Talk:Iverni

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Ireland Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Ireland on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the priority scale.

Contents 1 Hibernia? 2 Belgae 3 Ptolemy 4 Cleanup: Original research/interpretation of primary sources 5 Merge?

[edit] Hibernia?

Why is there no mention of the theory that the Iverni gave the name Hibernia to Ireland? It is mentioned on lots of other Wiki pages. --Hibernian 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of "names" and the Iverni's influence on them - do we have a reference for the comment that County Cork and Cork derive their name from the "Corcu Loígde"? This comment conflicts with the Cork (city) article ("The city's name is derived from an Irish word corcach meaning 'marshy place'") and - frankly - everything I ever learned from primary school. Guliolopez 16:53, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belgae

Their association with the Belgae is now much in doubt? I was always told the Belgae were the first Celtic tribes to settle in Ireland before the Gaels arrived. Many references support that theory so I was surprised to find this sentence here. Jorgenpfhartogs 07:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The below comments were moved from the merged article Eueriio.

[edit] Ptolemy

I've marked the reference to Ptolemy with {fact} as the original text said that Ptolemy's account dated from c.325 B.C., however that date is about 400 years before Ptolemy was born. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy with that version of Ptolemy's map - he surely didn't mark "Emhain Macha" on it. -- Paul S 17:50 29 March 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.166.205 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup: Original research/interpretation of primary sources

To my reading, this article has considerable WP:OR, ESSAY, WP:TONE and other issues.

Firstly, there is (now) no definition or explanation given for the title - until almost the end of the article.

Secondly, from an Original Research perspective, the use of the qualifiers "probably", "seem to have", etc., suggest that much of the content is either contentious, or represents interpretation of other sources. Given the antiquity of the topic, some qualification of the accuracy of the content is perfectly understandable. However, there are better ways to represent "unknowns". Specifically, in such cases, it may be more appropriate to state the source and theory, rather than just expressing the theory blindly. (EG: Instead of "The newcomers probably overran the whole island", state (if accurate) that "O'Rahilly postulates that the Inverni were present throughout the island", etc.)

Finally, recent changes make the article read like an ESSAY style "exploration"/synthesis of other published works. For example, the use of constructs like "not until we reach Ptolemy", "As we should expect from our knowledge of later Irish history", etc., are likely inappropriate under WP:TONE.

I would clean up myself, but I am not fully familiar with the relevant sources. Or the accuracy of the current interpretation. Guliolopez 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. That the source of the content is "reputable" doesn't make how it is imparted or described here either appropriate or relevant. The practices and policies of this project still apply.

As noted above, the guidelines of this project mandate a lead/intro section "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". As above, the "context" for the article title here isn't evident until the end.

Beyond that, the guidelines of this project (possibly different from Britannica) are to avoid first, second and third-person pronouns. They abound here, putting the reader in some mystical "we" category (of people who know a lot about "later Irish history"), and in doing so they compromise the encyclopedic tone, and contribute to the "essay" qualities of the text. Guliolopez 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

no problem with tidying it up Guliolopez, but was just trying to insure people understood none of it was original research, rather a composite of authored and encyclopic sources Caomhan27 01:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge?

As part of the recent cleanup, the "guts" of this article now deal with the Iverni, their "arrival" in Ireland, Ptolemy's writings on them, and the derivation of "Hibernia" from "Ivernia".

The articles titular subject, Eueriio (Ostensibly the Iverni's label for their home) is just a subtext.

To my mind the main content of this article should therefore either be merged to Iverni or (with some further tweaking) be merged with O'Rahilly's historical model (or some other article which generally discusses the "ancient tribes of Ireland").

Thoughts? Guliolopez 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)