Talk:Flann Sinna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Mac Leannáin Abu!

My hat's off to ye, Angus .... well it would but someone stole it. Try to get this as a Featured articles; it deserves it. Is mise le meas mor, Fergananim 12:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ... Nó, Mac Giolla Fhinnéin Abu?

Just wondering! Fergananim 12:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Far too kind. Not that I know, mac Gille Fhaolain so I was told. It would need an enormous amount of work to be FA quality, but maybe it will get there some day. Cheers ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, this ain't that far away. All it needs is a little expansion, broader source use, inline citations and a run through Peer Review. Getting an article to featured status can be a lot about people just voting for it, but I don't see why after that anyone would object. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 13:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been going through the stubs about the medieval high kings, and translating some of them to norwegian. I have been rather disappointed about their quality. Then I arrived here: If you dig enough dirt, you'll find gold eventually! This is a very good article, my only concern is that it will take me a week or so to translate it ;-) Finnrind 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some comments

Not a GA review; just some notes for consideration. I'm coming to this article with an almost complete ignorance of Irish history of the period, so take the comments for what they're worth. I also have a weakness for overexplaining and overqualifying, so you may want to discount some of my comments with that in mind. I'm also being as thorough as I can; let me know if I'm overdoing it. I'm not being critical, just trying to treat it as a FAC, and giving you that level of feedback.


  1. First section after the lead: I found the first sentence difficult. It introduces a great deal of information in a very condensed way; I think this could easily be three or four sentences. It discusses or mentions "an Uí Néill kingship of Ireland", which by implication is something more than just being king; two later kings both of whom have aliases and whose names don't explain much unless you already know what kind of king they were; then "Feidlimid mac Cremthanin" whose name is qualified twice, and then the Viking raids. I think this needs expansion, and a slightly gentler introduction for someone unfamiliar with the material.
  2. A map would certainly be nice, though I know this is hard to achieve. Some of the names aren't going to be familiar, even to some Brits; I'm British and I don't know where Inishowen is. You do have a link there, so that helps. I might see if I can put a map together later if you think it would be useful.
  3. I'm a bit confused as to which kingship you mean in a couple of places, or if they are equated at this time. The Kings of Tara article says it's not the same as High King of Ireland; is that correct? You use "High King of Ireland", "kingship of Ireland", "kingship of Tara", and "King of all Ireland"; are these all the same? As I understand the article, you're saying they are all the same, but I wanted to check because of the Tara article.
  4. "Annals of Ulster" -- you have a link, but how about a note on the date of composition or something about reliability? As I gather from that article, these annals were put together in the form we now have them six hundred years later; it would be good to quote some opinion on the reliability of the coverage of this period, since a reader might wonder just how authoritative the source is.
  5. "co feraib Érenn" -- does this mean "men of Ireland"? It seems so from context, but it appears to be an important point so I think it should be made explicitly. And is "However, what is noteworthy about Máel Sechnaill's expansionism, normal for Irish kings, is not that it happened, but the language used to describe it" an opinion that can be found in the source you cite? I actually don't like this sentence all that much; I think it could be compressed a bit. And why are we hearing about it in this paragraph? Is Flann Sinna (or his father's) reign a stage in the self-awareness of the Irish as a people? If so, I think it would be good to say so as you make the point.
  6. "passed back to the northern branch" -- is that "branch of the clan"? or something along those lines? I assume Uí Néill is a kin grouping of some kind. Looking at Uí Néill that appears to be right, but it doesn't say anything there about north or south (maybe it should and that's not your article's problem).
  7. "Máel Sechnaill's widow, Flann's mother, Flann (died 890), daughter of Dúngal mac Cerbaill, king of Osraige" So she had the same name as her son? That makes for a confusing sentence. I think this needs to be broken up a little, with explicit acknowledgement for the reader's benefit that Flann and his mother shared a name -- just "also named Flann" might work, at the right point in the sentence.
  8. "notable successes against the Vikings" -- could we get a parenthetic clause in here explaining the situation? It's the time of the Great Heathen Army in England, and I think it's worth saying "whose raids had been steadily increasing since X" or "who in the 860s dramatically increased their attacks on Ireland" or something. (I just made up those sentences; I don't know whether the Viking assault on Ireland was correlated in any way with the Great Heathen Armies.)
  9. "although there was no just and worthy reason for this" -- this makes me wonder if the annals have a systematic bias, like the Wessex bias in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Are these written by a partisan? Would that be worth noting?
  10. "the reign of his father-in-law" -- isn't Áed Finnliath his step-father, not his father-in-law?
    OK -- I wasn't paying enough attention here; he's both step-father and father-in-law. However, I think the change is good as we know for sure he's step-father and you haven't mentioned the marriage yet.
  11. "Flann's uncanonical marriage" -- this may be just me, but I don't like introducing new information as interesting as his marriage in a subsidiary clause in a sentence. And what was uncanonical about it?
    Rereading, I'd guess that marrying one's stepsibling was uncanonical -- if so, that would be interesting to mention. It's just that I didn't understand the problem first pass.
  12. "In that year the Teltown Fair was not held, a sign that Flann's authority was not unchallenged." A couple of things here. First, it seems that this is the same as the "great Fair of Tailtiu" mentioned earlier; I'd suggest either using the same name, or connecting them for the reader's benefit. Second, it seems odd to say his authority was challenged when you've just said he lost a battle. Have any historians explicitly connected the dots here and said the fair was not held because he lost the battle? If so, it would make sense to say so here. If not, then I guess we can't draw the deduction for ourselves, but at least it would be good to make this sentence refer to the defeat -- perhaps just "in another sign that Flann's authority was not unchallenged". (Is there a better phrasing to be found there than the double negative?)
  13. The chronology box is a nice touch, but that yellow is a bit strong -- could we tone it down to a more pastel colour?
  14. Lots of missing citations in the second half of the article.
  15. The prophecy is interesting, but I think it would be good to add a phrase of explanation -- as I understand it, the poem is substantially later, and is not really a prophecy. I hadn't heard of it and was willing to believe this was some early Nostradamus until I read the article, so a short note would be useful.
  16. You have one occurrence of "Niall Glundúb", with every other one being "Niall Glúndub".
  17. Looks like some debris from earlier editing: "This is a very different from the way".
  18. "A concrete testimony" -- I'd suggest just "Testimony".
  19. I know almost nothing about Gaelic languages, but from the little I've read of Welsh phonology I assume that "rí hÉrenn uile" and "rí Érenn" differ because the "h" comes from some phonetic rule; presumably referring to the following word since the prior word is the same. In any case, the difference is enough that I think you need to gloss both: currently you just gloss the former. It does like it means "king of Ireland", but readers unfamiliar with the topic will appreciate the help -- the first reference is a long way further up.
  20. Should that be "the Book of Durrow"?
  21. The chalice is rotated a bit in the image. I rotated a copy and uploaded another one: Image:Ardagh chalice 2.jpg. I'll let you decide if it's an improvement.
  22. The only other comment is to ask what can be said about Ireland during his reign that does not pertain to Flann Sinna himself. In other words, is there now coinage? Changes in trade? Any archaeological evidence of conditions or agricultural habits or burial styles? I see you're planning to add a section on sources -- I think that's a good plan, though I've not found universal agreement with it. Church history during this period? I know that in England it would be interesting to discuss how the king's reign connected with the clergy's tenure and goals; is that true here? Of course, there may be other articles on these topics, but perhaps any conclusions could be summarized or linked.

I'll stop there as I have to go to dinner -- let me know if this level of comment is useful; if so I'll have a go at the rest later. I'm enjoying the article, by the way! Mike Christie (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of time again; more later. Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that's it; I can't think of anything else. Thanks for a fascinating article, and I hope these notes are helpful. Mike Christie (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Some first pass comments (note that I changed Mike's list from bulleted to numbered to make the replies shorter), and yes, this level of detail is most useful.
1. Probably best resolved by adding a background paragraph or three.
2. I can add a map without too much difficulty as I have a rather flimsy Irish historical atlas.
3. Same as 1.
4. The Annals of Ulster article is misleading when it says "compiled" perhaps. The source of the annalistic material is The Chronicle of Ireland. The original material is likely contemporaneous for this period, but all surviving annals have been revised to a greater or lesser extent.
5. This does need fixing up.
6. More context will need to be added here, same as 1 and 3.
7. I'll rewrite to make clearer.
8. I'll expand this. On a connection between activity on the two islands in the 900s, yes, there is said to be one.
9. The Annals of Ulster do indeed favour the Uí Néill. Will add this in the to-be-written sources section.
10. Yes, Áed is Flann's step-father at that point, not necessarily his father-in-law. Changed.
11. Removed.
Thanks very much for the help, Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'll add more to the list above, keeping the enumeration going; feel free to post directly under my comments if that makes the conversations easier to follow. Mike Christie (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Date links

Sarah777's recent edit summary asked why full dates should be linked and years unlinked. Full dates should be linked per WP:MOSDATE. Linking years is, I believe, optional in MOS -- I can't find the right page at the moment but I think the rule is that each article makes this decision and it should not be changed without consensus on the talk page. I don't think year links are worth it, myself, and evidently Angus doesn't either. I assume the "years in Ireland" can't be used in full dates because of the requirement to link full dates in a standard way, but even if they can, I don't think they're useful, even if a couple weren't red links. Picking a subset such as "in Ireland" is arbitrary: what about "848 among the Uí Néill" or "848 in the British Isles" or "848 in Western Europe"? An interested reader is more likely to work through a history article and perhaps a timeline article. I think linked years are low-value. Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

For the full dates, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Do not use piped links for date elements that cause date formatting problems says what you'd expect, based on the heading: Do not pipe links to date elements that contain a month and a day e.g. [[20 June|20]] or [[20 June|June 20]] or [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]. Such piped links break the date formatting function. For years, I don't have any view one way or the other as a general rule. Here we've already got a timeline in the article and there is likely more info here than in the respective year-in-Ireland articles. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Bold and the Beautiful

... or some other soap which I know of only second hand.

I thought that the article would be helped by a family tree-type diagram, but I am at a complete loss to think of how to represent this. The soap opera-style relationships of the leading characters make it rather confusing:

  • Áed Findliath's mother was Gormlaith, daughter of Donnchad Midi, so that Áed and Flann are first cousins once-removed.
  • Flann's parents Máel Sechnaill and Land, Land later marries Áed Findliath.
  • Flann marries Gormlaith; Gormlaith is their daughter, Donnchad Donn and perhaps Conchobar their sons.
  • Flann's daughter Gormlaith marries Cerball mac Muirecáin and they are said to have been as unhappy as only a soap couple could be.
  • Áed's daughter Eithne (with Gormlaith Rapach, daughter of Muiredach mac Eochaid? she was the mother of Áed's son Domnall) marries Flann, they have at least one son, Máel Ruanaid.
  • Áed Findliath marries Máel Muire, his third (at least) wife, Niall Glúndub is their son.
  • Flann divorces (?) Eithne and marries Máel Muire, Áed's widow, Ligach is their daughter.
  • Eithne marries (or had already been married to) Flannacan mac Cellaig, they have a son called Máel Mithig.
  • Flann's daughter Gormlaith marries Niall Glúndub, second noces for them both.
  • Ligach marries Máel Mithig, Congalach Cnogba is their son.
  • The mothers of Flann's sons Óengus, Áed and Cerball are unknown, likewise his daughter Muirgel who was herself probably a soap opera villain.

Flann's relationship to his predecessor Áed Findliath is first cousin once-removed, step son and son-in-law and he marries Áed's widow. He is second cousin, step father and father-in-law of his successor Niall Glúndub. Following unhappy Niall, the subsequent kings are Flann's son (Donnchad), grandson (Congalach), distant cousin? (Domnall) and great-grandson (Máel Sechnaill).

A picture would be worth a thousand words here. Failing that, rather than banishing the Family section to the end, it should probably be at the start. Thoughts? Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be willing to have a go at this, but it might not be real soon. Let me know if you're trying to get this up for FAC, otherwise just nag me in a couple of months if I haven't started and nobody else has done it. Is everyone you want on the tree listed above? Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be great. Yes, I think everyone is mentioned; I cribbed some of it from Aine nic's website (well, I think it's hers) where there is stuff from the Banshenchas. I'm meaning to send this to FAC eventually, but I've a pile of stuff to do first and a lot of work to do here - incorporate all your comments from last year for a start - before then. And many thanks for picking up poor old Æthelred! He's been rather neglected. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)