Talk:Drumanagh

Please stop reverting back to inferior version of the article

An anonymous user, going by the IP number 70.90.59.74, has now twice reverted this article to an earlier inferior version. All the additions I have made are sourced, and of the bits I have removed, the sentennce 'The root "ruman" in the name D(ruman)argh shows a clear reference to the Romans' is embarrassingly wrong; the extensive quote from a blog has been removed as an innapropriate source for such a quotation; and the reference to Tuathal Techtmar as a historical figure, cited to Vittorio di Martino's Roman Ireland has been removed because Tuathal is not historical, and di Martino does not say he is. The rest of my alterations are just reorganisation so, for example, you don't have two separate paragraphs about Agricola separated by unrelated paragraphs. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And again. Please stop reinserting the linguistic nonsense that Drumanagh contains the supposed word "ruman". It doesn't. Lots of Irish place names begin with "Drum", which is the Irish word droim ridge or hill. If "ruman" was part of the word, the initial "d" would make no sense. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, having consulted Di Martino's book, I cannot locate anywhere where he argues that Drumanagh includes "ruman". --Nicknack009 (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Celtic nationalism?

I find strange that user Nicknack009 pinpoints only his opinion about the "ruman" root. In the italian edition of the book of Di Martino there is clearly stated this possibility in the introduction. And because wikipedia is not based on POV of anyone, but on all the points of view, I am reverting it. I wonder even if there it is the usual problem of celtic nationalism in the points of view of Nicknack009, but I sincerely hope to be mistaken. Anyway the quotations in wikipedia even if related to a blog can be maintained if the source is clearly written. So, I am reverting it too. If this problem of erasing and erasing references keeps going on, I will ask for an arbitration, OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.215.162.17 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be being stubborn for the sake of it.

and you?--Romandrumanagh (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The sentence "The site appears to have been a port or bridgehead in ancient Hibernia" adds nothing to the article that isn't stated elsewhere, and is out of place in a discussion of the section on the physical characteristics of the site. It's only value is the link to the British Archaelogy article, which is poorly cited, with no author or provenance and the wrong title. I have sourced it properly and moved the ref to where it belongs.

This is your POV. For me it is important.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

2. As for the quote from the blog the source is not reliable enough for such weight to be placed on it. A reference to the blog post might be appropriate, an extensive quotation is not. It is also not properly cited. I have reduced it to a paraphrase (and removed the reference to Cashel, which is irrelevant) and cited it properly.

Again, this is your POV. The little pharaphrase doesn't give the real importance to the "weight to be placed on it". It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe (nazism, fascism, communism et al) in order to make "disappear" contrary opinions to their dogmas, ideals and points of view.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I just want to draw editors' attention to the fact that User:Romandrumanagh has just called me a Nazi. I am no longer prepared to enter discussion with him, and have made a Wikiquette report. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have NOT called Nicknack009 a nazi or communist. I have only written "It seems to me (but I hope to be mistaken) that the pharaphrase is the typical "nationalistic reduction" used by all the nationalisms in Europe", and I want to repeat that "I hope to be mistaken". He is -and I am sorry to write that now I am sure- a nationalist who makes people like me change the positive opinion I used to have of Irish people.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3. The alleged "ruman" root is nothing but gibberish. This is not nationalism, this is language. The English edition, correctly, makes no reference to such a root. If it appears in the Italian edition of the book, it is an error, and, like the spelling "Drumanargh" which is apparently also used in the Italian edition, it has been corrected for the English edition. It has no place in this article, and I have removed it again. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The words "rubbish" and "gibberish" say it all....allow me to repeat that these words remember me the typical language used by extremists & fanatical nationalists againts their "enemies", but I still believe you are a serious person with whom it is possible to reach an agreement. Now, I reverse all, waiting for your opinion on "arbitration". --Romandrumanagh (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW: Why only the Italian edition of the book must be wrong about "ruman", while the English is right? It smells a bit to me of "usual" nationalism, don't you agree? And why you erase the reference to Cashiel (...another name from latin....or even here I am wrong....), that could have been originated from Agricola's possible explorative/punitive expedition? I sincerely believe that we need an arbitration here.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors reading this who may be confused, Cashel is irrelevant to this article because (a) this is an article about Drumanagh, not about Agricola's hypothetical Irish expedition, and (b) Cashel wasn't founded until several centuries after any expedition Agricola may have made, and Di Martino argues that it was founded as part of a different hypothetical Roman invasion. --Nicknack009 (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait a moment, mr. nicknack009, Cashel (I mean the Rock of Cashel) was NOT founded several centuries after Agricola's possible invasion (please read [1]), and Agricola is the only Roman related to Ireland & Drumanargh in the year 82. You use pharaphrases to change all the meaning of what I wrote, in typical nationalistic style.--Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Romandrumanagh continues to resort to personal abuse, making it impossible to discuss matters with him. However, I will point out for the benefit of others that the source he has cited is, if you take even a cursory look at it, an obvious piece of pseudohistory, pressing British and Irish legends into service to create an entirely fictitious genealogical scheme connecting the modern British royal family to a lot of mythical characters. It is not a reliable source, and if we're going to accept it as a valid cite then we'll have to start accepting historical novels as evidence for the periods they're set. Besides, it doesn't mention Drumanagh. This is an article about Drumanagh, a real place in a real country which some archaeologists think may have been a Roman outpost, not about Roman activity in Ireland in general. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You, nicknack009, are the one who continues to resort to personal abuse. You started the abuse writing from the beginning that my posts are INFERIOR (sound racist, isn't it?) and later used the word RUBBISH to define what I wrote. And you have the guts to erase references even from published books, with the help from other users who are (guess what?) all Irish. I knew of german and italian and french nationalists, but you are by far the worst! As a consequence, and as a form of protest, I retire from en.wikipedia--Romandrumanagh (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Blog quotes

From wikipeda WP:V

Self-published sources (online and paper)

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable.

The word "largely" has not the same meaning of "always".--Romandrumanagh (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are attempting to game the system with that argument. Seriously, it's not going to work with experienced editors. Trying to find loopholes is not respecting the spirit of the community guidelines. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Kathryn NicDhàna in this instance: you are gaming the system. The blog quote you've been inserting isn't really a suitable reliable source. Much of the text you've been contributing to this article seems to me original research as well as aggressively pushing a POV. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 03:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am a bit offended by this accusation of gaming the system: largely is not always, in plain english. Change then what is written in the wiki rules, so a person like me will not fall in misunderstanding. Quite simple, isn't it?

Unknown tribes

Julius Caesar received submission from the tribe living in the north islands of Scotland. He wrote the names of the main tribes in Britannia in his book De Bello Gallico. Claudius invaded Britannia some years later and sent his roman navy to sail around Britannia. Agricola entered Caledonia in 82 and knew the names of all the tribes of northern Britannia, as reported by Marinus Of Tyre and other authors of roman gazetteers. Indeed, after one century of conquest the Romans in 82 knew perfectly all the people in the great island that they were invading and assimilating to their empire. It is impossible the contrary, even because there were commercial contacts with all these tribes since Caesar times. May I know from user Nicknack009 where you get the information that Agricola may have not know the tribes of Caledonia? You defiantly wrote may have been tribes in the far north of Britain that were not yet known: Sources please. I have given mine: Marinus of Tyre (and roman gazetteers that I can post even in latin), and yours?

PS: I am going to revert your unsourced erase. Please, if you want to cancel again, do it after you post your sources and I will accept what you do. I believe this is the way wikipedia works. --Romandrumanagh (talk) 03:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Roman knowledge of the tribes of the north, Julius Caesar didn't get out of the Thames Valley, the first circumnavigation of Britain was carried out by Agricola after his Caledonian conquests, which were later than his hypothetical Irish expedition, and the works of Marinus of Tyre are lost, so they cannot be cited in support of anything.--Nicknack009 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

From what you have just written I understand that you, nicknack009, lack real knowledge about Caesar De bello gallico expedition to Britain. Claudius ordered a travel around Britannia (Nero probably even) and the works of Marinus are not lost, as all scholars know (Ptolomeus even used his works for his "Geography"). And where are your sources, celtic nationalist named Nicknack009? The reality is that you call INFERIOR (it sounds racist, isn't?) my posts from your first moment in this talk page, but You have no sources at all! Consequently, as a form of protest, I RETIRE FROM WIKIPEDIA!--Romandrumanagh (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

References

Does anyone have access to the texts by Barry Raftery and Gabriel Cooney that are quoted in the article? I suspect that the reference is misleading, as I remember reading Raftery's book and know for a fact (personal communication) that neither of the two believes there to have been a Roman invasion of Ireland, nor, consequently, that Drumanagh was a (military) bridgehead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.118.237.37 (talk) 15:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying us! The article was originally created by User:Romandrumanagh, initially under one of his/her many alternative sockpuppets (User:Paul0559). His/her behaviour (see e.g. the rants above) has not inspired a lot of confidence in me that the sources were handled properly, so I wouldn't be surprised if the attribution of these assertions to Raftery and Cooney turned out to be spurious. Unfortunately, I don't have immediate access to either of them. Cavila (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I have read those texts and the reference is OK. Jimmy L.--207.69.139.154 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

That is not correct. Neither of the texts suggests that the site is a Roman bridgehead or anything of the sort. athinaios | Talk 11:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Good recent doctoral thesis

All online Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Perhaps same author as the 2017 report for the council? Johnbod (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)