelemann 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

howdy
Hi Ferg. A (belated) Happy New Year to you too! Judging by your 'woo hoo' you're obviously in good form?

I tried cutting and pasting my talk page, but the fecking browser won't allow me to. I'll have to do it on another computer if I want to archive all the old talk stuff.

Yes, I'm getting a bit sick of wikipedia. In one way this is my own fault for getting outside the area which I genuinely know a lot about (early modern IRl) and getting sucked into the modern NI articles. The endless pov battles over these will take it out you after while. I'm also getting a bit concerned that editing wiki is getting in the way of doing other things such as, for example, getting on with my life!

Oh, like the Category:1346 in Ireland, but I think it should be an article 1346 in Ireland not a category page.

A query however, when are you going to resume work on the Irish Bruce Wars 1315-1318 page?? I wait expectantly, as ever...

Tog go bog e,

Jdorney 15:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I mean that the article should have the content and should be listed in the category. Category pages are not supposed to be articles in their own right. So I went and created 1346 in Ireland and categorised it as 1346 in Ireland.

take it handy (as they say in these parts), Jdorney 15:55, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:
The only problem I see with that article is that if you were to do it for all years, it take you a very long time and quickly get tedious. :) Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Four Courts Press boys might sue if you quote too much of their book! Even the UCC stuff is copyrighted is some part, although the Hennessy and MacCarthy edition of AU is presumably long since in the public domain. It seems reasonable enough to me, for whatever my opinion is worth. Off at a tangent, what brought on the idea of permanently banning trolls and the like? In theory it's a good idea, but I suspect the devil would be in the details: who's a troll and abuser? All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You might wanna stick references on particular entry quotations, both to avoid copyright violations and direct the reader, but it's good the way it is already. Is this year special to you, or are you planning on creating similar pages for every year? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm very sorry to hear that. I hope it's only a temporary thing, rather than a permanent thing. I think the year thing is a very good idea, it's just a shame that there is not the manpower among the Scottish or Irish medievalists to complete such a project adequately. Can I ask what sort of thing you've written in the real world? BTW, article David I of Scotland has been rewritten, and is an FAC at Featured article candidates/David I of Scotland; if you have time to read it and you find any issues, these please lemme know. All the best. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 12:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

List of years in Ireland
Fergananim said: Let me know what you think of this 1347 in Ireland; am I going into too much depth, wandering too much from other Year's in style?

Hi there Fergananim, it's nice to talk to you again after so long. I have headed up 1347 in Ireland so that it looks similar to the years back in the 19th and 20th centuries as how we had agreed previously. Otherwise, that looks like nice work, and it's good to be able to have a Table of Contents in there as 1347 is covered in a surprising amount of detail.

Thank you for getting in contact and I await your reply. Bobo. 17:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing guidelines
Hello, I thought I would remind you of a few article editing guidelines: Thanks and best regards, Icemuon 14:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please use an edit summary when making edits. This is useful for other editors to see at a glance what were the changes you made.
 * If you make minor edits, please check the "Minor Edit" checkbox right above the Save Page button.
 * Please use the Preview button (right beside the Save Page button) when making changes, so that you don't have to make numerous minor edits one right after another. This keeps the history smaller and allows other editors to see more easily what changes you made.

Whoa!
Hey! Firstly, how odd to see someone who has such similar interests to my own. I'm currently back in Ireland visiting my family in Connemara (actually in Mullingar at moment) and Donegal etc. Your 1347 is excellent - good job! Have you read Cahill's "How the Irish saved civilisation" ? I thought it was excellent as an intro to the monastic period. Got to see the Book of Kells for the first time 4 days ago...blew me away. Dublin pretty much bored the sh*t out of me (I'm from London so all cities are more or less the same) but I fell in love with the Chester Beatty and National Museum Collections. I might have to pinch a load of your icons off your user page, I'm afraid. Anyhow..nice to 'meet' you...now time to get practising on the fiddle I am determined to play.Iamlondon 01:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Hello Gaillimh
Indeed, I don't think the banner accurately reflects the the IRA at all and is a good-faith, albeit misguided attempt by someone who appears very enthusiastic, but knows very little about Ireland herself. Having said all this, the fellows over there on the WikiProject have been doing good work and I'm sure that once they learn a bit more, they'll see that some of their symbols are not at all appropriate for the scope of their project. Thanks a lot for the message and feel free to get back in touch  gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 18:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The Esteemed Mr Forbes
I was just reading it and nitpicking over your spelling. If you use Firefox you can get a nifty on-line spell-checker add-on gizmo. It's a bit rubbish, but better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. A damn fine article by the looks of it. Hope this means you're feeling a bit better. I'll get back to my nitpicking! Cheers, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh
Fergananim said: Just after finishing extensive revising of the above article. I aim to keep on at it over the coming weeks and submit it for peer review. Would very much appreciate your thoughts.

As ever, good to hear from you.

I can't say anything personally for the factuality of the article, but it certainly looks comprehensive and is worth seeking the opinions of more knowledgeable editors than myself. The link http://www.comhranadtonn.com/lectures/Mac%20Firbishigh.html doesn't appear to be working, however, and comes up merely as a blank screen on my computer.

I am particularly impressed that, in spite of the article containing sixteen comprehensive sections, you have managed to keep it below 30Kb. That's some good condensing.

All the best, and I hope you find the results you are after. Bobo. 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. Have you finished it, or is it still in a process? If you're aiming for FA, you'll need to use footnotes, and prolly put one or two pictures. In case you didn#t know, there is an article  on the ODNB, Nollaig Ó Muraíle, ‘Mac Fhirbhisigh, Dubhaltach Óg (c.1600–1671)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 22 Feb 2007. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 01:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Nollaig Ó Muraíle
Fergananim said: No article on Mac Fhirbhisigh would be complete without one on Nollaig. We're not short on good historians here in Ireland, but for my money Nollaig is head and shoulders above many. Besides citing a few more of his works, and maybe adding a photo, this article is nearly complete.

This one needed a thorough copyedit for spelling and grammar, but otherwise it's looking good. So long as I haven't missed any spellings of Gaelic terms, all of the spelling and grammar errors have been wiped out, but the article looks pretty comprehensive considering it's a single person's work. Bobo. 03:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Fergananim said: Much appreciated, Bobo. My mind is'nt always up to grammer and the like, so I do appreciate any and all help. Cheers!

They’re all looking pretty good now. The articles are comfortable to read and comprehensive and enjoyable to read through. Thank you for filling in this corner of Wikipedia. Bobo. 16:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Historians
Hi Ferg,

Congratulations on two excellent articles. Well structured, well written and well researched. I once heard NOM give a talk on DMF in UCD. Two very interesting characters in their own right. I think they still neem some minor copyediting though, I'll have a look at them for this.

Jdorney 10:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RE: Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh and Nollaig Ó Muraíle

 * Wow, great articles! I gave Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh a look at did a small copyedit to the first few sections.  Unfortunately, I know nothing of Mac Fhirbhisigh himself, but I'd be honoured to work on it with you, providing a fresh set of eyes for copyedits, or digging up some sources.  I'll also gladly take at the Ó Muraíle in the upcoming days.  Cheers!   gaillimh  Conas tá tú? 19:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism etc
Yo Ferg,

I read your thoughts on vandalism on the village pump page and more or less agree. Personally I am sick to death of constantly fighting POV battles on wikipedia. Partly this is because of the articles I work on, many of which are contentious. See Kingsmill massacre, for a recent example of a prolonged pov battle (the article not the actual event that is).

However what is really wearying is having to scan all the articles I contribute to for petty vandalism and ill-informed mistakes (eg see recent edits on Taig). I recently lobbied to get he Oliver Cromwell article semi-protected, so that anon and newly registered users cannot edit it. Personally, I feel that all articles should be like this all the time. If unregistered users want to make legitimate changes, let them raise them first on the talk page. If they are genuine, as many will be, then the user can be enabled to edit. Equally valuably, editors can discuss how to integrate new infromation into the text before changes are made. If this was done then articles would not only be safer from vandalism, they would also in all probability be better written and more balanced.

le meas, Jdorney 11:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, what I'd like to see, as I've gone into above, is to have all articles given the protection that protected ones have now.

Jdorney 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Vowels
á é í ó ú Á É Í Ó Ú. Had to put them somewhere. Fergananim 17:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Over-categorisation
Hi Ferganim

I have been tidying up Category:Irish people by removing articles which are already categorised under one or more sub-categories, per Categorization #3: "Articles should not usually be in both a category and its subcategory".

I have left some articles in there, per Categorization and subcategories: "When an article is put into a subcategory based on an attribute that is not the first thing most people would think of to categorise it, it should be left in the parent category as well." But many of the articles you have added don't come anywhere near those criteria, such as Ben Briscoe: he was already in lots of appropriate sub-categories ithiut cluttering up the main category.

Also, please do remember to index when you add articles to categories. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that; will keep it in mind in future. By the way, was it you who reverted my edit to Notable Irish people? Cheers! Fergananim 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not me! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I notice that you are adding Category:Irish people to subjects who are already categorised as Natives of County XX. This is not necessary, in my opinion, as the natives of an Irish county are by definition Irish people.--Damac 11:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT magic word
Hi again, I thought I'd drop you another note, after I noticed that in some of your recent edits you were making unnecessary extra work for yourself, because you seemed to be unaware of the purpose of the magic-word "DEFAULTSORT".

It's a relatively new addition to the wikimedia software, which avoids the need to separately add a sortkey to each category entry. So in the article Nollaig Ó Muraíle, in this edit you added sortkeys to the category entries, creating this effect:

That's just duplication, so (as well as removing the category "Irish people", I have removed the sortkey from each category, to produce this result:

... which has exactly the same effect, and is both less cluttered and leaves less room for error.

Hope this helps! I'm sorry if the above sounded like a reproach or anything, because it's not intended to be that at all, just a helpful pointer to a way of saving you a bit of work and helping to keep the article source uncluttered, and unfortunately it has not been very well-documented.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Slow progress...
...with Flann Sinna. It would be nice to have it on the front page for the 1091th anniversary (significant, no?) of his death. When I get that done, I'm meaning to go back and fix up Áed Finnliath and Niall Glúndub, and maybe write something on Mrs Niall, Gormlaith. Here's a stupid question you'll likely know the answer to: why is Muirechertach, son of Niall Glúndub, called "Muirchertach of the Leather Cloaks"? Hope you're feeling passably well. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I bodged up a quick Kings of Brega page, but as it's only based on the table at the back of Frank Byrne's book, it's anything but complete. Do you have a complete list? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Saving Sir Richard
If you would please, have a look at this. Thanks M'friend!--(The IP formally known as Ghost)70.171.22.74 13:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom of Breifne
Yep, it was me who wrote the article. Got lots of questions about it and visited Breffni park for a game recently so decided to write more about it.

Jorgenpfhartogs 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Hello
Hello! Thanks for your message. It'll take me a little while to respond properly as Ive just had a family funeral followed by a heart attack and hospital procedure, so I nearly ended up with my own version of Sutton Hoo!!!! On the mend now but confined to occasional visits to Internet cafe. Will be in touch ain a week or two. best, Dr Steven Plunkett 10:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again! I am now back at my own terminal and slightly more coherent... My ONLY substantial publication is 'Suffolk in Anglo-Saxon Times' 2005, Tempus publishing - an attenpt to construct a narrative history around the East Anglian part of the story from late Roman times down to the death of St Edmund. It has some errors but I think it could be useful for some people to 'get in' to the period. (It is a chorography, i.e. uses artefacts and topography, archaeology, historical sources, genealogy, etc etc, all together.) This is what led me into Wikipedia, as I found some articles were citing me as a reference but in fact stating 'facts' which were nothing to do with me and (in my opinion) erroneous. So, where I was the ONLY source, I thought I'd better correct those... and so it began. I have written about a reconstructed warp-weighted loom (Anglo-Saxon type) in Suffolk Institute Proceedings, and also there (with John Fairclough) about the Roman shore-fort at Walton near Felixstowe. Anglo-Saxon metalwork in the Ipswich hinterland in the George Henderson Festschrift volume'New Offerings, Ancient Treasures)', Ed. Will Noel and Paul Binski (Sutton Publishing 2001), and something about Mercian sculpture and East Anglian communications in the original Sally Foster Ed. volume on the St Andrews Sarcaphagus (Four Courts, Dublin, 1998). I also did a book with Mark White about a 1903 Palaeolithic excavation in Ipswich (called 'Miss Layard Excavates', Western Academic & Specialist press 2005, find on Amazon). Otherwise my publications are mostly about Ipswich or about East Anglian archaeologists, biographies etc. I wrote the main exhibition text and translations for the Sutton Hoo Visitor Centre (for the National Trust) and the little National Trust Guidebook for Sutton Hoo as well. Hope this is of some use, Dr Steven Plunkett 23:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Kings of Connachta
Thanks for expanding on Angus Mclellans answer to my question concerning Máel Sechnaill, and please give my regards to Donnchadh Ó Corráin if you meet him again ;-)

I was looking at the Kings of Connacht with the intention of writing something about the historical kingdom of Connachta for no:wiki. Two things stroke me: Firstly, might it not be better with this map from commons instead of the map showing the current boundaries of the province and counties. It's a bit to colorful for my taste, but the best I have found so far (If you believe it to be incorrect in any fashion, please let me know - I've used it in several articles on no:wiki).

Secondly, Brian Borus mother is supposed to have been the daughter of Murchad, a king of (western(?)) Connachta. He does not seem to figure on this list though - do you know anything about that?

Regards, Finnrind 22:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Leath Cuinn
Made some changes to this article, created by you back in 2005. Propose that the article be moved to Leath Cuinn and Leth Moga, as it is Leth Moga is a redirect to Leath Cuinn. Is it Leath or Leth btw??

If I have gotten anything wrong here, please let me now as I have made a translation of this in no: Yours, Finnrind 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Geoffrey Keating (for what it is worth) describes Brians mother as Beibhionn, d. of Archaidh, son of Murchadh, son of Maonahc, king of West Connacht. (english online version from CELT) I presume "ingen" is the female equivalent of "mac", and that it can't be used as "ua"? Anyway, this is a minor detail, and I've got lots of mayor stuff to sort out before I really can spend to much time on those.


 * I mentioned a possible merger of Airgíalla and Kingdom of Airgíalla (Oirialla) to Angus earlier - he said you would be the man to ask. Se also my comments on Leath Cuinn above (doing my best to keep others busy... ;-) )Finnrind 18:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Flann Fina mac Ossu
Hello there! Thanks for the note earlier, and apologies for taking an eternity to reply. Great work, as always, with Kings of Brega, much appreciated! If only Flann Sinna was doing as well, but I've got a bit bogged down there, so I tried my hand at Flann Fina mac Ossu of wisdom fame. Would you have the time to take a peek at Aldfrith of Northumbria? I've managed to find some of the sayings of Flann Fina and add them to the article. Does it seem ok to you? More piccies? Less trivia? Let me know if you see anything that needs a fix up! As ever, I hope you're doing well, or as well as can be expected. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland
Fergananim said: Hi! I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers.

As ever, great to hear from you once again. From the state of flux the article in question was in before, you look to have sourced and condensed this down into a very enjoyable historical trek through ancient times. I've performed a minor copyedit on the article, and it now appears to be thorough and precise.

(If my GCSE history teacher knew that this was the first time I used the words "enjoyable" and "history" in the same sentence since doing my exams, he'd probably have me hung, drawn and quartered by now! All the best!) Bobo. 14:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there, looks fine to me. It's amazing that there wasn't something there already, but would Scotti be better than Scots. I have gone a bit rusty on part of the histories, so i'm not sure on that. Otherwise a very nice addition, and reads well. I got a bit of writers block on my last addition to the Ireland page. If I don't get around to it, could you have a look, it's about monarchs and Brehons.   Taramoon     16:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your comment about the name of the Celts is right. Of course it is very difficult to know what they called themselves since there is not much of a written record. Try not to get this point muddled up with the other important point being made at this point: Did people actually invade (or migrate), or did the people who were already there simply take up the language and customs of other people through trade or contact with them? Was it really the people who travelled, or just the language and customs?

The section on the Scots, Attacotti and Deisi is interesting and worth having there, but as with any wikipedia statement would be best if you could introduce references to a published source, so that any reader that wants to follow it up or verify it can go to the source and see who has described these particular settlements.

I found the bit about Dal Riata slightly confusing, where you say that they 'began settlement leading to what would become Scotland'. Wasn't there anyone there before this? And maybe what became Scotland (as we call it) has grown out of various different origins? Maybe a few more words here would explain your meaning better. A good example of a place where a reference would help to support what you are saying!

Hope this is helpful. Best wishes, and thanks for your kind remarks Dr Steven Plunkett 17:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Your addition seems to the point and relevant for the article (much more relevant than the rather lenghty discussion about genetics, but thats just my personal opinion...). I agree wiht Dr Steven Plunkett that the Dal Riata passage is somewhat confusing. Lookin at the article Dal Riata I also see that there seem to be some discussion about the Dal Riatan settlement.
 * I'm personally a strong supporter of citations, when you write that there "is strong evidence that the Ulaid occupied the Isle of Man over much of this era" a reference could be helpful, especially since this is one of the "lacks of historical information" in History of the Isle of Man.
 * A wikifriend of mine recommended me Barry Cunliffe: Facing the Ocean (Oxford 2001), containing the chapter «Raiders and Settlers in the Irish Sea: 350-500» which is supposed to deal with these questions. I'm just mentioning it, in case you were not aware of this book. I did not follow my friends recommendation, and haven't read it myself. So, alas, that's all I can contribute on this matter. Sorry I couldn't be of more help, regards! Finnrind 18:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * (BTW, I like the edit you made to History of Ireland today, though it might be a little strong to leave Clontarf completely out of it. Myth is also an important part of history... Regards, Finnrind 18:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC))

Your request over edits
Helloooow Nameless One. Keeping well?

My knowledge of this period is shallow, and I'm not sure how I can help you on this. I'll just confine it to best WP policy.

This edit makes WP sense. There is a typo.

This edit doesn't seem controversial, but it covers a lot of ground, so I'd stick in a citation. I've never heard of the Great Conspiracy, and a citation plus an external link would be good for people like me who need to follow things up before we're sure that WP is sure of itself.

Putting in citations along with the edit is like making up your accounts as income and expenses arise. Leaving the paperwork to the evening of the Revenue's deadline guarantees stern warnings and a brain-breaking effort at retracing your steps. That's WP's Achilles heel.

Hope this helps.--Shtove 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Scots, Attacotti, and Deisi
Hi Fergananim! I think it's a great addition to the article, and I've gone ahead provided a reference for the new section. Thanks a lot for the heads up. Cheers! gaillimh Conas tá tú? 23:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RE: Scots, Attacotti, and Deisi
I agree with the tribesman that it's a great addition. A few loose remarks though. There was warfare between different British and Irish Celtic tribes well before the Roman invasion. These tribes fought between themselves too. The adaptation of Roman culture by some of the British tribes led to a military advantage for those tribes and a financial and military backing by the Romans who had a huge interest in Celts fighting amongst each other. The Irish tribes were attracted by the wealth of the Romano-British and often went pillaging in Britannia. Slave-trading and cattle-rading were common those days. The Laigin (Leinster), Déisi (Waterdford) and Ulaid (Ulster) were some of the most succesful raiders and they established kingdoms in the north, west and south of Wales but also on the North-west coast of England (what is now the merseyside). The connection between the Uliadh and the Isle of Man is obvious but some seem to think that the Dál Riata were actually driven out of Ireland by more powerful tribes, such as the Ulaidh, and they drove the native Picts away. These Irish tribes were often suprior to the (possibly older) native Scottish tribes.The Romans gave them the name Scottii.

Once again congratulations on a great addition. Jorgenpfhartogs 12:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Brian Boru's mother
Hi Finnrind,

You were asking about Brian Boru's mother, Bé Binn. As mentioned by Ferganim she was of the Muinter Murchada branch of the Uí Briúin Seólai, one of the three main divisions of the Uí Briúin dynasty (the Síl Muiredaig actually belonged to a different division of this dynasty, the Uí Briúin Aí). Her father was Aurchad son of Murchad who died in 945 as king of West Connacht according to the Annals of Ulster, and king of the Uí Briúin according to the Annals of Inisfallen. (The Uí Briúin kingship would have been a sub-kingship under the Uí Briúin Aí (Síl Muiredaig) over-kingship of Connacht.)

Aurchad's off-spring appear to have married well: Bé Binn's sister Cres is claimed to have been the wife of the Síl Muiredaig king of Connacht, Tadg son of Cathal (d. 956) and mother of his sons Conchobar (ancestor of the Ua Conchobair kings of Connacht), Máel Ruanaid (ancestor of the Ua Máel Ruanaid [later Mac Diarmata] kings of Mag Luirg, and Tadg (ancestor of the Uí Taidg an Teglaig branch of Síl Muiredaig). Another sister, Cainech, may have married into another branch of Uí Briúin Seóla, and been the ancestress of the rival Clann Coscraig sept of that dynasty.

Bé Binn was also the mother of Lochlann and Conchobar, sons of Máel Sechnaill (fl. 1006) of the Corcu Mruad people of North Munster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.100.253.15 (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

-- Sorry, I meant to add this to Finnrind's discussion page, not yours. Apologies.