Talk:High King of Ireland
|
|
I don't know enough about the subject to know if the recent changes are correct, but I do know that you should wikify them. john 21:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- The problem is that to wikify would lead to articles that require rewriting because they define terms at an inappropriate place or time eg: fiefdoms article assumes English-style feudalism.
I have restored this page as it is not a copyright violation. Would someone please check these things out before wiping a page. The copyright holder is the owner of www.maclochlainn.org 195.92.168.168
| Contents |
Reasons for reversion
I have reverted again.
- (i) the article is not written in house style;
- (ii) If there is a holder of copyright on this text, as 195.92.168.168 states, then by definition it is a copyright violation even if it was the owner of the copyright who placed it here, as it has not been released in accordance with the rules of wikipedia. It could only stay here if the copyright holder waved copyright completely, in effect allowing copyright to be owned by everyone who edits the site and visits the site here communally and in perpetuity. The owner of the website may not be aware that in putting the text here he would in effect be giving up all ownership and it would become all our property to edit and change at will. FearÉIREANN 17:27, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Response
- (i) Then edit it into house style rather than wiping it back to a very inferior version.
- See comments above re wikifying.
- The title does not appear in the body so no boldening is indicated.
- (ii) Then lets sort out the permissions that are required (which are a mere formality) rather than wiping back, etc
This page was wiped before because nobody bothered to check for permission. Try being constructive rather than destructive and point out what is required rather than getting paranoid about supposed copyright issues 195.92.168.169 23:07, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
POV heading
The article does not sound like a NPOV encyclopedia article. Rather than giving all the viewpoints regarding the office of the High King, the article begins by (somewhat rudely) refuting all opposing viewpoints. I do not know enough about the subject to make any changes, but it needs to be addressed.
- I think the non-neutral heading should be removed because the article reflects the current state of knowledge (see linked article for instance). An article concerning the Earth would move swiftly on from outdated concepts such as 'flat earth' and 'heavenly spheres' and so does this one. I don't see what the problem is 195.92.168.175 21:56, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify my response above, there are no competing points of view current among historians (the linked article backs up the Wiki article in detail and stands as a standard citation in this area) and so there is no dispute to characterise. The Wiki article is strictly factual in that it states that the early narrative literature portrays a sacral kingship (eg: 8th century tale Togail Bruidne Da Derga), that the early law tracts portray a hierarchy of kingship (eg: 7th or 8th century law tract Críth Gablach) and that the annals (eg: post-6th century Annals of Ulster) show that there was no 'steady state' (the erroneous assumption of earlier historians) but that kingship developed much as elsewhere in Europe from the 5th century onwards. It is the earlier historians (driven as much by political agendas as by the historical sources) whose view has been superceded that are 'rudely' dismissed in the introductory lines and I see no problem with that. This is an article on history, not the history of history. 195.92.168.177 12:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Other stuff
This article is not neutral at all. It gives only one viewpoint- that the High Kings are entirely ficticious and were simply made up out of thin air in the 8th century. The entire article should be completely rewritten.
- I agree. Beginning the article with "The office of High King of Ireland (Irish: Ard Rí Érenn) was in origin a pseudohistorical construct of the eighth century" is deeply POV. We should begin by describing the traditional idea of the High Kings, and then go into any scholarly ideas about when the concept actually originated. john k 22:37, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. The pseudohistorical origin of the high kingship is as uncontroversial as it gets, in serious circles at least. Is Wikipedia here to educate or to reflect uninformed opinion? 195.92.168.176 10:44, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Can you give citation for the view that the early high kings are not fictitious. Only then can we judge the quality of the argument. 195.92.168.176 11:01, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Citations
I think it would help if those wishing to change the article give supporting citation here. This will allow us to discriminate between the serious and the frivolous. 195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The article as it stands is covered by citation to the external link at the foot of the article. 195.92.168.176 10:56, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)