Talk:Fergus of Galloway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Is this original research?
"One theory is that Fergus was descended from a great pedigree of Gall-Gaidhel kings, who might have been known as Clann Dubgaill, claiming descent from a certain Dubgall. Adding believability to this view is the fact that the chief branch of descendants of Somairle mac Gilla Brigte took the name MacDougall, while the cognate name MacDouall was popular in Galloway. However, since the Argyll name comes only from after Fergus' time, this theory cannot be accepted."
In the above, who says "this theory cannot be accepted"? The author or a source? Why can it not be accepted? Just because a "name" comes after a certain time does not mean its roots did not originate earlier nor does it mean that the "name" did not exist prior to the accepted historical data. How much data was lost that may have substantiated the claim?
In this quote: "In light of the absence of other evidence, we have to accept that Fergus' father probably bore the name Somairle" is this a case of the absence of proof is proof of absence? (which by the way is false logic).
And here: "Writers in the late 19th and early 20th centuries had advanced the idea that Fergus was the childhood companion of David I at the Anglo-Norman court of King Henry I of England. This idea was given credence by his marriage to the daughter of King Henry I, his good relationship with David, and his friendliness towards Anglo-Norman culture.
In reality such a relationship is pure fiction. Fergus was almost certainly a native Galwegian."
Again, where is the reference. Why is it stated that this is pure fiction? How does the author demonstrate that it is pure fiction? As far as I can see it is an original assertion by the author.
I believe this article needs great scrutiny to assure that it is not original research. Sources need to be cited. It probably needs to be Wikified.