 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Original research
editThe other tag is fine, but if you're going to add this one then you need to say why. So where do you see it? I do confess that probably not every statement can be taken from the references provided but none of it is really original, or at least I don't think so. The idea was to put enough in the stub so it wouldn't look worthy of deletion. What I did was perhaps a rather overly massive search for this purpose, got tired of it, and may have ended up including some material from sources I found but did not add. But OR is usually not my problem unless I am fairly familiar with the material and it happens basically by accident, and/or I get myself confused. Here my familiarity is limited.
So because that tag can damn an entire article, and especially a stub, it would be better if you would simply remove or modify what you don't like or think appears suspicious or whatever. Thanks. DinDraithou (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to get bored quickly lol ;-) Based on the case you've given i removed the OR tag but the other one is relevant as the references need matched to statements. I however don't think the OR tag damns the article as it does include references/notes so it wouldn't get deleted IMO. Mabuska (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing that, and I've added a cleanup tag to replace it. I do get bored quickly, especially if I get carried away with something and pile up too many sources too quickly. The result is usually messy. Also I don't even have six of the ten sources I list in the references section, having only discovered that they contain relevant material from previews, or footnotes in other sources, etc. DinDraithou (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right that the article would not get deleted with all the references there. But the title does sound a little silly and fantasy-esque. None of the alternatives are as satisfactory for a variety of reasons. DinDraithou (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for removing that, and I've added a cleanup tag to replace it. I do get bored quickly, especially if I get carried away with something and pile up too many sources too quickly. The result is usually messy. Also I don't even have six of the ten sources I list in the references section, having only discovered that they contain relevant material from previews, or footnotes in other sources, etc. DinDraithou (talk) 18:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
- I must admit the title does sound like something out of Lord of the Rings or something similar lol :-P Mabuska (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I almost vomited. Title changed. Of course now, unfortunately, it sounds phallic. Maybe a Gaelic title? DinDraithou (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- I must admit the title does sound like something out of Lord of the Rings or something similar lol :-P Mabuska (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
- This article still needs tidied up DinDraithou. I do think maybe calling it "Rod of office", "slat na ríghe" or just simply "slat" might be better than White Rod. Due to the source problem i don't know what sources even call it a White Rod, and if its even the commonest name for it. I see the term "rod of office" or similar in source but never "White Rod". Mabuska (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm leaving the project in three months and this article is not a priority. But if you read O'Donovan's appendix in Hy-Fiachrach, pp. 444-50, you will see it referred to as a white rod in an actual English language primary source. The article is yours to expand if you really care this much about it. I really don't. DinDraithou (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just care about having articles properly sourced with inline citations. So one source, from what i would say isn't the most reliable, as John O'Donovan isn't in various aspects, is used to back up white rod? Mabuska (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually O'Donovan is considered extremely reliable and for some things is the only source scholars now have. FitzPatrick thanks and praises him. He doesn't advocate the use of a particular term and if you look at those pages, which are part of a larger appendix, you will find that he's just compiled some old primary sources and so on. White Rod is found in the Early Modern English court document he provides. DinDraithou (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lol is he the most reliable when it comes to Irish derivations or translations of places, especially townlands? "John O'Donovans Letters from County Londonderry" would hint otherwise in several places :-P Mabuska (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- The point is that he was not a bad scholar. His derivations and translations are just old. The poor guy died in 1861! He was the only person in the field when it came to most of the material with which he was working. What I said a few months ago was in another context. You won't find a single Irish scholar who will say O'Donovan is even to a notable degree unreliable. As far as he is concerned he wasn't at all lazy or unprofessional. Rather he just didn't always have the best information available. But if you preview FitzPatrick at Googlebooks you'll find her citing these very pages in Hy-Fiachrach I'm referring you to. DinDraithou (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Lol is he the most reliable when it comes to Irish derivations or translations of places, especially townlands? "John O'Donovans Letters from County Londonderry" would hint otherwise in several places :-P Mabuska (talk) 22:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually O'Donovan is considered extremely reliable and for some things is the only source scholars now have. FitzPatrick thanks and praises him. He doesn't advocate the use of a particular term and if you look at those pages, which are part of a larger appendix, you will find that he's just compiled some old primary sources and so on. White Rod is found in the Early Modern English court document he provides. DinDraithou (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I just care about having articles properly sourced with inline citations. So one source, from what i would say isn't the most reliable, as John O'Donovan isn't in various aspects, is used to back up white rod? Mabuska (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'm leaving the project in three months and this article is not a priority. But if you read O'Donovan's appendix in Hy-Fiachrach, pp. 444-50, you will see it referred to as a white rod in an actual English language primary source. The article is yours to expand if you really care this much about it. I really don't. DinDraithou (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- This article still needs tidied up DinDraithou. I do think maybe calling it "Rod of office", "slat na ríghe" or just simply "slat" might be better than White Rod. Due to the source problem i don't know what sources even call it a White Rod, and if its even the commonest name for it. I see the term "rod of office" or similar in source but never "White Rod". Mabuska (talk) 13:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Eventual merge
editWhenever there is an article on Irish kingship or Gaelic kingship I think this should be merged into it. Since it was apparently such an important symbol it should feature prominently in the main discussion. Or I think so. This is just a suggestion. DinDraithou (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
- Seeing as the ancient Irish had a high reverence for trees and their "magical" properties and even had a tree alphabet, its not surprising they would use rods made of these trees as important symbols. It would fit well in there or where its at either way. Mabuska (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Extremely
editIs "extremely Gaelicized" not a bit weasely sounding? Mabuska (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- I can't believe you're asking this. No, it's not "weasely" in the context. See WP:WEASEL. Change it to "very" if you don't like it. I'm really trying to be done with this article. DinDraithou (talk) 17:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I had meant to change it at some point because, while quite accurate in the case of this Burke sept, some people naturally just find the word stronger than others do. But you didn't need to start a thread on it and accuse me (again) of using weasel words, which I resent because my knowledge of this particular boring subject is currently the superior. DinDraithou (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
- Calm down DinDraithou, i was only stating that word sounds weasely, not that it was. Maybe saying that it was too strong may have been better and less inflammatory for you. Your knowledge on the matter, whilst superior, has nothing to do with it, as it was only the choice of wording that was being questioned. I have read sources using "completely Gaelicised" which sounds just as accurate but not as strong. Mabuska (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
- Actually I had meant to change it at some point because, while quite accurate in the case of this Burke sept, some people naturally just find the word stronger than others do. But you didn't need to start a thread on it and accuse me (again) of using weasel words, which I resent because my knowledge of this particular boring subject is currently the superior. DinDraithou (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)