Talk:Connachta

Years

From the article: 'dominated Irish political, religious and cultural life for the next twelve hundred years and beyond'.

Since there are no years stated in the article at all, 'twelve hundred years and beyond' says basically nothing at all, except that whatever the article is about must be from the ninth century or earlier. The family tree is great, but also would need years to 'pin it down' in history. If years are unknown, or completely fictional (legendary), this should be addressed.

Stuff about Ailill and Medb

What does it add to understanding of the Connachta to say that Ailill was "actually" of the Laigin (when he wasn't "actually" anything, since he's a mythical character), or that Medb had a namesake who may derive from the same character? It just breaks up a sentence. Ailill's genealogical origins and Medb's mythological parallels should be discussed in their articles, where they're relevant, not here. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Now you're just being spiteful. --Nicknack009 (talk) 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I got a little spiteful because you reverted that Ulster Cycle line I put in Laigin while leaving that large paragraph in Connachta and only taking my additions out. Unfair. It's important that neither Ailill nor Medb "were" real Connachta, according to the Ulster Cycle tradition, and yet there is that whole paragraph on the "Connachta" in the same Ulster Cycle. At some point I might section it and point out the problem in a separate paragraph, complete with Gamanrad and Cruachan. Okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.41.221 (talk) 00:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about the Connachta, not the Laigin, the Ulster Cycle material is here only so far as it's a tradition about the Connachta. The fact that Ailill is mentioned is not an excuse to insert everything that is known about Ailill. Ailill's supposed Laigin origins (which are a late genealogical fiction anyway, and there is no tradition of Medb being of the Laigin) are irrelevant here, and should be dealt with in his own article. Continuing to delete good, relevant and sourced material over a content dispute over minor irrelevant additions is vandalism, for which you have beenb warned twice. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was deleted. Your warning is meaningless. I simply moved it to its own section. Do you consider yourself a descendant of the Connachta or Uí Néill and is that the problem here? Had your DNA test? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.41.221 (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I misread your previous edit as deleting the text again - didn't bother scrolling down - for which I apologise. Your warnings at the top of the article, however, are absurd - if the article has "multiple issues", you haven't identified any, nor have you identified any inaccurate citations. As for your last comment, I won't dignify that with a response. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Ui Neill Vs. Connachta

I would not reference the Ui Neill as part of the Connachta in the article. While the term Connachta does seem to designate the descendents of Conn Cetchatach. The renaming of the western Coiced of Ireland from Fir Ol nEchtmacht to Connacht, and the rise of the Ui Neill in North west Ulster and the mid-lands in around the same historical time frame, seemed to spur the dynastic descendents of Conn such as the Northern Ui Neill, Southern Ui Neill and Connachta to have chosen very specific titles for their own tribal designations in quite deliberate contradistinction from one another. As far as my research can reveal the origins of the term "Connachta" may well have a genesis in just exactly this dynastic split in the late 4th or early 5th centuries with the dynastic upheaval between Niall and his half brothers, Brion, Fichrae and Ailill. As this does seem to be the case for the origins for these quite seperate later dynastic identities, caused by the split in the tribal descendents of the 2nd century dynasty from which they all had descended, more emphasis should be given to this distinction, rather than trying to blend them into a single dynastic mix. It appears as if it would be more accurate and balanced, to state that from around the 450's to the present the Ui Neill and Connachta have been known as and are quite distinct dynastic descendents from the same early 2nd century tribal confederation, who often after this time were in contention with each other, rather than in harmony as a distinct dynastic family.Dalegar123 (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)