Talk:Eueriio

Ptolemy

I've marked the reference to Ptolemy with {fact} as the original text said that Ptolemy's account dated from c.325 B.C., however that date is about 400 years before Ptolemy was born. --sony-youth^pléigh 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup: Original research/interpretation of primary sources

To my reading, this article has considerable WP:OR, ESSAY, WP:TONE and other issues.

Firstly, there is (now) no definition or explanation given for the title - until almost the end of the article.

Secondly, from an Original Research perspective, the use of the qualifiers "probably", "seem to have", etc., suggest that much of the content is either contentious, or represents interpretation of other sources. Given the antiquity of the topic, some qualification of the accuracy of the content is perfectly understandable. However, there are better ways to represent "unknowns". Specifically, in such cases, it may be more appropriate to state the source and theory, rather than just expressing the theory blindly. (EG: Instead of "The newcomers probably overran the whole island", state (if accurate) that "O'Rahilly postulates that the Inverni were present throughout the island", etc.)

Finally, recent changes make the article read like an ESSAY style "exploration"/synthesis of other published works. For example, the use of constructs like "not until we reach Ptolemy", "As we should expect from our knowledge of later Irish history", etc., are likely inappropriate under WP:TONE.

I would clean up myself, but I am not fully familiar with the relevant sources. Or the accuracy of the current interpretation. Guliolopez 00:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the issue. That the source of the content is "reputable" doesn't make how it is imparted or described here either appropriate or relevant. The practices and policies of this project still apply.

As noted above, the guidelines of this project mandate a lead/intro section "capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article". As above, the "context" for the article title here isn't evident until the end.

Beyond that, the guidelines of this project (possibly different from Britannica) are to avoid first, second and third-person pronouns. They abound here, putting the reader in some mystical "we" category (of people who know a lot about "later Irish history"), and in doing so they compromise the encyclopedic tone, and contribute to the "essay" qualities of the text. Guliolopez 01:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no problem with tidying it up Guliolopez, but was just trying to insure people understood none of it was original research, rather a composite of authored and encyclopic sources Caomhan27 01:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge?

As part of the recent cleanup, the "guts" of this article now deal with the Iverni, their "arrival" in Ireland, Ptolemy's writings on them, and the derivation of "Hibernia" from "Ivernia".

The articles titular subject, Eueriio (Ostensibly the Iverni's label for their home) is just a subtext.

To my mind the main content of this article should therefore either be merged to Iverni or (with some further tweaking) be merged with O'Rahilly's historical model (or some other article which generally discusses the "ancient tribes of Ireland").

Thoughts? Guliolopez 13:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]