Talk:Dál nAraidi

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.
	An image is requested for this article as its inclusion will substantially increase the significance of the article. Please remove the `image-needed` parameter once the image is added.

Northern Ireland Low‑importance

	Northern Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is a joke. Dalriada and Dalnraidh were two of the the three remnants of old Ulidia they never joined and Dalriada became the kingdom of the islands and highlands whereas east and south Antrim dalnraidh withered on the vine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmckilli (talk • contribs) 19:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Self-contradictory

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article is terribly self-contradictory. As just one example: "Among the most important kings of the Dál nAraidi, most of whom predate the formation of a kingdom"... — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

At one time the article said "It is doubtful whether the Dál nAraidi kingdom existed, except as a loose confederation of small kingdoms, until the 8th century, long after the Cruithne kings had ceased to have any real control over the high-kingship of Ulster." Perhaps it should say that again, although it would be best if it were referenced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

This theory is not been accepted BY reputable scholars its nothing more than sectarian nonsense attempting to excuse the Ulster Scot colonial plantation of Gael Ulster. there is no evidence this was anything other than a Gael tribe.

you already have been informed of this before and this page is astroturfing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cruthin His theory has been adopted by some Ulster loyalists and Ulster Scots activists to counter Irish nationalism, and was promoted by elements in the Ulster Defence Association (UDA).[24] They saw this new 'origin myth' as "a justification for their presence in Ireland and for partition of the country".[25]

Historians, archaeologists and anthropologists have widely rejected Adamson's theory.[23][24] Prof. Stephen Howe of the University of Bristol argues it was designed to provide ancient underpinnings for a militantly separate Ulster identity.[26] Historian Peter Berresford Ellis likens it to Zionism.[23]

Add topic