Talk:Kingdom of Ulidia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page redirect[edit]

@Albiet: please give a thorough reason as to why this article should not serve as a redirect to Ulaid. The reasoning you gave in your last edit summary as I have already detailed on your talk page isn't very convincing, and fails to show why this article should remain. As you have objected to the redirecting, then per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Redirection I am taking it here to see if some form of amicable agreement can be reached. If not then I will proceed to an RfC or a RfD is needs be. Mabuska (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact looking at your talk page I feel like a discussion may be pointless so I will instead instigate a RfC straight away for further input due to the feeling no agreement between us will likely be forthcoming. Mabuska (talk) 21:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Mabuska,

I am sorry that on first viewing your communication this afternoon, I didn’t immediately drop everything else that I was doing to respond to you. I understand now that immediately addressing your concerns should take priority over anything else that I had planned to do today on my Fourth of July Holiday. I shall be careful not to transgress in this manner again. And, of course, I like everyone else love being prodded, this is always a good way to encourage me to calm dialogue and cooperative effort. While I don’t see the urgency, since you think that this is such a pressing matter, here is my response to you.

My first of two points is that the article Kingdom of Ulidia is meant to document the historic or lesser Ulaid for the Wikipedia, and many editors have contributed to the article over the years not just me. I am of the opinion and from appearance most of the historians and sources on matter that the subject of the lesser Ulaid is far too expansive to be dealt with in any meaningful way in a main overview article on the greater Ulaid. I had even been myself researching and preparing over the last few month additional matter for inclusion in the article. I can’t see how this new material can be contained in a general article on the Ulaid without it becoming unwieldy. I am also of the opinion that the article on the greater Ulaid is an inappropriate venue for inclusion of material on the lesser Ulaid. Many researchers would not expect to find the material there. The major historians and sources distinguish between a greater and a lesser Ulaid. As I am sure you are aware, the reason for this is that the greater or prehistoric Ulaid is the subject of a very, very extensive mythology, while the lesser or historic Ulaid is subject of just as extensive, far flung and detailed a history. The two subjects are simply difficult to congruently melded in a short article.

This is the reason that most sources distinguish the greater Uliad as the Kingdom of Ulster or Ulaid and the lesser Ulaid as the Kingdom of Ulidia and handle the subjects separately. See as two of many examples Library Ireland, “Ulidia or down and part of Antrim” and at note 1 “the name ‘Uladh’ was applied to the province of Ulster, but in after times was confined, as mentioned in the chapter on Orgaill, to a large territory on the east of Ulster, called Ulidia. This territory … comprised the present county Down, with a great portion of Antrim, …”, http://www.libraryireland.com/Pedigrees1/irish-chiefs-clans-down-antrim.php, and the National Dictionary of Biography “As the family originally came from Ulidia, the lesser Uladh”, https://books.google.com/books?id=fyUJAAAAIAAJ&q=Cormac+MacDonlevy#v=snippet&q=Cormac%20MacDonlevy&f=false.

I understand, though, that my and these scholars opinions are likely completely off base and unworthy of your serious consideration, since as you made so poignantly clear in your next to last communication to me, I am not the writer, scholar, researcher or thinker that you are, but rather just an inept and unqualified creator of a poorly laid-out and otherwise convoluted articles (There is nothing that’s insulting there or in your new snide reference to my talk page. I’m glad that you’re keeping things so civil. Again, how could such gentle overtures not encourage dialogue and cooperation from another person).

My second point is that Wikipedia has a long established procedure where the community participates in determining whether articles should be merged or deleted. Editors are not supposed to do this unilaterally, no matter how brilliant, accomplished and superior in talent to others they may be. When I originally created the article Kingdom of Ulidia on 10 September 2013, its content was in no way whatsoever duplicating of the article Ulaid. At the time the article Ulaid dealt exclusively with the archeology and the legend of the murky prehistory of Ulster and the Ulster Cycle as most such articles do (view article history to see article as it then existed before the first 18 September 2013 edit of 68.190.254.86). To the extent that the article Kingdom of Ulidia has now become duplicative of the article Ulaid, it is because you, yourself, have over time by dozens upon dozens of edits expropriated the bulk of the content of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, including sources and for most part while also rewording, and merged it into the article Ulaid. Also, the article Kingdom of Ulidia does not just cite to Hart and Hack. It rather cites to some 15 separate sources, some of undisputed authority, like the Oxford Companion, Encyclopedia Ireland, Encyclopedia Britannica, Dictionary of National Biography, The Highland Clans, Woulfe, Byrne, Leland, MacGeohegan and Fitzpatrick.

Patiently awaiting your reply,

~~Albiet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.242.160 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will caution you for your sarcasm, which going by your talk page seems to be something to be expected. If you continue to act as such then I will file an request for user conduct. Mabuska (talk) 08:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirect request for comment[edit]

I recently changed this article to a redirect to Ulaid based on the reasoning that they are both about the exact same entity and detail essentially the same stuff, though with Ulaid the more appropriate article. The page creator Albiet disagrees and restored it.

Obviously I accept that as Albiet is the creator of this article and contributor to several other articles about the Donlevy's and MacNulty's (who descend from the Donlevy's) and it is not a nice feeling that after putting effort into making articles to have someone deride them or seek to replace/remove them, however WP:OWN is a poor reason to keep an article especially when it is surpassed by a more appropriate and applicable article. The same when it appears that the editor has an apparent conflict of interest as someone who appears to be related to that name or has some obvious investment in it.

Just to clarify as Albiet seems to think otherwise, I am not seeking to delete this namespace, all I seek is to have it as a redirect to Ulaid. I would of moved this article to that namespace already over a year ago however it already existed so I worked on the Ulaid article until this one became redundant, and it has become so. Mabuska (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Should this article be replaced with a redirect to Ulaid. Both articles are about the exact same topic. Rationale given above request. Mabuska (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Mabuska. This is really a fork of Ulaid created in 2013. It's not so much an historical overview of a medieval kingdom but largely a collection of factoids that briefly name-drop modern surnames. That's probably to be expected as many of the citations are to out-of-date publications devoted to such surnames. There's no way you can construct a good article on a medieval state with surname books and century-old family histories. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not convinced that both articles are about the exact same topic, at least as they are written. The article on the Kingdom of Ulidia specifically says that it was a subsection of Ulaid. From the section on boundaries in Kingdom of Ulidia: "Located in the extreme southeast of what had been the larger Ulaidh, Ulidia comprised a land area, roughly, contemporaneous with that of modern County Down and the southern portion of County Antrim in Northern Ireland." That said, I know very little about medieval Irish history, so it's entirely concievable that the article is simply wrong on this point and the two are the same entity. Whatever happens with the article, Brianann MacAmhlaidh is right to say that the article as it currently is written is far too heavily dependent on sources a century or more old. There clearly are more recent sources, because Ulaid has them! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 11:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto: - the example you provide from the article backs up why this article isn't fit for purpose. The "Kingdom of Ulidia" is not a subsection of a greater Ulaid. Ulidia is a Latinized name for Ulaid - the entirety of it, not a portion of it. The only major sub-divisions of Ulaid where Dál nAraidi, Dál Fiatach, and Uíbh Eachach. It is the Dál Fiatach portion that the creating editor seems to be focusing mostly on, however it is not the kingdom of Ulidia by itself, but a part of it. The article shows a very poor and limited understanding of Irish history seeking to claim that Ulidia was a part of a greater Ulaid (the modern province of Ulster), apparently based on the failure to realise that that greater Ulaid did not exist then as the north of Ireland was divided between three competing over-kingdoms/provinces: Ulaid, Airgíalla, and the Northern Uí Néill, which even the map in this articles infobox shows! There would be no "great Ulster" until the 14th century when the Northern Uí Néill completed their subjugation of the Ulaid with the collapse of the Earldom of Ulster. If anything from this article is salvagable then it should be put in the Dál Fiatach article and this namespace made into a redirect to Ulaid. Mabuska (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That line you provide is also properly explained in the second paragraph of the lede at Ulaid. Mabuska (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ulidia was a historic kingdom. On the other hand, the Ulaid were a nation of people, who in prehistoric Irish times occupied the entire 9 counties of the Ulaidh (province) or Ulster. Articles on the nation, generally, deal with the origins of the people and their mythology and culture, which is so extensive with the Ulaid that it becomes unwieldy and incongruent anyway to attempt to meld historic material in to the discussion. The subject Kingdom of Ulidia, one of many latter kingdoms of the Ulaid (province) is just not appropriately discussed in an article about the Ulaid people.

This, however, is exactly what Mabuska attempts here, to include in an article on the Ulaid nation, a history of one of many of the Ulaid province or Ulster provinces's later kingdoms. All other of the Ulaidh provinces many separate later kingdoms are dealt with separately in the Wikipedia in separate articles. An article about the Ulaid nation or people is simply not an appropriate place to discuss the history of each of the Ulaid province or Ulster's later kingdoms, including Tirconnell, Bréifne, Airgíalla, the Kingdom of Meath, and etc.

Also, to the extent that Mabuska claims the article Kingdom of Ulidia is duplicative of the article Ulaid, it is because Mabuska has done just that. Over time and by dozens upon dozens of edits and imports, he has expropriated the bulk of the content of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, including sources and for most part while also rewording, and inappropriately merged it into the article on the Ulaid nation. Also, the article Kingdom of Ulidia does not just cite to Hart and Hack. It rather cites to some 15 separate sources, some of undisputed authority, like the Oxford Companion, Encyclopedia Ireland, Encyclopedia Britannica, Dictionary of National Biography, The Highland Clans, Woulfe, Byrne, Leland, MacGeohegan and Fitzpatrick. Albiet

@Caeciliusinhorto: - I'm sorry if you attempted to use the link I provided above for the Ulaidh (province), it took you to the article on the Ulaid nation or Irish Uluti tribe instead of redirecting to the article on Ulster province, the province that this tribe occupied and which is their namesake. This occurred because on the third of this month Mabuska unbeknownst to me misdirected the redirect from Ulster, where it had been properly directed for over half a decade to the article on the Ulaid nation or people that he has been extensively editing. Mabuska seems to have some confusion about whether these articles are about geographical areas and/or states or the peoples or tribes occupying them. I reverted the edit to correct the problem. Albiet
Your response shows why your knowledge of the area is lacking.
Ulidia was a historic kingdom. On the other hand, the Ulaid were a nation of people, who in prehistoric Irish times occupied the entire 9 counties of the Ulaidh (province) or Ulster.... This, however, is exactly what Mabuska attempts here, to include in an article on the Ulaid nation, a history of one of many of the Ulaid province or Ulster provinces's later kingdoms.
  • Actually it didn't occupy the 9 nine counties of Ulster. Prehistoric Ulster is claimed to have stretched to the River Boyne, taking in modern County Louth which is now part of Leinster, whilst excluding County Cavan, which was then part of Connacht. It also didn't match up exactly to county boundaries as they where an English invention finalisied in the early 17th century. Just to note once again Louth was part of Ulster and Cavan part of Connacht all the way until the 17th century.
  • Ancient and medieval Irish territories and kingdoms mostly all take their name from their population grouping, often with an additional territorial/population term: Ulaid, Cenél nEógain (kindred of Owen), Cenél Connaill (kindred of Conal), Tír Chonaill (land of Conal), Osraige (people of the deer), Uíbh Eachach (descendants of Echu), Dál Fiatach (descendants of Fiatach), Síl nÁedo Sláine (descendants of Áed Sláine), Laigin (people who gave their name Leinster) etc. etc. In fact even the ancient world followed this pattern of naming places after the local people, just look at Ptolemy's map of Ireland.
  • The Ulaid article does not deal in any great extent with mythology or culture, focusing instead on the historical facts of the kingdom from earliest times to its end based on the most part modern academic sources that don't mix myth, fact and speculation into one as O'Hart does.
  • Ulidia was never the name used by the Irish in their own tongue for Ulaid in any shape or form. Wikipedia follows a practice of naming articles after the academically accepted term which in this case is Ulaid not Ulidia, and that is something backed up by a serious amount of academia. As @Brianann MacAmhlaidh: stated, this article was created as a WP:FORK of Ulaid.
  • The province of Ulster as already stated above is a 14th century construct. Ulaid (whose name the province of Ulster derives from) once spanned the north of Ireland however by the time written history comes to Ireland, it had shrunk to largely east of the River Bann (modern day counties Antrim, Down, and Louth). Thus the claim they once held the entire of the north is based on medieval tradition not historical fact. The title "king of Ulster" only covered this area, not your alleged "greater Ulster". In its claimed former lands to the west were the people/kingdoms of the Northern Ui Neill and the Airgialla. The Northern Ui Neill subjugated the Airgialla under their dominance and then the Normans came and subjugated Ulaid extinguishing it as a kingdom. After the Bruce Invasion of Ireland in the early 14th century, Norman power in Ulster was shattered and the Clandeboye O'Neill branch of the Northern Ui Neill stepped into the power vacuum finally seizing what where the lands of the Ulaid east of the Bann, and for the first time claiming the Ulaid regnal title ri Ulaid, "king of Ulster". It is only now that the north of Ireland becomes one over-kingdom again.
All other of the Ulaidh provinces many separate later kingdoms are dealt with separately in the Wikipedia in separate articles. An article about the Ulaid nation or people is simply not an appropriate place to discuss the history of each of the Ulaid province or Ulster's later kingdoms, including Tirconnell, Bréifne, Airgíalla, the Kingdom of Meath, and etc.
  • Seriously? According to the Lebor na Cert, the "Book of Rights", Ireland was divided into seven provinces: Ailech (Elagh), Airgialla (Oriel), Connachta (Connacht), Laigin (Leinster), Mide (Meath), Mumu (Munster), and Ulaid (Ulster). Tirconnell, or rather Tir Conaill, the territory of the Cenél Conaill, was an under-kingdom that was part of Ailech, the province of the Northern Ui Neill. Bréifne was an under-kingdom of Connacht. Likewise the kingdom of Meath was never a part of Ulaid, it was the over-kingdom of the Southern Ui Neill! Please brush up on your Irish history before trying to lecture myth as fact!
  • Also where does the Ulaid article detail the history of the various minor kingdoms that you mention? Nowhere, unless their was an incident between the Ulaid and one of those kingdoms.
Also, to the extent that Mabuska claims the article Kingdom of Ulidia is duplicative of the article Ulaid, it is because Mabuska has done just that. Over time and by dozens upon dozens of edits and imports, he has expropriated the bulk of the content of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, including sources and for most part while also rewording, and inappropriately merged it into the article on the Ulaid nation. I explicitly stated above that I tried to move this article to the Ulaid namespace however it was already occupied. The Ulaid article originally was just as poor as this one and there is no need for two articles on the one subject! Yes I took information from here to form the initial basis of a reworked Ulaid article, however there was very little useful stuff here and if you look at both articles, the vast majority of stuff at Ulaid is not here even though it is almost all focused on the territory of the Ulaid that you call and regard as the separate kingdom of Ulidia!
@Caeciliusinhorto: - I'm sorry if you attempted to use the link I provided above for the Ulaidh (province), it took you to the article on the Ulaid nation or Irish Uluti tribe instead of redirecting to the article on Ulster province, the province that this tribe occupied and which is their namesake. This occurred because on the third of this month Mabuska unbeknownst to me misdirected the redirect from Ulster, where it had been properly directed for over half a decade to the article on the Ulaid nation or people that he has been extensively editing. Mabuska seems to have some confusion about whether these articles are about geographical areas and/or states or the peoples or tribes occupying them. I reverted the edit to correct the problem. Albiet - Ulaidh is the modern-Irish for Ulaid. The namespace Ulaidh (province) is a fork of Ulaid. There is no misdirection there. In fact I have turned that link into a disambiguation page considering both the modern Irish for both Ulaid and Ulster is "Ulaidh".
You haven't provided anything that proves why this article should remain as it is, and try to back yourself up with two outdated sources that are superceded by actual modern academic works that focus on historical fact not blending myth and fact. All you have done is fail to show an understanding of Irish history by confusing the 9-county province of Ulster as people know it today with the legendary province of Ulster that spanned the north of Ireland. Add to that your unwillingness to acknowledge that the province of Ulster in the medieval period was restricted to east of the Bann, meaning that there was no ""greater" or "lesser" Ulster. The only way those terms could make any sense is when comparing medieval Ulaid to its larger legendary former territorial expanse to which it indeed was lesser! You haven't even tried to counter the vast list of points I provided above! Mabuska (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @Albiet and Mabuska: I don't have the expertise to weigh in on which of you is right here. (I will note, however, that the map which both articles use labels the area in question "Ulaid" rather than "Ulidia", which suggests to me that Albiet's assertion that Ulaid refers to a people but not a kingdom is incorrect). What sources would either of you recommend that I look at which shows that your position is correct?
As for the question of sources in the article Kingdom of Ulidia, it is true that it does not just cite Hart and Hack. It does, however, rely on Hart and Hack for more than half of the citations, as well as having one ref to the 1911 Britannica, one to James MacGeoghegan and one to Thomas Leland! (And one to the DNB, which: 1. is well out of date, 2. is being used to provide an etymology of a place-name, which seems a bit odd: why not use a dictionary?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence as requested by Caeciliusinhorto[edit]

  • @Caeciliusinhorto: - Thank you for the generosity of your continued interest and help. This is verbatim from a portion of the Wikipedia Ulaid article that Mabuska has not yet rewritten, I hope it helps you, "Ulaid is a plural noun, indicating an ethnonym rather than a geographic term.[1] The Ulaid are likely the Ούολουντοι (Uolunti or Volunti) mentioned in Ptolemy's 2nd century Geographia.[2] This may be a corruption of Ούλουτοι (Uluti) ... ". The term references a people not a state or geographic boundary. This supporting cite is also directly from the Wikipedia article Ulaid: "Byrne, Francis J. (2001). Irish Kings and High Kings. Four Courts Press." As with many other peoples and nations in time the land areas that these people occupied became their namesakes, but in modified form. For example the English word Ulster is a contraction of Ulaidh + tir (land), meaning the territory of the Ulaid.

The Wikipedia has hereto been consistent in defining Ulaid thus. It had an article "Ulaid", which subject matter concerned the Ulaid people or nation, and a redirect "Ulaid (province)", which directed to the article "Ulster", which subject matter concerns the province of Ulster. The word Ulaid references a people and not their "tauth".

Mabuska relies heavily on a single "new" work, A New History of Ireland, published by the Oxford Press and which Mabuska attributes to Cosgove. The work is actually a some 35 volume anthology of articles written by various scholars, with, of coursee, some content of many of the scholarly articles conflicting others. Francis Byrne is one of the contributing authors. Cosgove is not the author of the work, but its compiling editor. If in citing to this work Mabuska would follow APA format and first list the author, title and date of each contributing author and then the anthology title and its editor, it would be much easier for all of us to make an assessment of each authors qualifications and work.

Of course the usages that we debate are the modern historical usages of classical terms. There is no question that both the terms Ultonia and Ulidia are Latin terms for Ulster. Ultonia is middle or medieval Latin and so is a scholarly contrivance that did not even exist until about the 14th century AD. The issue here becomes what were the modern historians, including in the Irish Annals, referencing when they first began using these terms in the middle ages and subsequently. Certainly ancient Roman scholars were not using these terms contemporaneously with the Ulaid nation’s rule of the greater Ulaid (province). The lingua franca of Roman scholars then was Greek (See Ptolomey’s Geography). Modern compilers clearly used these Latin terms to refer to the medieval kingdom of recent memory or the kingdom of the reduced or lesser Ulaidh that existed along with many others then in Ulster and not to reference the ancient Ulaid province or "fifth" itself, which today covers a nine county rather than less then two county area of the Kingdom of Ulidia and in ancient times had roughly the same expanse. Albiet

Thank you for pointing out the flawed piece of text over at the Ulaid article. It will be rectified. Interesting that you claim that medieval texts such as the Irish Annals are by modern historians, despite their widely known flaws and bias, and the fact they are centuries old!!
In response to Caeciliusinhorto I will provide evidence from modern sources by one of the most prominent scholars in medieval Irish history, Dr. Seán Duffy PhD., Senior Lecturer in Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin. For an indepth look at him see [15]. Also to ensure that I am not accused of selective sourcing or altering the wording to suit my own ends I'll provide page scans of the relevant information. Mabuska (talk) 17:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto:. First of all from Duffy, Seán (2014). Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7171-6207-9.: [16] and [17]


  • Reading the whole Ulaid section makes it clear that Ulaid is used to refer to the people and the over-kingdom/province of Ulaid, which it clearly states by the medieval period was restricted to modern-day counties of Antrim, Down and Louth - overlapping with the claimed extent of Ulidia in this article.
Secondly from Connolly, S.J. (2007). Oxford Companion to Irish History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7., a section contributed to specifically by Seán Duffy (hence the SD at the end of the Ulaid section. Also read the Earldom of Ulster part. [18]. The people and kingdom itself are referred to as Ulaid.
Thirdly a collection of maps from Duffy, Seán (2005). The Concise History of Ireland. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 0-7171-3810-0. and make sure you take a close look at the legends as well: 5th-8th century Ireland, 10th-early 11th century Ireland, and circa 1100AD Ireland.
To quote Albiet again: Modern compilers clearly used these Latin terms to refer to the medieval kingdom of recent memory or the kingdom of the reduced or lesser Ulaidh that existed along with many others then in Ulster and not to reference the ancient Ulaid province or "fifth" itself, which today covers a nine county rather than less then two county area of the Kingdom of Ulidia and in ancient times had roughly the same expanse.
Not one of these mentions Ulidia as any form of kingdom or sub-kingdom within a "greater Ulaid/Ulster" or "lesser Ulaid/Ulster", but clearly in reference to what Albiet believes is the "kingdom of Ulidia". I'll take the modern Seán Duffy's widely accepted academic view over outdated and flawed 19th and early 20th century sources that are known for blending fact and fiction. Also I note Albiet's continued ignoring of the fact of the modern-day province of Ulster's formation, which has nothing to with the ancient province of Ulaid other than having the same name and being roughly conterminous, with some notable exceptions. Mabuska (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Mabuska: Why are you improperly removing material from a discussion. You requested this discussion. Do you actually want to have it. The World eminent scholar on early Irish history Francis John Byrne clearly disagrees with both you and Duffy. Do you not want an open discussion, or not want the community to see any matter supporting positions with which you disagree. MY ENTRY WAS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK AND WAS GERMANE CONTENT FOR THIS DISCUSSION. You stated that you were going to "rectify" content cited to a World renowned scholar in the article Ulaid, simply, because it disputes or does not fit your position. I asked if you really intended to breach your duties as an editor and do this. I suggested that you calm down and behave like an editor and at least present both sides. Dr. Byrnes states that the term Ulaid applies to a people and not territory. Dr. BYRNE IS A WORLD EMINENT SCHOLAR ON EARLY IRISH HISTORY. DR. BYRNE IS A PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN. HE IS A JOINT EDITOR OF THE ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY'S 9 VOLUME NEW HISTORY OF IRELAND (1999). DR. BYRNE IS A UNIVERSITY COLLEGE PhD HONORS GRADUATE IN EARLY IRISH HISTORY.The disputed opinion of one scholar DUFFY is not "the end of the matter".

Moreover this discussion has gone entirely off point anyway. The question is whether the medieval kingdom described in the Article Kingdom of Ulidia is distinct from the earlier greater Kingdom of the Ulaid, if you want to call it that. In response to your last communication on my talk page where you criticized my supporting cites above as aged, this is the very point. Has the lesser Ulaidh been consistently distinguished historically from the greater Ulaidh or fifth. How is this demonstrated except by reference to historical materials. The question is how has this Kingdom been identified. As part of the larger Ulaidh or as a distinct medieval newly Christian kingdom, with a new capitol, religious and administrative center. Emain Macha, the royal site of the pre-Christian greater Ulaidh kingdom, had long fallen by this time. As you yourself state and as is true “Ulidia was never the name used by the Irish in their own tongue for Ulaid in any shape or form.” True. It is a name that modern historians applied to a medieval Irish Christian kingdom, which was distinct from the earlier greater Ulaidh.” SO WHY ON EARTH THEN DO YOU WANT TO REDIRECT THE TITLE “KINGDOM OF ULIDIA” TO AN ARTICLE ON THE ULAIDH ANYWAY?

When I use the term modern, I am using it as opposed to ancient (the times of ancient Greece and Rome or prior). Moreover, The Irish actually too did have their own separate Irish language term for this new kingdom, I am locating it for you, and shall provide it shortly. IF YOU REMOVE THIS ENTRY TOO FROM THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION, I SHALL REPORT YOU. Albiet

Why are you improperly removing material from a discussion. - you mean why did you remove material from this discussion and replacing it with an incredibly uncivil personal attack. Edit histories don't lie: [19], and per Wikipedia guidelines an editor can remove personal attacks, which in its entirety it what you posted. Also I never said I would delete the information, I said I would rectify a flawed statement. That meant to give both sides of the meaning of the term Ulaid, espeically considering there is ample evidence that contradicts the wording as it is in the article. In fact I will see if I can consult the source to see does it exactly back up the wording accredited to it.
Dr. BYRNE IS A WORLD EMINENT SCHOLAR ON EARLY IRISH HISTORY...The disputed opinion of one scholar DUFFY is not "the end of the matter". - where is your evidence that he is disputed? He wouldn't make a very good professor of Medieval History at Trinity College Dublin if he was such.
It is a name that modern historians applied to a medieval Irish Christian kingdom, which was distinct from the earlier greater Ulaidh.” SO WHY ON EARTH THEN DO YOU WANT TO REDIRECT THE TITLE “KINGDOM OF ULIDIA” TO AN ARTICLE ON THE ULAIDH ANYWAY? - where is your evidence for this? I have provided CLEAR and EXACT evidence in those scans which makes it clear that the two entities are one and the same, the older version that had the glory, the latter one that was a shadow of former itself.
When I use the term modern, I am using it as opposed to ancient (the times of ancient Greece and Rome or prior). - then use medieval. The period we are talking about has nothing to do with ancient Greece or Rome but the medieval period.
IF YOU REMOVE THIS ENTRY TOO FROM THE COMMUNITY DISCUSSION, I SHALL REPORT YOU. - do what you wish, removing personal attacks is within remit as it was flat out an attack on me and nothing more. I have already cautioned you for your sarcasm, and had to deal with that personal attack. You next bout of incivility will result will result in an AN/I report.
So please provide modern academic (i.e. late 20th century onwards) evidence to back up your view. I have, and comprehensively so as it makes it quite clear both are one and the same entity. Mabuska (talk) 21:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've had a look at the scans given by Mabuska. I've also searched the gbooks preview for Byrne's Irish Kings and High Kings, but unfortunately the page referenced by Albiet is not available to me. However, from what I can see of previews of Byrne, p.107 refers to the "King of Ulaid" (not "King of the Ulaid") which suggests that Byrne is using Ulaid to refer to the polity/kingdom, not only the peoples. I have also had a look on JSTOR to see what usage looks like: I quickly found Buckley 1986 ("Ulster and Oriel Souterrains: An Indicator of Tribal Areas"), Warner 1986 ("Comments on 'Ulster and Oriel Souterrains'"), and Schlegel 2002 ("Reweaving the Tapestry of Ancient Ulster"), all of which use "Ulaid" to refer to the kingdom. It seems to me that it is certainly not the case that "Ulaid" is used as a geographic term, as well as an ethnonym. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please clarify your end statement for me as it is slightly confusing to me, no offense meant. Mabuska (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also here is some more evidence, namely from A New History of Ireland, Volume II: Medieval Ireland 1169-1534 [20]. Look at the entry for page 17. Also make note of the footnote on that page, which debunks the notion being supported by Albiet that there is a difference between the two. Also look at the usage at [21]. No mention of Ulidia when referring to that area. Also pages 26 and 365 of [22]. In fact page 26 and 27 make use of both terms interchangeably, and contradicting Albiet's viewpoint, makes use of Ulidia when referring to the capital of the older province of Ulaid that Albiet says this article isn't about - how can they be different if the same Latinised name is used for both? Also look at [23] - the "king of Ulaid" covers what is eastern Ulster (the modern-day province), and in the same time period that this article is meant to be about a different kingdom called Ulidia in the exact same place. Probably because they are one and the same. The boundaries of kingdoms ebb and flow, none are static. Whether it expands or shrinks does not make the altered entity a different one altogether. Mabuska (talk) 21:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Mabuska: I'm not entirely sure wht part of my last comment was confusing to you, but I'll try to clarify. It seems to me that Albiet claims that "Ulaid" refers to a race, while "Ulidia" to a geographic area. They also claim (as far as I can tell: I hope they will correct me if I have misinterpreted them) that JF Byrne supports this position, and that Duffy is the only scholar to use Ulaid to refer to the place as well as the people.
However, from the sources that I have looked at, including what I can see of Byrne's book (v. little), the sources you have suggested, and some I have found myself, none of these claims are true. In fact it seems to me that:
  1. "Ulaid" is used to describe the territory/kingdom by many historians
  2. Byrne is one of the historians who sometimes uses Ulaid to describe the territory/kingdom
As to what should be done about these findings:
It is quite possible that there is enough source material for two articles, one on the people and one on the kingdom. You would know better than I if that is the case. According to wikipedia's article naming policy, "article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." If (as appears to me to be the case) modern historians overwhelmingly use "Ulaid" for both, then Kingdom of Ulaid and Ulaid might be the best titles for them. Alternatively, if there is not enough material for both, then merging the two articles (at Ulaid) and covering both the tribe and the territory would be another option.
Is that clear? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed, thank you very much. The current Ulaid article deals adequately with the whole spectrum at present. There is not much that can be told about the culture of the Ulaid as it is the same as that as the general Irish race and covered at articles such as Irish mythology and Irish language. Whatever specifics about the origins of the ulaid comes from medieval texts that are largely based on legends and fabricated pedigrees that can be dealt with in the medieval literature section at Ulaid. There really in no need for two articles on the same related topic. Quality of articles over quantity. And even if Albiet could accept that position, there is still the vast amount of other issues as highlighted at the start of this discussion which when taken into account leaves this article as pointless. Mabuska (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note to Albiet: if needs be I could go through each and every sentence of this article and detail the specific problems from formating, manual of style, factual inaccuracies and pointy wording not backed up by reliable academic sources. This article really isn't fit for purpose. Mabuska (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Caeciliusinhorto:
@Mabuska: - Mabuska: The contemporaneous sources and that you requested as well as a discussion, both, supporting conclusively my position that the Kingdom described in the article Kingdom of Ulidia is not an appropriate subject for an article on the Ulaidh shall appear shortly as the second paragraph of an edit to that article. I would ask any editors viewing this page to please go to the article Kingdom of Ulidia after 9:30 PST USA today July 7, 2016 to evaluate the edit as pertains to the issue of whether an article on the Ulaid should encompass the Kingdom and, then, if they would be so kind to place their comment on this talk page. I would appreciate their input. As to the second issue that has arisen between us over the impropriety of your importing materials from articles on medieval Gaelic kingdoms into the Wikipedia article Ulaid, your redirects and disambiguation pages, I shall place contemporaneous sources, again, conclusively exampling your error directly onto this talk page later this afternoon PST. I would request that any interested editors then please comment here. I would appreciate their input. Both discussion shall include citations to your Sean Duffy, which support my position. I shall not be available for further conversation until after 6:00 PM PST today July 6, 2016 for further conversation. Albiet
You'd be better placed to post your edit here first for proper scrutiny, as well as easy access to your sources such as I provided Caeciliusinhorto above, because at this moment I don't trust you to interpret and use those sources accurately. However it matters little. All of your arguments have been shown to be incorrect by modern reliable and credible sources. Brianan agreed with me straight away at the start of this RfC and from the looks of it you have failed to convince Caeciliusinhorto. You may disagree however that is why Wikipedia has avenues for dispute resolution, and I will make use of each and every one as you seem unwilling to accept the facts. And even if we decided to keep this article, it is still a shambles with the all problems I listed above! Seriously I will detail every single one for you at a new discussion if you want. Mabuska (talk) 16:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Albiet: - I don't understand the rationale behind your actions. Caeciliusinhorto requested sources to look at for himself, which I did in a transparent manner so that we all could see what they said without prejudice. Rather than follow suit you decide to embark on editing the article, adding in large blocks of text combining selective bits and pieces from a few sources (which you didn't make easily accessible for all of us to see to ensure what your claims are actually in the sources, and despite the fact you seem to be pulling them off Google books which you can link too in citations) along with your own personal prejudice on the matter. Whilst there are undeniable elements of truth in what you have added (all of which adequately and properly discussed at Ulaid), the manner you have added them only degrades the article further. Add to that, you add the sources at the very end of the big blocks of text rather than inline after the relevant sentence/statement, only further dilutes the transparency. The article is a bigger mess than it was before.

Also you are being incredibly deceptive and selective in your wording. You added into the article: Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the Uladh province, but simply began labeling it as In Cóiced, the province., and you attribute this source as evidence. Now what does the source actually state? "the annalists frequently referred". Nowhere at all does it state what you claimed! It only makes one wonder what else is improperly and misleadingly sourced. You also ignore the source and use the archaic tribal name not longer used by academics, for example "Hy-Tuirtre", which is spelt properly as "Uí Tuirtri" - ironically I live only a few miles from the heart of their original territory that lay in the neighbouring province of Airgialla.

Though I do like how you are using that A New History of Ireland source that you derided above as being inconsistent, yet who is it that specific chapter by? That's right the historian you praise so highly F.J. Byrne, yet the footnote on that page (which I've already pointed out) discredits and debunks one of your main arguments above. So is that footnote wrong, considering you claim Byrne is the utmost authority on the subject matter? The lack of consistency in your viewpoint is really perplexing. Though by all means continue to edit the article, it doesn't mean that it vindicates your viewpoint or will definitely change editors minds. Mabuska (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need to be expert on Irish history. Content is not the problem. Looks like Mabuska wants title of article. He says "I am not seeking to delete this namespace, all I seek is to have it as a redirect to Ulaid. I would of moved this article to that namespace already over a year ago however it already existed so I worked on the Ulaid article until this one became redundant, and it has become so." Read article. Didn't find it redundant. Found it interesting. Never knew anything about Ulidia. Learned something. I would not want it redirected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AF07:8D00:D913:D7AE:9A93:26F2 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still full of inaccuracies... Ulidia's interrelated Red Branch ruling houses (I. "Cróeb Ruad" or "red earth" royal houses) were the remaining of the Dál Fiatach group of Ulaid royal dynasties - Cróeb translates as "branch" not "earth", and nowhere in any credible sources is Cróeb Ruad translated as "red earth", but as "red branch", hence the Red Branch, which the sentence makes reference too. The non-"Ulidia", Ui Echach Cobo are also attested as belonging to the Red Branch but weren't part of the Dál Fiatach and survived in power long after Dál Fiatach disappeared. One of many problems in this article. Mabuska (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albiet there is a fine line on when it is permissible for an editor to remove another editors comments. This does not fall within that remit as it is a genuine concern that is easily substantiated based on your behaviour described by admin Bishonen for which you got blocked for. Regardless I'll let it slide for the sake of getting this over with quicker. Mabuska (talk) 14:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mabuska - This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article Kingdom of Ulidia for its improvement. You really have to stop using the page to personally attacks me. Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Personal attacks defines the following behavior as a personal attack: “Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence”. You are accusing me of deceptively "gaming" here without any evidence, whatsoever. Even if I had in past "gamed", that would not establish that I have done so here. As a Euler diagram easily demonstrates, the comment last above demonstrates a lack of any semblance of syllogistic reason. It is also disruptive of the Wikipedia.
Some two years ago, I forgot to sign in when continuing a discussion. As anyone can see from a review of the discussion at Bernard McNulty, though I continued anonymously, I clearly referenced my prior signed comment. As the discussion, again, clearly demonstrates therefore, there was no attempt on my part at deception as to who I was. As the discussion history clearly also demonstrates, an administrator, who was not only involved in the discussion, but also involved opposed to my views, banned me from the Wikipedia for, if I remember correctly, 48 hours. The penalty was so piddling that I ultimately decided to let the matter simply die. This is the only time that I have ever been banned from the Wikipedia or had any type of administrative action against me. Is this what you were determined to reveal to the World? Are you satisfied now? Can we each now go ahead individually with progressing the Wikipedia?
Also, I don't need you to educate me with your take on Wikipedia policy. And, you are not letting anything "go this time". If you think that you can perfect a complaint against me, I in fact challenge you to go ahead and do it. This time, however, I won't just suffer your attacks. I shall file a counter grievance for all your manifold attacks upon me as a deceiver or liar and for disruption of the Wikipedia. I am not going to be baited. Mabuska, you really need to learn when to just let things end well. Along this line, it might be helpful for you to very carefully review the content of Wikipedia:Personal attacks. I now have. Also, I am not going to encourage you by continuing to respond to this type of nonsense. This is the last time. Albiet
@Albiet: Please. It's "an Euler diagram", not "a Euler diagram". "Euler" is pronounced like "oiler". Michael Hardy (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been cautioned for your behaviour, which is what I initially sought, so please stop trying to bait me. Instead please try to focus on gathering evidence to support your arguments against mine for redirecting this article in the forthcoming mediated discussion. The views of the other two editors to contribute to the RfC still carry weight and both agree with Ulaid not Ulidia. You will need to convince them, and Oshwah, otherwise. The evidence I provided above as well will be far more indepth this time around. Mabuska (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Byrne46 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference Ptolemy was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Mediated discussion[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Past discussion[edit]

Collapsing wall of text. This is too much not only for myself to read, but for anybody to read. See my request below. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oshwah, User:Albiet. May as well get this started then.

Ok, after some thought I've decided to cut down what I was originally going to provide for this discussion so I can avoid instances of WP:TLDR, yet it may still be quite long.

To put a bit of perspective on this. Originally I tried to move this article to Ulaid as that is the common academic name for this kingdom. I couldn't as that namespace was already being used. So I decided to extensively edit and expand Ulaid to properly cover this topic so that this article could be redirected to it. Having done so, Albiet objected.

In the RfC, of the two editors to give a view point (ignoring the dubious one edit IP), Brianann MacAmhlaidh, who has knowledge in the area of medieval Ireland, agreed with me flat out [24]. After initial confusion over the issue and admitting they knew little, the other editor Caeciliusinhorto came to this conclusion after I provided evidence and they took the extra effort of seeking out sources for themselves to make up their own mind. Their conclusion backs up my view on the matter that "Ulaid" is the common name not "Ulidia". Still Albiet objects.

Simply put my argument boils down too:

  1. Wikipedia:Article titles states "article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject.", and in this instance that is as "Ulaid" not the "kingdom of Ulidia".
  2. Mergism - both entities can easily be dealt with in the one article especially considering there is not much to detail on the Ulaid people as opposed to the Ulaid kingdom.

Albiet has made quite a few-sometimes confusing-arguments as to how Ulaid and Ulidia are not the same and must be treated differently. Yes I agree that Ulaid is the name of a population-group however it is a population-group that is based on medieval literature. It is however also the name of a territory based on historical fact, and its dynasties, regardless of their lineage are often referred to as "the Ulaid". Both are heavily interrelated and can be easily dealt with in one article, which Albiet objects too.

Even if I compromised and agreed that we should have two separate articles, this one would still need renamed per Wikipedia:Article titles and WP:COMMONNAME to "Kingdom of Ulaid", or rather something more appropriate such as province or over-kingdom or "Ulaid (territory)" etc. Yet that would still mean making this page a redirect and moving the bulk of Ulaid to the new namespace, which I'm pretty sure Albiet would disagree with as well despite the many flaws this article as it is has.

To cut down on waffle, a simple look at the following sources makes it abundantly clear that Ulaid is the academically used name for the kingdom as well as the population-group. Just to note Albiet has several times noted the unquestionable authority of F.J. Byrne in regards to Irish history.

  • Page 17 of A New History of Ireland, II Medieval Ireland 1169-1534, a chapter written by F. J. Byrne. Also check out the footnote as Albiet claims there is a difference.
  • These scans from Duffy, Seán (2014). Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7171-6207-9.: [25] and [26]
  • This scan from Connolly, S.J. (2007). Oxford Companion to Irish History. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-923483-7. Also read the Earldom of Ulster part.
  • A collection of maps from Duffy, Seán (2005). The Concise History of Ireland. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 0-7171-3810-0. and make sure you take a close look at the legends as well: 5th-8th century Ireland, 10th-early 11th century Ireland, and circa 1100AD Ireland.
  • This map by F.J. Byrne from his "Irish Kings and High-Kings" book, reprinted in Duffy, Seán (2014). Brian Boru and the Battle of Clontarf. Gill & Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-7171-6207-9.
  • These results for Ulaid from Kings, Chronologies, and Genealogies: Studies in the Political History of Early Medieval Ireland and Wales. Just to note both me and Albiet agree that Ui Echach Coba mentioned on page 191 are accepted to be of the Cruithin race (as opposed to the Ulaid race), so this source is using Ulaid to refer to the people of the over-kingdom.
  • Page 184 of The Early Cultures of North-West Europe.
  • This scan helps shed light on the relationship between the names of territories and peoples (the last paragraph).
  • Look at the usage at [27].
  • Pages 26 and 365 of [28]. In fact page 26 and 27 make use of both terms interchangeably, and also makes use of Ulidia when referring to the capital of the older province of Ulaid that Albiet says this article isn't about
  • Also look at [29] - the "king of Ulaid" covers what is eastern Ulster (the modern-day province), and in the same time period that this article is meant to be about a different kingdom called Ulidia in the exact same place.

I have also taken into account some of Albiet's issues over redirecting this article, I have expanded Ulaid to detail more on the "race", even though what was there on them before I got to the article is still there in the Ulaid#In_medieval_literature section.

There is very little historical information on the Ulaid population-group, and certainly not enough to merit a separate article for them and kingdom. Historians focus on the kingdom, its rulers and dynasties, and events that happened to them. The origins of the people of these medieval kingdoms are shrouded in mystery and the only sources are the surviving Irish legends and fabricated pedigrees and histories made by medieval and middle-ages pseudo-historians. Culturally, all the population groups on Ireland as far as academia is concerned spoke Irish and had the same culture. These are detailed elsewhere on Wikipedia Irish language, Old Irish, Culture of Ireland, Christianity in Ireland, Irish mythology, Early Irish literature etc. The Ulaid of legend are also detailed at Ulster Cycle. There is certainly not enough to merit a separate article to the Ulaid race - at least not at present, and there is always space for expansion at Ulaid article as it is. Mabuska (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although nineteenth century historians sometimes used Ulidia, modern ones don't seem to. It's merely a Latinised form of Ulaid as Byrne clearly conveys in the two times he uses it in "The Trembling Sod". Mabuska has already noted these two instances above (on page 17 within the text and in a footnote) but I'll just copy them here for ease. First instance: To conclude our survey of the northern kingdoms we turn to Ulster proper (Ulaid, latinised as Ulidia and Ultonia). Second instance: The distinction suggested by Roderick O'Flaherty (Ogygia (London, 1685), iii, p. Ixxviii) between Ultonia, the ancient 'fifth' and modern province, and Ulidia, the early medieval kingdom, has no basis in contemporary records. Although Albiet has supplied walls of text arguing that Ulidia is an important term used by historians to differentiate the early Ulaid from the later medieval kingdom, he hasn't shown that this is the case. Byrne suggests just the opposite in the above quotes. As far as I can see, Albeit's just stringing together antiquated sources. That's the problem with the whole article. If he'd actually followed modern and reliable ones he probably wouldn't have forked the article to begin with; he wouldn't have dwelt on all the surname trivia and the genealogical links of "The British House of Stuart" with the Ulaid; he wouldn't have spun John de Courcy's destruction of the kingdom into a glorious campaign fought by "the dog of Ulidia" in which de Courcy "barely escaped to Dublin with his life".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albiet's rebuttal[edit]

As clearly evident from the first, second and third paragraphs of the article Kingdom of Ulidia, which I have now extensively sourced, from the time of the Annals of the Four Masters, the Latin term Ulidia has been used exclusively to describe the Cruthin Ulster subkingdom of Dál nAraide, as it existed independently after its Cruthin population was overwhelmed by refugees from the Ulaid tribe after the Three Collas dismemberment of the Ulaid province. The term has never been used by any source, either ancient or modern, to describe the Ulaid province or the ancient fifth of Ireland legendarily gifted to Ir, or in Irish language the Cúige Uladh (province Ulster), that is Greater Ulster. To use the term Ulidia to describe the Ulaid province would be gross error. The term Ulidia was coined by the annalists for the very purpose of distinguishing DalnAraide from the Ulaid province. The Latin term that the annalists use for the kingdom of Greater Ulster or the Ulaid province is alternatively Ultonia. I provide extensive citations with verbatim quotes in support of this paragraph as the end of this rebuttal.

Also, existing from about 450 AD, the territory of Ulidia or DalnAraide has developed its own extensive history, which cannot be accommodated in an overview article on the Ulaid province, a subject which has its own even more extensive history, having according to the Encyclopedia Britannica existed from about 1699 BC. The amalgamated article would just be too unwieldy. The subject of Ulidia is best handled as a separate article.

Moreover, if the subject of Ulidia were to be included in an article on the territory of the Ulaid, it should not be included in the Wikipedia article Ulaid, but, in the much better written and far longer existing Wikipedia article on the territory this tribe, Ulster. Ulster is the English word for Ulaid. The article Ulaid is in largest measure now simply a redundant, inferior version of the Wikipedia article Ulster. This was not the case until recent edits were made to the article Ulaid. The subject of the article Ulaid was prior the Ulaid nation or Irish Ulothi tribe. The subject of the territory that the Ulaid nation historically occupied was always and still is the subject of the Wikipedia article Ulster and its extensive history section. A Wikipedia redirect page titled Ulaid (province) previously directed Wikipedia readers interested in the subject of the territory of the Ulaid tribe as opposed to the Ulaid tribe itself to the Wikipedia article Ulster. The redirect was recently edited into a disambiguation page in conjunction with the recent edits to the Wikipedia article Ulaid. The Wikipedia article Ulaid as it currently exists should either be nominated for deletion as inferiorly redundant of the Wikipedia article Ulster or reverted to its version prior to the recent edits, when its subject was the Ulaid nation of people. Caeciliusinhorto has already commented to User:Mabuska that the subjects of the territory and the people of the Ulaid might (as they have always been) be better handled in two separate articles, one dealing with each.

In support, I provide below for the reader's convenient review a portion of paragraph one and paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Wikipedia article Kingdom of Ulidia, in edit version, with the cited sources and verbatim quotes therefrom in line.

From the article ...

Annalists have called the territory in Latin Ulidia or in Irish language Dalnaraidhe to distinguish it from Greater Ulster or the Ulaid province, the ancient fifth of Ireland legendarily gifted to Ir, or in Irish language the Cúige Uladh (province Ulster), which the annalists call in Latin instead Ultonia and which the Three Collas had broken up in the fourth century.

The Antiphonary of Bangor, Part 1 (an early Irish manuscript in the Ambrosian Library at Milan). Warren, F. E. (Ed. & Trans.). (1893). London, UK: Henry Bradshaw Society (Vol. 4, printed for the Society), Introduction, p. ix “Lesser Ulster, or Ulidia; (as distinquished by some writers from the Greater Ulster, or Ultonia, broken up in the fourth century by the Collas.) It was within the boundaries of the ancient territory known as Dalnaraidhe …”

Keating, G. (1857). The History of Ireland (J. Mahoney, Trans). New York, New York: P.M. Haverty, p. 727, "The name Uladh was applied to the whole of Ulster, but in after times was confined to a large territory comprising the present county Down and part of Antrim and was latinized Ulidia. This territory also obtained the name of Dal Araidhe."

John Ryhs, Professor of Celtic at Oxford, President of the Cambrian Archeological Society, Hon. Fellow, The Early Irish Conquests of Wales and Dumnonia. The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland for the year 1890, The Proceedings and Papers of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 1890-1891, published by the Society and printed for it at Dublin, Ireland by University Press, 1892, Vol. 1 (fifth series), Vol. 21 (consecutive series), pp. 642-657, at p. 646, “conquest of Oriel or Southern Ulster, by the Three Collas. This had the effect, it is said, of driving the former possessors of Oriel, the Fir-ulaid , or true Ultonians, as they are called, into the peninsular east of Bann, and Lough Neagh; that is to say, approximately into the present counties of Down and Antrim … one of the consequences of the aggressive movement which drove the true Ultonians of Oriel to the north-east of Ireland or Ulidia, as it is sometimes called, to distinguish it from Ultonia, or the whole of what is called Ulster.”

See, also, Michael O’Clery, The Annals of Ireland (The Annals of the Four Masters). Owen Connellan (Ed. & Trans.). 1845. Dublin, Ireland: Brian Geraghty publisher (First publication of the Annals in English), p. 271, "and thence to Dalaradia or Ulidia, which territories now form the southern parts of Antrim and the County of Down", and p. 557, "DeCourcy and his followers succeeded in conquering … and made settlements in … Ulidia or Dalaradia, in parts of Down and Antrim."

An individual member of the Ulaid nation or the Kingdom of Ulidia was known in Irish as an "Ultach" (variant spellings are "Ultagh" or "Ultaigh"), in Latin as an "Ultonii" and in English as an "Ultonian" or "Ulsterite".

G.H. Hack Genealogical History of the Donlevy Family Columbus, Ohio: printed for private distribution by Chaucer Press, Evans Printing Co. (1901), p 38 (Wisconsin Historical Society Copy)

After what has been described as the “the dismemberment of Ulster by the Collas about A.D. 331”, ref Keating, G. (1857). The History of Ireland (J. Mahoney, Trans). New York, New York: P.M. Haverty, p. 415 /ref Ulidia came to sit as one among a number of small medieval Gaelic kingdoms, including the Kingdoms of Meath, of Tirconnell, of Bréifne, of Tir Eogain and of Airgíalla, in the lands which had been the former kingdom of Greater Ulster or kingdom of the Ulaid.

Keating, G. (1857). The History of Ireland (J. Mahoney, Trans). New York, New York: P.M. Haverty, pp. 723 - 729, "The Kingdom of Ulster – The name in Irish is Uladh, pronounce Ulla, and latinized Ultonia the people were called Ultaigh, in Latin Ultonii, and Ultonienses, anglicized Ultonians. This ancient kingdom comprised the counties of Louth, Monaghan, Armagh, Down, Antrim, Tyrone, Derry, Donegal, and Fermanagh, and the old territories of Orgiall, Dalaradia, Ulidia, Dalriada, Tir Eogain, Tirconnell, and Fermanagh; the county of Cavan, which was part of Brefney, belonged to Connaught, but was afterwards added to Ulster, and the county of Louth, which was part of ancient Ulster was added to Leinster.” (bold emphasis added, italics original)

While amongst these kingdoms, Ulidia kingdom was the last patronage of the Irish Uluti (Ulothi) tribe or the true Ulaidh nation, which had given its name to the Ulaidh province or Greater Ulster, by the 9th century AD, the majority of its territory was anyway no longer occupied by them nor was the over-kingdom even ruled by their dynasty. In the late 9th century, the Ulaidh were forced to cede the over-kingship of Ulidia to members of the Cruthin tribe and its Dál nAraide, who were not of the Ulaid nation of people, and this came to obscure the original distinctiveness of the Ulaidh and Cruthin peoples themselves. Uí Echach Coba Cruthin had even earlier been periodically elected to the over kingship of Ulidia.

Woolf, A. Ulaid. (2005). In Duffy, S. (Ed.). Medieval Ireland An Encyclopedia (p. 817). New York, New York: Routledge.]

Croinin, D.O. (Ed.). A New History of Ireland. (2005). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, p. 213

Coscove, A. (2005). Ireland 400-800. In Cosgove, A, (Ed.). A New History of Ireland (Vol. I) (pp. 182-234, at p. 214). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Even when the Dál Fiatach regained the over-kingship of Ulidia in the late 10th century, they were then titular rulers, who directly controlled little more territory in Ulidia than the royal site at Dún Phádraig. The Northeast of the kingdom was then ruled by the Dál nAraide of Cruthin stock, Ulidia’s largest sub-kingdom located in its Southwest in what is today County Down and which comprised near a third of the land area of Ulidia, the Kingdom of Iveagh, was ruled by the MacGuinness, who were Cruthin Dál nAraide, a foreign people known as the Hy-Tuirtre, who were not of the Ulaid, had occupied an area of Ulidia on the east side of the River Bann and Lough Neagh in what is today County Antrim, where they ruled themselves without the authority of the Ulidian over-kings, and, finally, from well before the 10th century the entirety of the North of what is today County Antrim had simply been lost to the Dál Riata, who were of course also not of the Ulaid nation and who also ruled the area free of even token vassalage to the Ulidian over-kings.

Byrne, F. J. (1993). The trembling sod. In Cosgove, A, (Ed.). A New History of Ireland (Vol. II) (pp. 2-42, at p. 17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the province Uladh, but simply began labeling it as the province.

See Michael O’Clery, The Annals of Ireland (The Annals of the Four Masters), Vol. II, (2nd ed). John O’Donovan (Ed. & Trans.) Dublin, Ireland: Hodges Smith and Company (1856), editor’s note at p. 584 “The province: i. e. Ulidia, the part of Ulster east of Glenn – Righe and the lower Bann not the entire portion of Ulster.”

See also again Byrne, F. J. (1993). The trembling sod. In Cosgove, A, (Ed.). A New History of Ireland (Vol. II) (pp. 2-42, at p. 17). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press., “(the annalists frequently refer to the reduced Ulster as In Cóinced, ‘the Province’ par excellence)” (italic emphasis original), see also note at page 971 as general reference "[i.e. Ulidia, or Eastern Ulster]". User:Albiet

Just to make clear most of my comments in this discussion will be to respond to questions by User:Oshwah, as opposed to stuff posted by Albiet, otherwise we'd be here for far longer than necessary explaining the terminology used by historians, which Albiet continually confuses - for example when Ulster is being used to refer to the modern entity for the sake of making it easier for readers to locate a place, or in regards to the English name for the medieval and Norman-era over-kingdom of Ulaid.
However I would like to expand upon a source used by both me and Albiet, that of "Byrne, F. J. (1993). The trembling sod. In Cosgove, A, (Ed.). A New History of Ireland (Vol. II) (pp. 2-42, at p. 17)". Here is the Google Books link again. Note the map on page 3; note the part of the paragraph that starts with "Similar charters" on page 12 that mentions Ulster, which makes it clear that the Ulster in the map above is a province, a province whose territory is the exact same as that of medieval over-kingdom of Ulaid (or Ulidia if you wish). The mention of Ulster on page 13 in the paragraph starting "The traditional 'five fifths'", once again making it clear on what Ulster refers to in the medieval period. Page 17 quite clearly states that the kingdom of "Ulster proper" is called Ulaid, Latinised as Ultonia and Ulidia.
Finally I would like to point out that once again Albiet is making incredibly bad faith claims and arguments: they claim that the A New History of Ireland source states Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the province Uladh, but simply began labeling it as the province. - I can't find this at all on any single page of the "The trembling sod" chapter that this is attributed too by Albiet. What exact page is this supposed to be on User:Albiet? Mabuska (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oshwah's response[edit]

Albiet, Mabuska: Holy cow! Haha! Give me some time to read over this, and I'll respond once I have done so. Be patient and please, let me mediate first before further responses are made. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 05:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Albiet, Mabuska: Okay, I performed a quick read-through of both of your arguments. It appears that the center of this dispute is the title of the article and what it should be named as. Moving both of your references and arguments aside, I will note that we're missing an important point here: A request for comment has been made regarding this issue, which I will note was the right thing to do in order to gain a neutral perspective, input, and consensus regarding what the title of the article should be. It doesn't appear that a consensus has been reached yet, nor has the discussion concluded. Why are we trying to argue and make changes outside of the RFC? Shouldn't we provide our arguments in the discussion and let the community help decide what the article title should be? If we're going to make a request for community input and discussion regarding this issue, shouldn't we be focused on that discussion? Making edits back-and-fourth, engaging in heated discussion and finger-pointing, and escalating the issue to ANI aren't helping that discussion to each a consensus. There appears to be some other editors that are providing input, but the events that have unfolded since have ignored them. I think that we need to do an about-face, focus on the RFC, and get community help here. This is, by far, the best thing that we can do in order to do what's best for the encyclopedia - get input from uninvolved editors and let the community reach a consensus and decide. How do both of you feel about this? Isn't this the right thing to do? :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion[edit]

The ANI was only for that personal attack not the actual content dispute, and was filed as editors should not be allowed to get away with making such comments and idle threats to other editors, especially when its over an unfounded allegation.
On the RfC, it seems to be a none runner because Albiet is: continually ignoring the views of the modern academic evidence put forward to him; ignoring the conclusions of the other two editors who backed Ulaid instead of his view; continually posting mass walls of text full of historical inaccuracies that either have no evidence or is loosely or not at all backed by incredibly out-dated sources that are nowhere near modern academic level. Like seriously, Keating, O'Hart, Leland, and O'Donovan? And when Albiet does use a modern source, as pointed out above with the A New History of Ireland one, they distort it to back up their view point even when the source in no shape or form does. The walls of text alone is enough to put off other editors contributing to the RfC due to WP:TLDR.
Like compare the transparency of the evidence I provided to Albiet's, where they simply post what they added to the article and added citations that don't make it clear what exactly is being backed up or how. Additions that are full of their own viewpoint and prejudices. With mine, you can read it for yourself and make up your own mind. It's not conducive for a good debate and only helps fuel bad faith.
WP:Consensus does not need universal agreement and Albiet will always oppose this move and a time has to come where a line is drawn where editors who make irrational arguments that have no academic basis have to be disregarded and allow what's best for Wikipedia to proceed. Mabuska (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say the ball's in Albiet's court. It's up to him to show that modern historians divide the history of Ulidia from the Ulaid. He hasn't yet. As far as I can see, modern historians don't seem to make such a distinction, or even use the term Ulidia.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to Brianann MacAmhlaidh , User:Oshwah from User:Albiet
The issue here as Oshwah points out is the propriety of directing or applying the title Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulster or the Ulahd province, even, in reduced portion. To this point I have provided copious contemporary sources demonstrating the impropriety of doing so, including Keating, Rhys, Warren, and Connellan, see above, all demonstrating that the term “Ulidia” was coined by scholars for the very purpose of distinguishing a small polity within the Ulaid from the Greater Ulaid and even the reduced Ulaid that existed after the expansion of the Uí Néill, that Ulidia had always been a subdivision of Ulaid both greater and reduced and not ever the Ulaid itself, and that this territory of Ulidia was synonymous with the Ulaid sub-kingdom or principality of Dál nAraide (anglicized Dalaradia and Dalriada). Keating "The Kingdom of Ulster – The name in Irish is Uladh … This ancient kingdom comprised … the old territories of Orgiall, Dalaradia, Ulidia …” and, Keating “large territory comprising the present county Down and part of Antrim and was latinized Ulidia. This territory also obtained the name of Dal Araidhe." Ulidia was the small polity that the Dál Fiatach continued to rule after they had lost the Kingship of Ulster or Ulaid to others and at times while others contemporaneously held the Kingship of Ulster.
It is User:Mabuska, who does not even attempt to counter these sources. He hasn’t even mentioned Ulidia at all. Moreover, if one examines the maps that he provides of Ulidia Greater and reduced, they actually support Keatings, Rhyes, Warren and Connellan. Looking at his map of a much larger but reduced Ulaid circa 1100 AD circa 1100AD Ireland, one finds manifold polities listed as existing there with only a small sliver of the area east of Lough Neagh and the Lower River Bann labeled MacDuinnshliebhe, Dal Fiatach, and Dál nAraide. This is what is referred to as Dál nAraide, Ulidia or what is also called the Ulaid “proper”. To be fair, the Mac Duinnshléibhe and their Dál Fiatach also dominated the the Ui Echach Coba below in Iveagh.
As per your request, supplying one of the many available "modern" sources that also confirm that this territory was a small principality distinguished from a greater though possibly reduced Ulaid province, please see, Bruce, F.F. The Spreading Flame (2004). Milton Keyes, UK: Paternoster, p. 578, “The territory of County Down and Antrim was called Dalaradia”. Here the author speaks of this small sub-area of the reduced Ulaid existing after the Ui Neill expansion and at the time of St. Patrick’s late 5th century ministry. Compare the much larger encompassing territory that Mabuska's maps for this period label as the Ulaid. F.F. Bruce was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, England.
It must be remembered that Ulidia is a medieval Latin term. In other words, it is not real Latin or the Latin that was spoken by the classical Romans. It is part of an expansively contrived language developed during the medieval period when Latin still served as the lingua franca of European scholars. I have supplied contemporaneous sources hereto only because they best trace the development and intended meaning of the term Ulidia.
Putting it as succinctly as I think anyone reasonably can is the late 18th century historian Roderic O’Flaherty, “The founders of Orgiellia, and in some times after the sons of Niell … having shut up within the limits almost of the County Down, called by the ancients Ulidia, the Rudricians (Dál nAraide) and the Dálfiatachian posterity … many years incorporated with the Rudricians … [w] herefore we shall call in future the princes of this district not kings of Ulster, but of Ulidia …”, Flaherty, R. Ogygia or a chronological account of Irish events (Vol. II). (1793). (J. Hely, Trans.). Dublin, Ireland, printed for publishing author by W. McKenzie, pp. 290 - 291. Best Albiet (talk) 04:46, 14 July 2016 (UTC)User:Albiet[reply]
Seriously pick up a modern academic source and not antiquated sources from unreliable "historians" that are full of speculative research not backed up by proper academic standard research. You have no modern evidence that proves your point, even Byrne who you highly praise as the utmost authority on the subject explicitly disagrees with your exact viewpoint. You claimed at ANI that you took "professional doctorate and graduate degrees" and lived "a short distance over to the UCLA or the LA County Law Library to do my research". If that is so then please at least try to put forward an actual argument backed up by reliable academic sources. You so far have failed to provide any. Mabuska (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as you have actually provided a modern source, the reliability of it is something to be desired. “The territory of County Down and Antrim was called Dalaradia”. - considering Dalaradia is the Anglicisation of Dál nAraidi, who spanned County Antrim, and not County Down considering it was occupied by the Ui Echach Cobo and Dal Fiatach, something easily proved, then that source can't be regarded as reliable. F. F. Bruce is also hardly a professor of Irish medieval history. He is Biblical scholar.
He hasn’t even mentioned Ulidia at all. - because modern academia tend to use the proper names for peoples and places these days, not antiquated Latinised forms. I have quite clearly mentioned Ulidia when needs be, where Byrne explicitly states that Ulidia is the Latinised form of Ulaid. Nowhere does he equate it to Dál nAraide. All the maps and sources I provided from academic sources state that the over-kingdom/province is called Ulaid (Latinized as Ulidia) and that Dál nAraide is a sub-kingdom within it. - just to add, the maps have the boundaries of this over-kingdom/province the exact same as what your Biblical scholar claims Dalaradia to be! Unreliable or what. Mabuska (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is what is referred to as Dál nAraide, Ulidia or what is also called the Ulaid “proper”. - now your getting yourself confused or maybe just changing your story to try to justify your stance. Dál Fiatach are what is regarded as the proper Ulaid (racial as opposed to territory), the Dál nAraide are regarded as Cruithin. You yourself have even stated this! Also the Dál Fiatach never dominated the Ui Echach Coba. In fact most of this article before your dubious recent editing focused on the Dál Fiatach, most specifically on their Mac Duinn Sléibe dynasty who have nothing to do with the Dál nAraide! At least your previous arguments had an reasoning based on misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
Try to change your argument all you wish, modern sources including the one you hold up as the utmost authority, Byrne, explicitly disagree! Mabuska (talk) 13:09, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brianann that the ball is in your court Albiet rather than mine considering the evidence on display, and a line will need to be drawn. If you continue to fail to provide modern academic evidence to refute what I've provided (preferably from an expert in medieval history such as Byrne and Duffy rather than a Biblical scholar) and to back up your increasingly contradictory and speculative arguments, then I will proceed in a weeks time with the redirect with a working consensus (at present 3 to 1). A weak one considering the amount of editors to provide input but a strong one none-the-less considering the evidence provided. That should give you time to find something. If you fail to and still protest after the redirect then I'll happily go for an AfD citing all the problems above and the redundancy of the article, and you'll have a hard time proving against it. Mabuska (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


User:Mabuska, User:Oshwah – User Mabuska in the last paragraph of his above edit to this discussion contends that the editors party to this discussion, including himself, are of consensus that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should be redirected to Ulaid. In fact, Mabuska is dead wrong in stating this. All of the editors, including Mabuska, himself, particularly, those participating in this mediated portion of the discussion, have unanimously reached the exact opposite consensus. Their unanimous consensus for often different and sundry reasons is that it would be improper to redirect the title Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid. This is the topic that Mabuska, himself, above defined for this Afd and his prior action, which I reverted. Mediator Oshwah has also stated that such is the topic of this Afd and that the editors contributing to the ddiscussion, particularly Mabuska and myself, should stay on point.
The editors participating in this discussion in unanimous consensus …
Editor 1. User:Mabuska- Immediately below from above is Mabuska’s own statement concluding that it would be against Wikipedia policy to title an article on the Ulaid as Kingdom of Ulidia or Ulidia.
"Per WP:COMMONNAME. The most commonly used name for this kingdom in academic sources is "Ulaid". Whilst "Ulaid" is the Old Irish name for this kingdom and its people, "Ulaidh" is the modern Irish form, however the Ulaid article details this in the first sentence of the lede. The majority of sources that make use of "Ulidia" however are not academic, and if they are, they tend to date from the 19th and early 20th century. Adding to this the fact academia now tends to take the native Irish language name as precedence, which is also largely in effect on Wikipedia for example: Dál nAraidi not Dalaradia, Dál Riata not Dalriada, Dál gCais not Dalcassian, Osraige not Kingdom of Ossory etc. etc. though some largely neglected articles retain the defunct manner of style."
Editor 2. User:Brianann MacAmhlaidh – Below from above is the statement of Brianann MacAmhlaidh concurring with Mabuska.
"As far as I can see, modern historians don't seem to make such a distinction, or even use the term Ulidia."--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Editor 3. From an Anonymous Edit above, "Don't need to be expert on Irish history. Content is not the problem. Looks like Mabuska wants title of article. He says "I am not seeking to delete this namespace, all I seek is to have it as a redirect to Ulaid. I would of moved this article to that namespace already over a year ago however it already existed so I worked on the Ulaid article until this one became redundant, and it has become so." Read article. Didn't find it redundant. Found it interesting. Never knew anything about Ulidia. Learned something. I would not want it redirected." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:AF07:8D00:D913:D7AE:9A93:26F2 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Editor 4. User:Caeciliusinhorto offers no opinion whatsoever on the Afd topic.
Editor 5. I, User:Albiet, myself, of course, concur for the different reasons stated above in concluding that it is improper to direct the title Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid. This is why I reverted the redirect.
So, User:Mabuska where is the dispute at all on topic of this Afd?! All who offer any opinion on the topic at all, including your very self, are in unanimous agreement that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should not and should never have been redirected.
Now, for some unknown reason, you threaten in the last paragraph of your edit to go rogue, ignore the clear consensus of this Afd with which you, yourself, concur, and while simply disregarding mediator Oshwah, who has yet himself to comment on topic, engage in Edit Warring by unilaterally acting to again revert the title to a redirect.
Now, we have reach the point also, that when I supply the very modern historical sources that you request, you simply belittle them without argument and despite their sterling qualifications, simply because they are historians of religious movements. I can provide many, many more such modern sources, who use the very term Ulidia, but what is the point of my engaging in such labor. You are simply intransigent on issue, and if these scholars contradict your position, you will simply meritlessly ignore, insult and berate them as you have done repeatedly above and upon which even the mediator User:Oshwah commented during the ANI. Albiet (talk) 01:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)User:Albiet[reply]
So I take it you can't find any evidence that discounts the modern experts in medieval Irish history?

Also please stop trying to mislead: User Mabuska in the last paragraph of his above edit to this discussion contends that the editors party to this discussion, including himself, are of consensus that the title Kingdom of Ulidia should be redirected to Ulaid. In fact, Mabuska is dead wrong in stating this. All of the editors, including Mabuska, himself, particularly, those participating in this mediated portion of the discussion, have unanimously reached the exact opposite consensus. Their unanimous consensus for often different and sundry reasons is that it would be improper to redirect the title Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid. - seriously? @Brianann MacAmhlaidh: stated at the very start I agree with Mabuska. This is really a fork of Ulaid created in 2013. It's not so much an historical overview of a medieval kingdom but largely a collection of factoids that briefly name-drop modern surnames. That's probably to be expected as many of the citations are to out-of-date publications devoted to such surnames. There's no way you can construct a good article on a medieval state with surname books and century-old family histories. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC). Also Caeciliusinhorto last comment was As to what should be done about these findings: It is quite possible that there is enough source material for two articles, one on the people and one on the kingdom. You would know better than I if that is the case. According to wikipedia's article naming policy, "article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject." If (as appears to me to be the case) modern historians overwhelmingly use "Ulaid" for both, then Kingdom of Ulaid and Ulaid might be the best titles for them. Alternatively, if there is not enough material for both, then merging the two articles (at Ulaid) and covering both the tribe and the territory would be another option. Is that clear? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC) - You haven't proved that there is enough information for two separate articles so Caeciliusinhorto suggestion of merging both into one article at Ulaid is basically an agreement for changing this article to a redirect to Ulaid. Nowhere does he state keeping this article as "Kingdom of Ulidia".

You are the only one ignoring the academic evidence from experts in Irish medieval history and the opinions of the other two editors to contribute who both don't agree with your view. I am ignoring most of your arguments as you are clutching at straws distorting sources and changing your argument on whims. The entire plethora of your arguments are discounted by the very expert in Irish medieval history that you cite as the utmost authority on it, Byrne! And you keep refusing to acknowledge what he says on the matter! Are you now going to say that he doesn't know what he is talking about especially when another expert in the same field, Duffy, follows the same line? Do you know better than these experts in the field?

Also you have destroyed your own credibility by intentionally trying to mislead editors. Once again I ask you to tell me on what page of the "The trembling sod" chapter by Byrne does it state Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the Uladh province, but simply began labeling it as In Cóiced, the province? Are you refusing to answer because you know the source does not state or imply this in any way at all and that you were trying to intentional mislead editors?

Your best chance of successfully challenging the redirecting of this article would have been to find evidence that Ulidia does not refer to Ulaid. In that source Byrne explictly states that Ulidia and Ultonia are the Latin for Ulaid, not "Dalaradia". [30] (just to clarify for yourself, Uladh is the modern-Irish for Ulad, the singular form of Ulaid, but also one of many names to describe the same polity, which is leading to your confusion). As you like antiquated sources here is one from 1757 (Ulagh is roughly how you pronounce Ulaid) though they like most antiquated sources are so wrong on some other things as is quite clear reading that page. This source from 1793 (Ulaidh is the modern-Irish form of Ulaid). This one from 1841. Back to modern times here. What is quite clear from antiquated (for all their problems) and modern sources (reliable or not) is that Ulidia is the Latin name for Ulaid (Ulad/Uladh/Ulaidh/Ulster or whatever, they are all the same). So argue all you want against it.

You next best argument would have been to argue that there is a need for two separate articles, one for the kingdom of Ulaid, the other for the people who gave their name to the kingdom. Yet there is little historical information on them except for the alleged pedigrees of the dynasties of the kingdom of Ulaid, and alleged links to other legendary peoples in Ireland. Nowhere near enough information to merit two articles - unless you can find a treasure trove of stuff that modern academia haven't found.

Ball is in your court, prove the experts in medieval Irish history wrong. Mabuska (talk) 14:51, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


User:Mabuska – There is nothing in my court, because there is no game. As you do not appear to be following the discussion, to clarify this for you, I am going to respond here to your comments above in very small numbered bites that might be a little easier for you to digest and hope against hope that this finally makes some headway. Up till now, your replies have simply not been responsive to the topic of this Rfd or my comments, and the discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. Perhaps, if you provide, separately, your very brief responses to each of my also relatively brief and separately numbered comments below, we can get on track and make some progress with this Rfd.
1. If I understand you, you state above that the editors contributing to this Rfd are in consensus with you, because they agree with you that both the Ulaidh nation and the territory that this tribe once inhabited are both called Ulaidh. I do not necessarily disagree that Ulaidh is sometimes sloppily employed in this dual manner. I only make the point that as to the territory this somewhat common, but, very loose conceptualization becomes confusing for the reader when both the Ulaid nation and their territory are discussed in the same article. This is apparent from the maps that you supply. Ulaidh (for the nation) is transposed upon the area that they occupied at various times in history. This does not mean that a contemporaneous state also there existed. This confusing dual use likely arises from the Irish cultural concept of a “tauth” or commonality. I note only that the modern convention in American English and the English Wikipedia has been to use Ulaidh to reference the nation and Ulster or Ulaidh province to reference the territory to avoid such confusion (as in English Ulster or Ulaidh for the nation + tir for territory, the territory of the Ulaidh). I also note that even in ancient times, the territory was referred to in Irish language as the Cúige (province) Uladh to distinguish it from the Ulaidh people, themselves. Also, you do not have to keep repeating ad nauseam that in modern Irish script Ulaidh is spelled with an “h”, whereas in old Irish script, it is not. I am well aware that the “h” is an aspirate, which indicates that the consonant preceding it has been essentially dropped by aspiration and is not really pronounced as such any longer. This is common practice in several scripts. Of course, in old Irish writing the aspirate is unknown because aspiration of the consonant is a given. I speak, read and write two languages fluently, and read two others. I ask you, though, what does any of this matter?! Why are we discussing it, here, now, anyway? Whether the term Ulaid alone should be used to reference both the Ulaid nation and its territory is not the topic of this Rfd.
2. If I understand you, you object to my use of sources which are not according to you “modern”. You consider these sources unreliable. I do not accept your premise, nor do I accept that you are the final arbiter and supreme authority on what is or is not a reliable source. Why would it be preferred to use sources that are several times removed from primary sources and the at times conflicting interpretations of today’s historians, when the actual original sources or ones closer to them and that all of today’s scholars use themselves as support for their own conclusions are readily available. For example, I sight above to the late 18th century historian Flaherty Ogygia. Flaherty figures prominently as a primary source in Katherine Simms’ Medieval Gaelic Sources (2009) Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, a research source guide that I regularly use. You immediately attempt, though, to dismiss Flaherty because his statements, according to you, are not reflected in any “modern” histories. This is the very point. Flaherty’s writings may be the only extant reference to the primary source. Flaherty is still regularly cited as support by “modern” scholars. See for example, Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies, External Links, Volume 16 (Winter, 1988), Carey, J. “Fir Bolg: A native entomology revisited”, pp. 77-83 at p. 78: “He observes that Roderick O'Flaherty had equated the Fir Bolg and the Belgae in 1648; in fact the idea is already implicit …”. The ground breaking nature of O’Flaherty’s, the first scholar to establish that the Kingdom of Scotland proceeded from the tribes of Ireland and not vice versa, work is discussed in Dudley Edwards, R. W. (Emeritus Professor of Modern Irish History, University College Dublin) & O’Dowd, M. (Lecturer in Modern History, Queens University, Belfast). Sources for Early Modern Irish History, 1534-1641 (1985, hardcover, 2002, paperback). Cambridge, UK. Cambridge University Press, p. 180. Odd, these scholars use the terms ancient and modern in reference to history in the same manner that you have criticized “ignorant” old me for using them. Moreover, how on earth would you know anyway that Flaherty’s statements are not reflected in any “modern” histories anyway, unless you really are actually omnipotent. You mean that you know, and I have no idea how limited your knowledge may actually be.
3. The actual topic that you defined for this Rfd is whether the title Kingdom of Ulidia should be redirected to Ulaidh. Both you, repeatedly, above, and Brianann MacAmhlaidh have stated that Ulidia is an archaic term, and you have specifically pointed out that according to your interpretation, it would be against Wikipedia policy to use Ulidia as a title for an article on the Ulaidh province or Ulster. 2 of 4 opining editors against a redirect (Brianann MacAmhlaidh states prior that he agrees with you about Ulaidh having a dual meaning, not the topic of the Rfd). I have stated that Ulidia should not be used as the Latin title for the Greater Ulaidh (which is L. Ultonia) or Ulster because Ulidia is alternatively the distinguishing title for only the remnant Ulaid that existed after the Ui Neill encroachments and, most particularly, for a small area of even this remnant. 3 of 4 opining editors against a redirect. An anonymous editor also states that the title should not be redirected to Ulaidh. Now, 4 of 4 opining editors against a redirect. Caeciliusinhorto offers no opinion on topic at all. How do you get from his or her statement that “If (as appears to me to be the case) modern historians overwhelmingly use "Ulaid" for both, then Kingdom of Ulaid and Ulaid might be the best titles for them. Alternatively, if there is not enough material for both, then merging the two articles (at Ulaid)” (bold emphasis added) your conclusion that the statement “is basically an agreement (by Caeciliusinhorto) for changing this article to a redirect to Ulaid.” (parenthetical added) On what logic?! There is no continuity of thought whatsoever in such conclusion. It is simply non sequitur.
4. Finally, how on earth can you say the “Dál Fiatach never dominated the Ui Echach Coba” and “the Dál Fiatach, most specifically on their Mac Duinn Sléibe dynasty who have nothing to do with the Dál nAraide!”. These two statements are simply inane and contrary to all historical evidence, period. As I stated the Dál Fiatach asserted their authority over the Ui Echach Coba of Iveagh. They did this in 807 AD, and Iveagh became a sub-kingdom of Ulidia. The Dál Fiatach and the Dál nAraide shared the over kingship of the region and during the periods of Dál nAraide over kingship, Dál nAraidia and Ulidia were amalgamated. Never mind anyway. Don’t answer. Let’s just try to stay responsive to the actual topic of the Rfd here. This seems to be hard enough. Albiet (talk) 09:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]
Seriously? I ask you to provide evidence and you provide none.
There is no headway to make, because there is nowhere for your argument to go and you've failed to provide any modern academic evidence from experts in medieval Irish history to counter my arguments, which have been accepted by the two others.
My replies have been to counter your misleading, misinterpretation and misunderstanding of Irish history and other editor responses. Maybe if you focused on the topic at hand and not trying to change your argument at every instance with vast walls of text of speculative OR and confusion in a vein attempt to prove yourself right, then the responses by both of us would be a lot smaller.
Though to try to keep this response to your wall of text shorter:
1. This entire point is speculation based on nothing. Though in the end sentence which you appear to shout at me: I ask you, though, what does any of this matter?! Why are we discussing it, here, now, anyway? Whether the term Ulaid alone should be used to reference both the Ulaid nation and its territory is not the topic of this Rfd. - why does it matter? Because you yourself made it an issue arguing that Ulaid does not refer to the kingdom of Ulidia despite the clear evidence provided that disproves your claim. You made it your principle argument at the very start. Ulidia is the Latin for Ulaid, simple as that, and as clear as day.
2. Whoever said that Flaherty or the others where wrong on everything? No-one. But they aren't the most reliable, and most of Flaherty's writings are not based on primary source's. The annals were compiled centuries after most of the events they detail, and so could hardly be considered primary sources?! For example the Annals of Ulster were written in the late 15th and early 16th centuries! The kingdom of Ulaid/Ulidia had been extinct since the late 12th century! Did a primary source from that time have an incredibly long life to be able to tell those compilers what happened centuries before? In fact your utmost authority on this topic, Byrne, discounts an assertion made by O'Flaherty in that work you cite in regards to what terms meant what. Go on read the footnote.
3. I have stated that Ulidia should not be used as the Latin title for the Greater Ulaidh (which is L. Ultonia) or Ulster because Ulidia is alternatively the distinguishing title for only the remnant Ulaid that existed after the Ui Neill encroachments and, most particularly, for a small area of even this remnant. - you have been shown the evidence that refutes that claim and you keep ignoring it. Several times now I have repeated and shown you what Byrne says on the matter and he disagrees with your claim! In fact its the exact same link where he discounts an assertion made by O'Flaherty who you protest is reliable!
4. Damn right I won't answer such an absurd and utterly ridiculous distortion and convolution of history.
Now it's my turn, though I've yet to receive a response to my questions, which does nothing to garner good faith:
1. What evidence from modern experts in Irish medieval history can you find to back up your views?
2. Are you now saying that who you called the utmost authority on the topic, Byrne, actually doesn't know what he is on about? A simple yes or no will suffice.
3. If you can find any evidence, is there any chance you can provide it in an easy to find and read format as I have done, either via Google books (where most of your sources can be found anyways) or via scans so that editors can see for themselves what the source states without manipulation and distortion? A simple yes or no will suffice.
4. Can you tell me on what page on The trembling sod does it states Contemporary Irish annalists ceased to even refer any longer to the kingdom as the Cúige Uladh or the Uladh province, but simply began labeling it as In Cóiced, the province. This is an incredibly important question, because it was one of your arguments above, yet it can't be found in the source. It is exceedingly obvious why you have refused to answer this question every time I pose it.
5. Even if we decide to not redirect this article, why have you restored information that has no relation to the article all back into it? Mabuska (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may try to claim that none of these have anything to do with the topic at hand, but they do. Mabuska (talk) 12:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact seeing as I have already provided a link in my previous comment before yours to O'Flaherty's work that you cite, even he states that Ulidia is the Latin form of Ulaid.
Though seeing as I will be away for a couple of days as I have a wedding to attend, and so will miss the Thursday deadline I put forward, so as a sign of good faith, I'll give you another week to find something before I seek an admin to close this. By then this RfC will have been open for nearly a month. Mabuska (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]



  • 1 & 3. The representative “modern” sources below not only use the term Ulidia as you demand proved, but, precisely as both O’Flaherty and I say it was intended to be used. Ulidia describes a later small joint kingdom of the Dalnraide and the Ulaid. The Dalnraide’s territory was the north and west of the kingdom. The Uliad’s territory was the southeast of the kingdom. The over-kingship of Ulidia traded back and forth between the tribes until about the 9th century, when the Dál Fiatach thereafter became the sole titular rulers of the over-kingdom. While I think this very, very poor scholarship, for those who prefer to engage in cursory review of historical sources by book preview rather than by taking the effort to travel to a research university’s library where they can fully review sources before using them as references or to verify other contributors’ cites, I have linked all the sources to Google Book previews.
  • a) Marianne Elliott OBE recently retired as Blair chair of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool. She has an international reputation in her field [31]. Look on pages 17 to 19 of her year 2000 book The Catholics of Ulster: A History: “The Ulaid (now confined to east Down) had shared the kingship of Ulidia with the Cruithin of Dál nAraide (roughly occupying the southern two thirds of Antrim, half of Down and north Louth)” … until 972 when they killed the last Cruithin king … By then, however, the Ulaid themselves no longer held any authority in Ulidia,” [32].
  • c) Look at page 36 of Ruth Dudley Edwards' year 2005 An Atlas of Irish History: “In 1177 John de Courcy led a small army on Ulster … He failed at any time however to penetrate beyond the Bann. … During 27 years as ruler of Ulidia, …”, [34].
  • d) Look at page 29 of the year 1995 book Beyond the Black Pig’s Dike: A Short History of Ulster: “Even so small a region as Ulidia, as the territory of the Ulaidh was known, roughly the land east of the Bann, had three over- kingdoms, Dal Fiatach (mid-Down), Dal nAraide (the Lagan valley) and Ui Eachach Cobha”, [35].
  • e) Look at page 124 of Dr. Helen Perros [36] essay “Crossing the Shannon Frontier: Connacht and the Anglo-Normans, 1170-1224" in the 1995 collection of essays Colony & Frontier in Medieval Ireland: “the submission of Ruaidhri MacDuinnshléibhe (Rory MacDonlevy) of Ulidia.”, [37].
  • f) Look at page 26 of year 2001 The History of Ireland: “Henry allied with the Irish kings of Cork, Limerick, Airgialla, Breifne, and Ulidia …”, [38].
  • g) Look at page 160 of the year 2008 book DeCourcy: “Essentially, John’s power was confined to Ulidia, the area to the east of the Upper and Lower Bann.”, [39]. The research for this book is described as thorough, [40].
  • h) Look at Finbar Madden’s [41] year 2010 Understand Irish History: Teach Yourself: “in areas such as the Kingdom of Ulidia in North East Ulster, [42].
  • i) Look at page 24 of Tony Canavan’s [43] year 1989 Frontier town: an illustrated history of Newry: “from a dissident faction in the kingdom of Down (or Ulidia) …”,
  • j) Look at page 9 of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin Journal (or is this 1954 scholarly Ivy League journal not prestigious enough or to ancient for you?): “(Ulidia means eastern Ulster; Uladh used by Kane means all Ulster)”, [44].

Enough of a representative sampling?

Oh, I’ve found so many other books just with an online search of Google Books that equate DalnAradia with Ulidia, too, that I can’t possibly begin to representatively list them here. You may want to complete a search for yourself though this is more marginally on point of the Rfd.


  • 2. As your own link demonstrates [45], Byrne never “discounts” O’Flaherty’s assertion that the Latin term Ulidia was coined to distinguish the later, lesser joint Dalnriade and Ulidian kingdom from the Greater Ulaid province or Ulster (L. Ultonia) that was then ruled by other lines of High Kings. You are misreading Byrne. You read your own bias into his words. Byrne states in footnote only “The distinction suggested by Roderick O’Flaherty … between Ultonia, the ancient ‘fifth’ and modern province, and Ulidia, the early medieval kingdom, has no basis in contemporary records.” (bold emphasis added) In other words, there are no primary sources supporting his statement that are known to still exist, if they ever did. This is not to say that Flaherty made his statement without any support. This is my very point. Many of these earlier scholars, while they often mire their research in lore, still, may have had access to primary sources that no longer exist and sometimes the sources are even described in their works. And, O’Flaherty is one of the more trusted of such sources, especially, on matter of language. I never stated that Flaherty was himself a primary source. I don’t know where you got this.
  • I think this is enough for you to digest for now. I’ll answer the balance of your questions in my tomorrow morning, PST. Albiet (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Still waiting for the balance of my questions four days on... and as always seem to not bother answering the majority of questions put to you.

Your argument is getting even more confused than ever. Of course Dal nAradia is going to be equated with "Ulidia" because it was a sub-kingdom of it and as far as historians are concerned always was! Ulidia is after all the attested Latin name for Ulaid, the province/over-kingdom that Dal nAradia was a part of!

All that the sources you provide show is that there are modern historians and writers that still prefer to use the Latin name Ulidia instead of Ulaid for whatever reason. Maybe because it is easier to pronounce from reading than Ulaid, who knows. However the standard name predominantly used by academia for the kingdom is the native term Ulaid, and that is also the practice on Wikipedia and academia where Irish medieval kingdoms/peoples go by their native name not the Anglicised or Latinised form, for example once again: Dál nAraidi not Dalaradia, Dál Riata not Dalriada, Osraige not Ossory, Airgíalla not Oriel, Cenél Conaill not Kinel Conal, Cenél nEógain not Kinel Owen, Dál gCais not Dalcassian etc. etc. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule on Wikipedia but that is because other editors such as yourself have used the Anglicised forms for the article namespace rather than the academically used terms.

You have failed to show that there is a difference between Ulaid and this article. In fact the above sources equate your Ulidia kingdom to the same land as Ulaid, but that is no surprise seeing as they are different terms for the same kingdom, which is what I have been saying all along with academic evidence!

I would also like to point out the Flinn_(surname) article that you created. You clearly state that they are part of the kingdom of Ulidia. The Ui Tuirtri of which the Ó Fhloinn where the ruling dynasty of had taken over northern and central County Antrim and where styling themselves as kings of Fir Lí, Dál Riata, and Dál nAraidi. But this doesn't agree with your earlier claims that Ulidia only spanned southern County Antrim and County Down! Then again most of those sources you provided above also state it spanned more than what you claimed above, but no wonder as your Ulidia is the exact same kingdom as that of Ulaid.

Still waiting for evidence that makes it clear that Ulidia is not the Latin name for the province/over-kingdom of Ulaid. Thursday is just around the corner. Mabuska (talk) 13:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way what page number is that quote from in "The trembling sod"? Seeing as this is the fourth or fifth time (maybe more) that I have asked you this and you have refused to answer. Mabuska (talk) 23:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also when did I ever say that you said O'Flaherty was a primary source? I never did. I explicitly stated: and most of Flaherty's writings are not based on primary source's. Please stop misleading and misrepresenting comments for your own end, it is incredibly bad faith. Mabuska (talk) 11:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Though to throw you a fig leaf, most sources confuse terms. Hence why modern experts in Irish medieval history is the only reliable sources we can use as they have the knowledge.
1. You have those that say Ulidia (attested Latin form of Ulaid) is another name for Dal Araidi (Dalaradia), even though Dal Araidi is a sub-kingdom of Ulaid.
2. You have those, including medieval compilers, that call the sub-kingdom of Dal Fiatach, Ulaid and thus Ulidia, simply because early medieval pedigrees said they where of the Ulaid race.
3. You have altered medieval pedigrees where the Dal Fiatach are no longer claiming to be of the Ulaid race, whilst concurrently you have the Dal Araidi who were claimed as being of the Cruthin (Picts) race now claiming to be of the Ulaid race.
4. Medieval compilers for a long time simply referred to both the Dal Araidi and Dal Fiatach by their original "race", Cruthin/Picts and Ulaid/Ulidian, respectively.
5. Medieval compilers also called the province Ulaid (amongst variations) and Ulidia.
6. That the terms Dal Araidi and Cruthin where used in the early period to apply to the entire territory of that "race" in the over-kingdom of Ulaid, but was later differentiated so that Dal Araidi represented the Cruthin dynasty in County Antrim and Ui Echach Cobo represented the Cruthin dynasty in County Down. Hence added even more confusion, for at a time the term Dal Araidi applied to the majority of land in Ulaid/Ulidia - at least until the two different dynasties where differentiated.
What do we know for fact backed up by modern academic experts in Irish medieval history?
1. That the over-kingdom of Ulaid is also known as Ulidia in Latin.
2. That Ulaid contained three chief sub-kingdoms; Dal Araidi, Dal Fiatach and Ui Echach Cobo, all of which challenged for the over-kingship.
3. That Ulaid contained minor sub-kingdoms including Dal Riata and Conaille Muirthemne, though the Ulaid over-king appeared to have held nominal suzerainty over them.
4. That the province/over-kingdom of Ulster/Ulaid/Ulidia was largely confined to east of the Lower Bann and Upper Bann rivers. According to legend it spanned the north of the island, but at the dawn of recorded history in Ireland it was confined to the north-east of the island. It and its name never spanned the north of Ireland again until the 14th century when the O'Neills overran the Earldom of Ulster (largely confined to east of the Bann rivers) and reconstituted the ancient province.
5. That according to who you called the utmost authority on medieval Irish history, F.J. Byrne, there is no different whatsoever between Ulaid, Ulidia, the medieval kingdom or the ancient province.
But then again you yourself are adding even more confusion to the matter with your highly dubious edits to the article. You added to the article recently from well before the 10th century the entirety of the North of what is today County Antrim had simply been lost to the Dál Riata, who were of course also not of the Ulaid nation and who also ruled the area free of even token vassalage to the Ulidian over-kings. - the Dál Riata are attested in medieval sources to be of the Ulaid race, or nation as you call it, and are stated as being kin of the Dal Fiatach! And considering Dál Riata had always been on the north Antrim coast and had been overrun firstly by the Dal Araidi (in the 7th century), and then the Ui Tuirtri (by the 10th century), how could the north of it be lost to Dál Riata, when it was their own dynasty that lost it? Seriously, you need to let competent editors with more than a family history interest work on these articles. Mabuska (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


User:Mabuska – In response to a few of your most recent comments above. You state to me above “How can the north of it be lost to the Dál Riata” and follow this with the snotty comment “Seriously, you need to let competent editors with more than family history work on these articles.” So, you now call me incompetent too. Should I go whining and file an ANI now? Let us, instead, see who is not acting with competence here. I never stated that the Dál Riata lost anything. You misread my statement. I said that the Dál Riata took a portion of Antrim from the Dál Fiatach. Here is the statement in some of its context.

“Even when the Dál Fiatach regained the over-kingship of Ulidia in the late 10th century, they were then titular rulers, who directly controlled little more territory in Ulidia than the royal site at Dún Phádraig. … before the 10th century the entirety of the North of what is today County Antrim had simply been lost to the Dál Riata, who were of course also not of the Ulaid nation and who also ruled the area free of even token vassalage to the Ulidian over-kings.”

The relevant passage is in passive voice. The actors are the Dál Riata, and they are acting upon County Antrim. This is the only reasonable contextual reading.

Even before this, you state “the Dál Riata are attested in medieval sources to be of the Ulaid race, or nation as you call it.” The Dál Riata are not of the true Ulaid. To legitimize their rule, the Dál Riata claimed descent from the heroes of Ulster Cycle through fabricated and patently false genealogies. There is not a credible source, which states otherwise. You are simply dead wrong here. And, your statement here is odd anyway, as you earlier state the “Dál Fiatach are what is regarded as the proper Ulaid (racial as opposed to territory)”.

You really need to stop these ad hominem arguments (arguments against the person). Your need to attack your opponent in an argument in attempt to discredit them, personally, with hope that such assassination of his character shall reflect on his or her positions simply reveals that you lack evidence to counter their positions on the merits. You don’t need to engage in the logical fallacy of ad hominem to convince. The only people who can be convinced by such arguments anyway are the ignorant or idiots. We are not running for public office here. Make your arguments on the merits. You attempt to discredit me as a source, because you have no supporting sources to counter my statements on the merits. If I were willing to stoop to this same level, based on your statements above, I could say that I am not on the Wikipedia to be a high school grammar instructor. I could say that I am not on the Wikipedia to teach high school Euclidean Geometry (where one would have learned syllogistic methods of reason or to think rationally assuming they had the grey matter to absorb the instruction to begin). I could state that without an ability to read contextually or reason properly, a person should not be allowed to edit the Wikipedia no matter what the extent of their knowledge in a particular field. But, then, anyone is permitted to edit the Wikipedia, aren’t they? Isn’t this the entire basis of the Encyclopedia? Besides, such statements would only be disruptive. I would actually prefer here to address the substance of the arguments so as to improve the Encyclopedia. Isn’t that why where here? And, anyway, if I engaged in such despicable tactics too, it would simply expose that I lacked evidence to counter your arguments on the merits, which is not the case. I don’t need to engage in ad hominem attacks to sway readers like you do. I can persuade them on the merits. Oh and also, i have no problem with referring to the ulaid as a race. This is proper by definition. See Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary. In fact, this is how I originally referred to the Ulaid in the article until another editor stated that I took the term directly from hundred year old sources and that it shouldn't be used in a modern encyclopedia. Thereeafter, I changed the description to "nation". See I am nothing if not accomadating, even, when I think people are being ridiculous. Albiet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Unless you prove such terminoloy as "nation" is used by modern academia then it shouldn't be used. Mabuska (talk) 12:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal[edit]

Considering that the confusing increasingly archaic practice of naming highlighted above is still common, how about the following compromise: turn this namespace into a disambiguation page with the following content:

The Kingdom of Ulidia may refer to:
  • Ulaid, Latinised as Ulidia. An over-kingdom located in north-eastern Ireland.
  • Dál Fiatach, a sub-kingdom within Ulaid, that is also sometimes referred to as Ulaid and Ulidia.
  • Dál nAraidi, a sub-kingdom within Ulaid, that is also sometimes referred to as Ulaid and Ulidia.

That would cover the three uses of the term Ulaid and Ulidia, even if the last two are increasingly archaic and non-academic. A simple addition to the lede—with sourcing—can be added to the Dál Fiatach and Dál nAraidi articles to highlight that they were also archaically known as such despite it also being the name of the over-kingdom they belonged to. Mabuska (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albiet's counter proposal for a compromise[edit]

User:Mabuska Please find below, my counter proposal for a compromise, which redirects the title to this article as you originally desired though not as you originally planned, but in my opinion more appropriately. Before proceeding, I have made some responsive comments in end of your section immediately above. Also, please note, that the answer to your outstanding question 5 is contained in paragraph 6 of my most recent response to User:Oshwah on his talk page. I cannot answer your question 4, as it is non-sequitur. I don’t remember ever quoting such verbatim from the “Trembling Sod”, so I can’t of course show you where such text would be. To the extent that you question the reasonableness of my reading of this portion of page 17 of the article, that is answered at paragraph 4 of my most recent response to Oshwah on his talk page. Also, note, that the Annals of the Four Masters also refer to the small actual remnant Ulaid territory within the Ulidian over-kingdom as the “province” in lieu of Ulaid. I believe I have already cited to this somewhere above, where the translating editor comments that the "province" refers to only the medieval kingdom in eastern Ulster and not the greater Ulaid. If not I can find the cite, though it may take a little while. Oh, and, please stop saying that I have cited “as the utmost authority” F. J. Byrne. You are the one who introduced this more than 40 years old contemporary source into the discussion. I cited to him on other unrelated issue. I never stated he was flawless. In making this type of argument you engage in logical fallacy to convince just as with your ad hominem discussed above, but for different reason. And, again, you can only convince the ignorant or idiots with such arguments anyway. Let us instead try to argue this issue on its merits.

I would propose the following compromise in resolution of this Rfd.

1. In concession to your position that some historians employ both the medieval Latin words Ultonia and Ulidia to reference Ulster (I. Ulaid) or lists them synonymous, I propose that we agree to your redirecting the redirect Ulidia (kingdom) from Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid. I don’t believe that it is necessary to keep the word “kingdom” in brackets. Without the brackets, Ulidia kingdom should appear among options anytime that someone begins to enter Ulidia as a search term. I make this concession even though I do not agree that a source’s stating generally that both words are used to reference the Ulaid in anyway establishes how each word is used when referencing the Ulaid province (e.g. as referencing Ulaid during its entire history and fluctuating expanse or just during portions thereof).

2. I propose that we agree to insert the following edit into the article Ulster before the last sentence of the fourth paragraph of its Early history section: “For a variety of reasons not the least of which being that the rulers of this remnant Ulaid were not always also Kings of Ulster, some major historians have through the centuries and into contemporary times demarcated this medieval Ulaid, which was confined to eastern Ulster, as the Kingdom of Ulidia.<ref>See Flaherty, R. ''Ogygia'' (Vol. II). (1793). (J. Hely, Trans.). Dublin, Ireland: Printed for translator by W. M’ Kenzie, pp. 290-291 and Lyndon, J. F. ''The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages''. (2003). Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press, p. 56</ref>

3. I propose that after making this edit, we agree to redirect Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulster#Early history.

4. Finally, I propose that we agree that sometime during the months of August and September of this year, I shall create an article MacDunleavy dynasty and then redirect MacDunleavy (dynasty) and MacDonlevy dynasty from Ulaid to the new article. You recently redirected the last 2 titles from Kingdom of Ulidia, an article which contained at least some information on this dynasty, to Ulaid which has even far scanter almost non existant information on the dynasty. The only reason that I can think of for this after looking at the web of redirects and linkages that you have made to your revision of the Ulaid article is that all roads must lead to the glories of Rome. I am already familiar with 50 or more both antiquary and contemporary sources from which I can craft a comprehensive description of this dynasty and its rule for the Wikipedia.

I can’t envision how you can have any reasonable objections that would make this proposal a complete non starter. Albiet (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

I can't envision how you objected to the more than conciliatory and reasonable compromise proposal I made considering I did not have to make one as my argument is based on modern academic experts in the field of medieval Irish history and has support from the other editors who participated in this discussion.
Whilst I would like to acknowledge and thank you for making some moves, your proposal however falls flat on several issues:
1. The term Ultonia and Ulidia are the Latin terms for the over-kingdom of Ulaid/Ulster. This is verifiable and undisputed fact. The only way you can concede is to accept that flat out as you can't and have failed to disprove it. Also type Ulidia into the search bar and Ulidia (kingdom) doesn't even make it into the top search items as it is, but as it is a genus of fly any wonder. So the your assumption people will see Ulidia kingdom when they type Ulidia in the search box is a non-runner.
2. That wording is overly confusing and original research. Also its cited to the antiquated Flaherty whose opinion on the matter Byrne explicitly disproves as not being based on contemporary evidence. He may as well have stated its a notion invented by Flaherty himself. Your wording is also still confusing the terminology and entities. The medieval history section in the Ulster article anyways needs a major overhaul as it is without adding such stuff into it.
3. Why? The proposal I made above covers the alternate uses of the terminology in a clear and concise way that neither of us can disagree with.
4. Why? As already stated way back at the start when I removed it from this article to which you restored - the list of Donlevy kings in this article is simply an incredibly obvious selective copy-and-pasting of kings from List of kings of Ulster (exact same formatting and everything). It is already covered elsewhere. Maybe not specifically but they are still covered. The Ulaid article also covers the factual information on the Donlevy's far better than this article does without the gross puffery and weasel wording than Kingdom_of_Ulidia#Local_aftermath does. Incidents that occured after the end of Ulaid/Ulidia (as a result of de Courcy's conquest) can be covered at Earldom of Ulster as that is the appropriate entity, and in any case most of what is in this article is filler with no substance. Anyways why do we need to create another redundant article for? There is no need for a MacDunleavy (dynasty) or whatever article, and the namespace MacDonlevy (dynasty) already exists as a redirect. All that needs to be done is to expand the Donlevy surname article with the factual information that is not full of puffery, weasel wording and bias. Proliferating redundant articles simply for the sake of creating them (such as this article) is not the way to go.
So on those points your proposal is a non-starter as it is full of problems and issues. What exactly is wrong with the one I proposed? It more than adequately covers the issue and provides the user with the links they need. Mabuska (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t remember ever quoting such verbatim from the “Trembling Sod”, so I can’t of course show you where such text would be. - the very last emboldened statement you made here is where you copied what you recently added into the article along with the source you used. So please answer the question. Where on page 17? Or indeed the whole chapter, does the source back up your assertion you added into the article and reiterated on the talk page.
And, again, you can only convince the ignorant or idiots with such arguments anyway. Let us instead try to argue this issue on its merits. - I did argue it on its merits, it was you who engaged in sarcasm, shouting a gross personal attack at me, and distorting sources and changing arguments for your own ends. Maybe that is why no-one has agreed with you so far? Mabuska (talk) 12:05, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following may seem a tad off-topic however as this article was basically about the Donlevy dynasty rather than "Ulidia" it is quite relevant: MacDunleavy (dynasty) and MacDonlevy dynasty from Ulaid to the new article. You recently redirected the last 2 titles from Kingdom of Ulidia - I can't find an article or namespace called "MacDonlevy dynasty" that you said I redirected, but I just redirected MacDunleavy (dynasty) to Donlevy as it does seem more appropriate for it. I had already updated the Donlevy article to include factual information such as the correct meaning of the name but will add extra stuff in from the relevant articles. In fact there is quite a lot of redundancy in regards to Donlevy articles... we also have the needless Mac Duinnshléibhe and Ó Duinnshléibhe articles, which can easily also be redirected to Donlevy, and to which I will merge them with now. Better having all the information on the same name and its variants in one easily found article. I've also copied the regnal list (containing only those names that matter to the Donlevy's, whereas the one in this article contains one or two non-Donlevy's). What do you think? Mabuska (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I need[edit]

Mabuska, Albiet: I'm sorry, you two... but I honestly do not have the time to go through this massive wall of text on my talk page, as well as the HUGE wall of text here.... and nor will any other editor (let's just be honest here). If you really want help, then we need to start over by making a TL;DR statement each (make sure to ping me too, please). If you two still need my input, I need your arguments in less than 300 words each. No conversations directly at one another, no "you did this, you did that". I need just the following information, please:

1. Your content statement. - Exactly what should be changed in the article? / What should not be changed in the article?
2. Your reasoning. - Why should it be changed? Why is it important? / Why should it not be changed? Why is it important?
3. Your references. - The references that you feel support making this change / The references you feel that oppose making this change?

This will make everything a lot easier for everyone. Please place this argument here, as this is the place where discussions like this should go. Thanks :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 01:18, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mabuska's statement[edit]

Per WP:FORK and Wikipedia:Article_titles#Deciding_on_an_article_title as this article is about the exact same entity called Ulaid. Other articles that follow the academic standard of using the contemporary native names for medieval Irish kingdoms on Wikipedia include: Dál nAraidi not Dalaradia, Dál Riata not Dalriada, Dál gCais not Dalcassian, Osraige not Kingdom of Ossory, Airgíalla not Kingdom of Oriel etc. Obviously there are neglected articles that fail to follow this practice for example Kingdom of Meath, which should be Mide (presently a redirect to the prior article). As the following evidence also shows, academia overwhelmingly use the native names for the people, their tribes, and their territory.
Just to clarify Ulaid is old-Irish plural, Ulad the singular. Modern forms are Ulaidh and Uladh. The English word for "either" entity is Ulster, which tends to be used (but not always) when referring to the modern province to help readers locate places. Just to note the modern province of Ulster is a different entity to ancient and medieval Ulster/Ulaid/Ulidia.
Mabuska (talk) 15:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: @Albiet: So much for keeping to less than 300 words and avoiding walls of text. Albiet posted 1,615 words most of which is commentary or direct quoting from links when all Albiet had to do was provide the link and its page number. That can hardly be called fair when I left out quite decisive evidence from my post to be within the limit Oshwah imposed, most specifically how Byrne's footnote discounts Flaherty's view in its entirety and the evidence on Irish nomenclature which makes it clear that Irish territories are usually named after population groups or eponymous ancestors, including Ulaid. Mabuska (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the unfairness of the situation here is some of the supplemental evidence/information I wanted to provide:
  • I intended to move this article to Ulaid and expand it into a proper article. The namespace however already existed (before this article ever did) so I had to piece meal work parts of this one into it. There is very little information on the population group known as the Ulaid and they can easily fit into one article and does so with Ulaid#Population_groups_within_Ulaid.
  • Ulaid originated as a population name but became a territorial name (already proved with the maps but here it is writing): [69] point 4 and 6 [70].
  • For the sake of it another instance of Ulidia and Ulaid(h) being interchangeable [71].
Mabuska (talk) 23:20, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have just realised that the direct imgur links I provided don't show the descriptions added to them where I have the source information listed. If you wish Oshwah I will change the links to the ones that show the sources. Mabuska (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albiet's statement[edit]

Thank you User:Oshwah. My response shall be posted here by 1 PM PST today. Albiet (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Albiet - No rush :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 14:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Greetings User:Oshwah,

Sorry for my tardiness. Here is my contribution. Albiet (talk) 01:47, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Ulaid is an Irish language word not a word in the English language.[1][2] Ulaid doesn’t appear in English print dictionaries or encyclopedia, except, to reference the Irish language root of the English word Ulster, and Ulaid is, then, translated from its original Irish to English as “Ulstermen”.[3][4] The Irish word Ulaid is plural and, therefore, an ethnonym not a geographic name.[5] The Irish language for the territory ruled by the Ulaid in largest expanse is Cúige (province) Uladh.

Ulster is by far the English term most frequently used to describe the province that the ancient, once arch-powerful Irish tribe, the Ulaid, ruled in largest expanse and to which they lent their name.[6][7][8][9][10] So, even, if Ulidia were equivalent to all Ulster and Ulaid sometimes in loose translation is equated to Ulster, if redirected, Kingdom of Ulidia should still be redirected to the Wikipedia article Ulster not Ulaid. See WP:Common names. And, if redirected, which also for reasons in the following paragraph is not recommended, the title should be specifically redirected to (Ulster#Early history).

Ulidia was one of many sub-kingdoms of the medieval over-kingdom Ulster, being the small remnant territory of the Ulaid existing in the eastern part of Ulster after the Ui Neill encroached upon the Ulaid in the late 5th century.[11][12]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Ulidia’s kings were rarely also kings of the medieval over-kingdom of Ulster.[23][24] Ulidia has separate history from the other sub-kingdoms comprising the over-kingdom Ulster, which all too have separate Wikipedia articles.[25]

Recently, information on history of the province in the article Ulster was redundantly and for reason above inappropriately duplicated in edit and muddled into the article Ulaid, a Wikipedia article until then appropriately, exclusively, about the Ulaid people. This in no way justifies redirection of the title Kingdom of Ulidia to Ulaid instead of Ulster.

Albiet's References[edit]

  1. ^ See Merriam-Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. (1971). Springfield, MA: G. C. Merriam, even this behemoth dictionary does not contain a definition for an English word Ulaid but does define Ulster as an English word.
  2. ^ See Oxford English Dictionay (2nd ed.). (Vol. 18). (1991) Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, this even more behemoth dictionary does not contain a definition for an English word Ulaid but does define Ulster as an English word.
  3. ^ See Oxford English Dictionay (2nd ed.). (Vol. 18). (1991) Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press at page 815 where it is noted in defining the English word Ulster that it is formed of the Irish word Ulaidh for “men of Ulster” and uncertainly the Irish prefix “tir” for land. The Dictionary contains no separate definition for an English word Ulaid.
  4. ^ See Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. 18). (1993). Danbury, CT: Grolier where at page 353, in its article on Ulster, it is mentioned that the English word Ulster is formed from the Gaelic word Uladh and the Norse prefix ster (genitive “s” showing possession + variation of “tir”) and that the region is the ancient province originally extending from the northern tip of Ireland to the Boyne and Shannon Rivers. The Encyclopedia contains no separate article on or entry for Ulaid.
  5. ^ Byrne, Francis J. (2001). Irish Kings and High Kings. Dublin, Ireland: Four Courts Press. p. 46.
  6. ^ Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.) (print), p. 1592 “Ulster … ancient kingdom, later a province comprising nine counties, three of which in 1921 joined Irish Free State (now Ireland) while the rest remained with the United Kingdom …” The Dictionary contains no separate definition for an English word Ulaid.
  7. ^ Collin’s Online Dictionary, “Ulster … a province and former kingdom of N Ireland: passed to the English Crown in 1461” [1] The Dictionary contains no separate definition for an English word Ulaid.
  8. ^ The Free Dictionary by Farlex (online) “Ulster … A historical region and ancient kingdom of northern Ireland. …” This dictionary does oddly for an English dictionary define Ulaid as an English word, but, defines it as “The Ulaid (Old Irish, pronounced [ˈʊləðʲ]) or Ulaidh (modern Irish,pronounced [ˈʊləɣʲ) were a people of early Ireland who gave their name to the modern province of Ulster (modern Irish: Cúige Uladh, pronounced [/ˈkuːiɡʲəˈʊləɣ/], meaning "fifth-part of the Ulaidh"). The first part of the name Ulster comes from Ulaidh; the latter part of the name ("ster") comes either from the English possessive ending -s and Irish tír (Ulaidhs tír) or the Old Norse staðr, both of which mean "land" or "territory".
  9. ^ See Encyclopedia Britannica Online, “Ulster, ancient Ulaid, one of the ancient provinces of Ireland and subsequently the Northernmost of Ireland’s four traditional provinces …” Britannica online also has no separate article or entry for Ulaid. Ulaid is only mentioned within its article on Ulster. [2]
  10. ^ See Wikipedia article Ulster for further confirmation. This article has existed in the Wikipedia since 2001 and has contained a well written, well researched and well developed history and description of the territory since at least 2006.
  11. ^ Look at page 9 of the University of Pennsylvania Museum Bulletin Journal, a 1954 scholarly Ivy League journal, “(Ulidia means eastern Ulster; Uladh used by Kane means all Ulster)”, [3].
  12. ^ Look at page 56 of James Lydon (historian)’s year 2003 book The Lordship of Ireland in the Middle Ages: “Irish Kingdom of Ulidia, roughly the part of the province which lay to the east of the river Bann and Lough Neagh.”, [4]. Lydon is a member of the Royal Irish Academy and a former president of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland
  13. ^ Look at page 36 of Ruth Dudley Edwards' year 2005 An Atlas of Irish History: “In 1177 John de Courcy led a small army on Ulster … He failed at any time however to penetrate beyond the Bann. … During 27 years as ruler of Ulidia, …”, [5].
  14. ^ Look at page 29 of the year 1995 book Beyond the Black Pig’s Dike: A Short History of Ulster: “Even so small a region as Ulidia, as the territory of the Ulaidh was known, roughly the land east of the Bann, had three over- kingdoms, Dal Fiatach (mid-Down), Dal nAraide (the Lagan valley) and Ui Eachach Cobha”, [6].
  15. ^ Look at page 124 of Dr. Helen Perros [7] essay “Crossing the Shannon Frontier: Connacht and the Anglo-Normans, 1170-1224" in the 1995 collection of essays Colony & Frontier in Medieval Ireland: “the submission of Ruaidhri MacDuinnshléibhe (Rory MacDonlevy) of Ulidia.”, [8].
  16. ^ Look at page 26 of the year 2001 The History of Ireland: “Henry allied with the Irish kings of Cork, Limerick, Airgialla, Breifne, and Ulidia …”, [9].
  17. ^ Look at page 160 of the year 2008 book DeCourcy: “Essentially, John’s power was confined to Ulidia, the area to the east of the Upper and Lower Bann.”, [10]. The research for this book is described as thorough, [11].
  18. ^ Look at Finbar Madden’s [12] year 2010 Understand Irish History: Teach Yourself: “in areas such as the Kingdom of Ulidia in North East Ulster, [13].
  19. ^ Look at page 24 of Tony Canavan’s [14] year 1989 Frontier town: an illustrated history of Newry: “from a dissident faction in the kingdom of Down (or Ulidia) …”,
  20. ^ See Michael O'Clery, The Annals of Ireland (The Annals of the Four Masters), Vol. II, (2nd ed). John O’Donovan (Ed. & Trans.) Dublin, Ireland: Hodges Smith and Company (1856), editor’s note at p. 584 “The province: i. e. Ulidia, the part of Ulster east of Glenn – Righe and the lower Bann not the entire portion of Ulster.”
  21. ^ The Antiphonary of Bangor, Part 1 (an early Irish manuscript in the Ambrosian Library at Milan). Warren, F. E. (Ed. & Trans.). (1893). London, UK: Henry Bradshaw Society (Vol. 4, printed for the Society), Introduction, p. ix “Lesser Ulster, or Ulidia; (as distinguished by some writers from the Greater Ulster, or Ultonia, broken up in the fourth century by the Collas.) It was within the boundaries of the ancient territory known as Dalnaraidhe …”
  22. ^ John Ryhs, Professor of Celtic at Oxford, President of the Cambrian Archeological Society, Hon. Fellow, "The Early Irish Conquests of Wales and Dumnonia". The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland for the year 1890, The Proceedings and Papers of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland 1890-1891, published by the Society and printed for it at Dublin, Ireland by University Press, 1892, Vol. 1 (fifth series), Vol. 21 (consecutive series), pp. 642-657, at p. 646, “conquest of Oriel or Southern Ulster, by the Three Collas. This had the effect, it is said, of driving the former possessors of Oriel, the Fir-ulaid , or true Ultonians, as they are called, into the peninsular east of Bann, and Lough Neagh; that is to say, approximately into the present counties of Down and Antrim … one of the consequences of the aggressive movement which drove the true Ultonians of Oriel to the north-east of Ireland or Ulidia, as it is sometimes called, to distinguish it from Ultonia, or the whole of what is called Ulster.”
  23. ^ See List of Kings of Ulster
  24. ^ Flaherty, R. Ogygia or a chronological account of Irish events (Vol. II). (1793). (J. Hely, Trans.). Dublin, Ireland, printed for publishing editor by W. McKenzie, pp. 290 – 291, “The founders of Orgiellia, and in some times after the sons of Niell … having shut up within the limits almost of the County Down, called by the ancients Ulidia, the Rudricians (Dál nAraide) and the Dálfiatachian posterity … many years incorporated with the Rudricians … [w]herefore we shall call in future the princes of this district not kings of Ulster, but of Ulidia, to distinguish them.” (parenthetical added for clarification)
  25. ^ See Wikipedia articles for other medieval subkingdoms of the Ulster over-kingdom, including Tirconnell, Bréifne, Airgíalla, and the Kingdom of Meath.

Oshwah's thoughts[edit]

It appears that everyone (with the exception of Albiet) believes that Ulaid should be the parent article title, and while citing relevant Wikipedia policy, maps, and references. Concerns have also been expressed with some of the references that Albiet has provided as well. This discussion, to me, looks open and shut as far as consensus goes. Looks like Ulidia and other names should be redirected to Ulaid. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors[edit]

I looked through some of the Google Book previews that Albiet linked to above (on 22 July 2016, I think). In publications b, c, and e, the word "Ulidia" seems to appear in the text only once, with "Ulster" being used elsewhere. Same with publication f, although this uses "Ulaid" elsewhere. "Ulidia" seems to appear only twice in publication g, with "Ulster" used elsewhere throughout. In publication j "Ulidia" appears once in a quotation from something published in 1897. Anyway, the fact that this Latinisation randomly pops up once or twice in publications that otherwise use the terms "Ulaid" and "Ulster" throughout doesn't really prove anything. As far as I can see, Albiet hasn't yet shown that modern historians purposely use "Ulidia" to separate a particular part of Ulster's history. So my opinion hasn't changed, and I think it should be redirected to Ulaid.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Ulaid#Map_of_Ulaid seems quite relevant to this discussion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.208.123 (talk) 12:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah:. Thank you for taking the time to take an in-depth look at our evidence and coming to a conclusion. Albiet had other concerns that I already have taken into account such as the population group of same name (covered at Ulaid#Population_groups_within_Ulaid) and the information on the Donlevy kings, which I added to Donlevy along with re-working the whole article to give more information. However if they have any other concerns about certain information in this article that may not be elsewhere, then I am happy and willing to work with them to get it put in the relevant place. Mabuska (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Albiet's final comment[edit]

User:Oshwah – Thank you for the serious compromise of your time in mediating this dispute. Since it is your determination that a consensus has been reached in the mediated discussion in favor of redirecting this title to Ulaid, and the proposed redirect has had more than full opportunity for community discussion and is no longer the arbitrary action of a single editor, whatever my continuing opinion, the matter is closed, and the title should now be redirected to Ulaid. Albiet (talk) 12:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)Albiet[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kingdom_of_Ulidia&oldid=1212533713"