User talk:Nora lives/Archive IV

Wifes of Donnchad
Hi Din, noticed you just wrote about Donnchad mac Briains wife Cacht. What do you make of Driella of Wessex? Now, if Donnchad had some kind of alliance with Godwin, Earl of Wessex that's something that has been completely missed by modern historians, I must say I'm a bit sceptical. She is mentioned by Thomas Moore when he (mistakenly) reports that the Godwinesons took refuge with Donnchad (they were in Leinster with Diarmait), and is further reported by John O'Hart, who doesn't (as far as I could tell) give his source for including her. I can't find traces of her in neither Irish nor English (near)contemporary sources. So my question is really: What you know about O'Hart, is he normally a reliable source? I hadn't heard of him before, but then again - I'm really not up-to-speed on genealogies and such. Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd rather talk about what you think of your friend Deacon's new definition of original research, which he's tagging up my articles with, including your own contributions to Ottir Iarla. Now the Irish annals have graduated from being mostly reliable medieval secondary sources to genuine primary ones? Because I prefer them? We sometimes call them primary because they're old, for the general reader, but it's not like they're praise poetry.


 * I'm sceptical about Driella too. O'Hart did the best he could and was not unlike the earlier Duald Mac Firbis, reporting pedigrees and traditions as he found them. Likely Driella had become a tradition among some of the O'Briens themselves, perhaps originally to replace the Norse-Irish Cacht. DinDraithou (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I commented at the talk page, pluss added some more ref's there. The Annals should be used with some caution, and preferrable in conjunction with secondary sources - if I remember correctly Eleanor Hull used the Annals as her sources that Munster was ruled jointly by a priest and a poet after Brians death - both had been called ("of all Munster"). I do not think using Todds edition of CGG as a source for what's written in CGG is very "original" though... Finn Rindahl (talk) 02:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It depends on the indivdual annal entry but that is obvious. What Deacon had the idea to do was change the definition of original research to wreck my articles. He's seen the annals used just like I have by plenty of expert editors before, including you, and Angus, a fellow admin. You also spent some time as one in the Norwegian project, right? This is a case of hounding and deliberate damage and I won't stand for it. If he continues I might send a proper letter. If I was a lesser person I would go through his articles and contributions and probably find case after case. But I don't mess with other people's shit like that. Nor do I care about him enough. The guy just needs to stop following me. All of our interaction that I can recall has each time been initiated by him. What does that say? He even sent me an email a while back telling me his ancestral background and that he was at the forefront of research in some unspecified field, so I should trust his intentions towards me. WTF? I need a fucking restraining order against him. DinDraithou (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It looks like Deacon's done it, Finn. I don't have the time right now, but he'll be reported for this tomorrow. Please watch Bissett family (Ireland) especially and also Cacht's article. This is hounding or worse. DinDraithou (talk) 04:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously he didn't know he was tagging your contributions to Ottir Iarla. DinDraithou (talk) 04:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey look, everyone: No_original_research/Noticeboard. DinDraithou (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look around and added some comments. As an additional general remark, reverting OR-tags and making comments against other editors like you did against Fifelfo at one of the discussions isn't really helping... Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoever that is does not belong in the discussion. Back to the topic, my accuser has been proven to have been dishonest with the community and I have more or less won, since I seriously doubt there will be any change in policy, which would have to retroactively apply to the contributions of a respected admin, Angus, and so on, and various good and featured articles. I have plenty more examples for the community. That I have been hounded is proven. DinDraithou (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2011 (UTC)