User talk:Irishhistoryguy

Welcome!

It appears you may have used a large language model (LLM), such as ChatGPT, in your edits. While LLMs are powerful, machine-generated text often contains serious flaws. They may introduce bias, errors, plagiarism, libel, or even hoaxes. Specifically asking an LLM to "write a Wikipedia article" can sometimes cause the output to be outright fabrication, complete with fictitious references. Editors must verify all LLM-generated text before using it in an article. Completely LLM-generated articles may be quickly deleted. If you are unsure about your wording, an alternative is to suggest it on the talk page for another volunteer to look at it. If you are creating a new article, you may use the Articles for Creation process to get feedback on your work.

As you get started editing Wikipedia, you may find the pages below to be helpful:

If you still have questions, there is the Teahouse, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page, and someone will be along to answer it shortly. In your messages, please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. Happy editing! Sarsenet•he/they•(talk) 03:03, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

"King of Ivahagh"

You've added this title to the MacCarthy Reagh page, but there's no page (and only two hits on the entire site) for 'Ivahagh' at all, and you've provided no sources. As some of the other edits you made to that page today do seem to be improvements, I don't want to revert them all, but I do think this needs some explanation and sourcing. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Ivahagh is an English translation (also could be Ivaha, Iveagh [not the Iveagh in Northern Ireland], etc.). In Irish it's Uí Eachach Mumhan, and there are several sources for it. Two different MacCarthy Reagh princes of Carbery in three different sources are recorded as the overlords of Ivahagh. The Annals of Connacht record that in 1366 "Cormac Dond Mag Carthaig ri h. Carpri & h. nEchach Muman" died, and the Annals of Loch Cé again record "Cormac Dond Mag Carrthaigh, ri .H. Carpri agus .H. n-Echach Mumhan." While The Annals of the Four Masters use the more poetic term 'tighearna', we see again that in 1366 Cormac Donn MacCarthy Reagh is recorded as "Lord of Carbery, and of Ivahagh of Munster", and again in 1442 that The MacCarthy Reagh is recorded as "Lord of Ivahagh in Munster". Irishhistoryguy (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

OK, but what secondary sources address it? Per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, we're not supposed to publish our own conclusions from primary sources here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, thank you. My concern is that I do not think either policy is being applied quite correctly here.

WP:OR defines original research as material “for which no reliable source” exists. In this case, we do have sources: three separate Annals, each of which explicitly uses rí, the Irish word for “king.” That seems to me to satisfy the requirement for source-based material rather than unsupported interpretation.

Likewise, WP:SYNTH cautions against combining sources to advance a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of them. But that does not seem to be what is happening here. The Annals themselves state the title directly; the point is not being inferred or constructed from scattered evidence, but read from the sources as written.

I would also respectfully disagree with the characterization of the Annals as primary sources in this context. A true primary source would be something like a contemporary charter, seal, or official document issued by the individual concerned. The Annals, by contrast, were compiled in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries from earlier material. That makes them, in the ordinary historiographical sense, secondary sources, albeit very early ones. Even WP:OR itself links to annalistic material as an example of secondary sourcing, namely Amati's History of the Kingdom of Woxu. So I do not think it is correct to dismiss them as unusable on the grounds that they are “primary.”

Even setting the Annals aside, there are later sources as well. The current Prince himself uses the title on his website:https://www.maccarthyreagh.org/the-chief. Samuel Trant MacCarthy’s The MacCarthys of Munster also refers to “Cormac Donn MacCarthy, Lord of Carbery and Ivahaghe” (https://archive.org/details/maccarthysofmuns01mcca/page/112/mode/2up?q=Ivahaghe), and elsewhere identifies Ivagha as being under MacCarthy Reagh overlordship in 1636. That at least shows the territorial connection and title usage continued to be recognized in later writing.

More broadly, I would add that Irish chiefships often present unusual evidentiary problems because so much of the old Gaelic order was suppressed, displaced, or left outside later English and Anglo-Irish title conventions. In such cases, we historians and genealogists often do have to rely heavily on older materials, including annalistic and other pre-modern sources, to reconstruct traditional dignities and territorial associations. You would be taking a very strong position indeed to say that three explicit source attestations are still insufficient even to mention such a claim.

Now, for what's my worth, my two cents as to why I disagree with WP:OR... To use a simple analogy: if one found a contemporary letter in which Shakespeare explicitly wrote, “I am the Earl of Essex,” no serious historian would refuse even to state that claim solely because it came from a primary source. They might debate authenticity, context, or meaning, but they would not say the evidence was unusable merely because it was primary. The same principle applies here. If the sources explicitly give the title, then it is at least reasonable to report that fact and discuss how best to present it. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

"The current Prince" - I would dispute that such a title even exists; but in any case this is WP:SELFPUB. Your example about Shakespeare seems confused, at best. You keep citing 'the Annals', but what you've actually got is a bunch of webpages that look like they're from about 1995. Where are the published secondary sources by reliable historians supporting any of these grandiose titular claims? GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Corpus of Electronic Texts Edition (known as CELT) is the transcription of the medieval manuscripts published by the University College Cork. I (and every other academic links to UCC CELT because most people can't read the original manuscript. You want to try? It's here: https://www.isos.dias.ie/RIA/RIA_MS_C_iii_1.html

That IS the secondary source. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining the provenance of the source - I sincerely appreciate it. However, a transcription of a primary source is still a primary source. Where is there a secondary source for the title 'King of Ivahagh', please? GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

The transcription notwithstanding, the manuscript itself is a secondary source. The primary source would be a Letters Patent, or some similar vehicle - the manuscript was written 200 years after the fact, compiled by primary sources... that's secondary sourcing. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If you don't know these basics, you really have no business "editing" Irish history. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:25, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

It's not my first specialism, I'll admit - but I don't appreciate gatekeeping. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Frankly, I find your response speculative and disrespectful. If you are going to "cautiously returning to active editing" and ask that others "please be respectful," then I'd suggest you do the same. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

That bio is out of date; I should probably remove it. But bluntly, the onus is on you to demonstrate the things you're claiming in your edits to the level that Wikipedia generally requires. And despite your claims of familiarity, you're seemingly not hearing the distinction between a primary and a secondary source. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:42, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand the distinction very well because I've been in academia for decades. The Annals' manuscripts were written 200 years after the fact, compiled by primary sources... that's the definition of secondary source material. I then gave you sources compiled from those manuscripts (which you apparently disregarded altogether). So even if you're right and the Annals' manuscripts are primary, I then still gave you secondary source material. Irishhistoryguy (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles