Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Admonan says that Finchan was very closely attached "in a carnal way" to Áed Dub mac Suibni. So what's the problem? Why are you removing this material? Contaldo80 (talk) 07:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
As noted on your talk: In regards to a number of articles, but especially Áed Dub mac Suibni, you need to stop trying to promote the revisionist agenda that these people were somehow "LGBT". All you have provided as proof is a polemic account of one of his opponents Adomnán of Iona in his Life of Saint Columba, where he is attacking the King and the rival religious institution he was connected to at Tiree, by claiming he is a "bloody murderer" and attempting to cast him as immoral. It is pure synthesis to start adding LGBT categories to such articles. Any claims made by Adomnán (who was born decades after Aodh's death) need to be contained within quotation marks, not presented as objective fact. Claíomh Solais (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
There are no LGBT categories in the article. So what are you going on about? Adomnan is a primary source - the material is therefore presented as it is. There is no reason to suppose Adomnan is wrong. If, however, you think Adomnan is wrong then the solution is to find material from a historian that explains that Adomnan was writing several years after the death of Aed and may have had particular reasons for writing particular things. This is how wikipedia works.Contaldo80 (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Claíomh Solais - each time you make an edit I wonder seriously if you have a grasp of what is going on. You've amended to the wording to state that "Adomnan claims in the article..." Claims in the article? WTF? Do you think Adomnan is writing for a local newspaper or something? Do you think he's a journalist penning a column for the national press?! Admonan wrote a hagiography of St Columba. Yes a good chunk of it is rubbish - specifically anything that claims Columba performed a miracle. Which we know is not true. However, we can say that "dmonan states that Aed Dub and Findchan were lovers. Because he did. And he is what as historians we call a "primary source". Adomnan may have got it wrong - maybe they weren't lovers. But he is the best we have> Unless you have something that suggests that Adomnan was very wrong and we know the two weren't lovers. Otherwise it is factually correct to state that Adomaan states the two were lovers. Now stop wasting my time. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Claiomh on this one and object to the categories being added. The addition of the category is only backed up by the claim of a single person, who most likely was writing from a specific bias as most medieval authors and religious folk did. Not a reliable source and must be kept attributed to who said it. Also I don't understand the removal of the Ulaid box which is unrelated to the dispute so I will reads it. Mabuska12:38, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
You'll need to be more specific about what you're agreeing about. What categories are you talking about? I also don't understand the point about Adomnan's bias - bias in what way? Again, be specific. Contaldo80 (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Why? I agree with Claiomh fully in regards to the LGBT categories. Also the bias is obvious if you had any knowledge of medieval Irish history. Adomnan like his relative Columba were princes of the Cenel Conaill of the Northern Ui Neill who along with their kin the Cenel Eoghain were the arch enemies of the Ulaid who Aed Dub was a king of. Iona of which Adomnan is famed with was founded by Columba in Scottish Dal Riata. Dal Riata, a minor kingdom within Ulaid was trying to break free from Ulaids overkingship turning to Ulaid's enemies for aid, granting Iona to Columba in return for his negoiating of an alliance between Dal Riata and the Cenel Conaill sealed at the Convention of Druimm Ceite. The bias is obviously anti-Ulaid, of which Aed Dub was one of, and like many other works by other "religious" folk of the time is typically vitriolic and disparaging of rivals. Mabuska19:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
To elaborate on the categories: whilst in the article we can explain and put it into context that the homosexual claim comes from a single source who is also a major rival of the subject and full of bias. We can't do that with categories, which in this case implies it is accepted as fact by the historical community when that is not the case. It is incredibly misleading and pointy to argue otherwise. Mabuska19:27, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
There are no LGBT categories. I did not restore these from an original edit so you'll need to catch up if you want to contribute constructively to this article - otherwise I fear that you're wasting my time. On the other issue concerning Adomnan's statement that Findchan and Aed Dub were lovers, it is a fact that Adomnan stated this. There is also little to suggest that he was wrong - in fact it may not have been that controversial at the period that Adomnan was writing for two men to be lovers in this way (you're coming at it from your own contemporary perspective). More serious was that he says Aed Dub was a murderer (sounds bizarrely like you think this is less controversial than him being homosexual). We don't say in the article that Aed Dub was homosexual but we say Adomnan stated he was a lover of Findchan. So what's the problem? And in any case you can't just give us your view about why you think Adomnan and the claims are all bias. You need to find a reference from a historian to back this argument up! Otherwise it's simply conjecture. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Please WP:AGF and stop with the personal attacks on those who disagree with you otherwise I will have to file an AN/I report on your edit warring and incivility. Your argument for your edit is poor and does not convince me of it's merit thus I oppose it. Until you convince Me and Claiomh otherwise then you have no consensus for it. Mabuska09:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Please go ahead and file whatever you like. In the meantime it may be worth you setting out (for the first time) your argument about why my original edit should not have been made. And your view as to why the earlier text was better. You have failed to do that. And what specifically about my argument is poor. Consensus should be sought where possible - but it is not essential if other editors are unable to articulate their actual concerns. Your contributions so far have been very vague and somewhat aggressive. As a Senior Editor I would have expected a more reasoned explanation of concerns and a better grasp as to what is current in terms of specific articles. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
