Talk:Shane O'Neill (Irish chieftain)

Name

I would give him his Irish name, Seán (Seaán) Ó Néill, because that was his culture, and that of the vast majority of Ireland's people at the time. Names signify cultural worlds, and when we write history we are supposed to represent those times, times when Ó Néill, for instance, most certainly was not part of the English one. His name was Seán An Díomais (Shane the proud) in the Irish tradition. He was also known by the name Seán (Seaán) Donnghaileach due to his strong connections with the Uí Dhonnghaile sept, with whom he was fostered. The practice within Irish historical circles (see any work by Professor Katherine Simms of TCD, the leading authority on late medieval Ireland) is to use the Irish name rather than the anglicised name unless they belonged to the English cultural world, as was the case with Florence McCarthy and others. This applies to the gaelicised Norman lordships in the Midlands, Munster and Connacht, as it does on the other side to the anglicised Norman gentry near Dublin.

I think you are meaning to write 'Séan' with the diacritical mark over the e. I could be wrong, but I think putting the diacritical mark over the a, as you have done and as is done throughout this article, turns the name into Seán, prounounced "Shawn."

I'm not sure if there is a case. WP:COMMONNAME might apply. Maybe i'm wrong. Then again the article already at the very start gives the Irish version followed by the anglicisation. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking Common usage, but then the number of spellings even in common usage are legion!!! Rathlain (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

picture

Why is his picture being removed, I got that from a book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laochra (talk • contribs) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Deletion/restoration of section

Moved here from my talk page:
Scolaire, I'm confused as to why you should regard the Calendar of the Carew Manuscripts and Abbé MacGeoghegan's are somehow unreliable sources for the usual 'friendly" formulation "Séan Donnghaileach". I would recommend that you perhaps checked them properly at source before dismissing them. There are many other sources for the Doulenagh/Donnghaileach usage, both contemporary Calender of State Papers and Irish language sources, but the two cited are to my mind sufficient to show that this was commonly understood contemporary usage, while the use of "Séan an Díomais" only dates from the Annals of the Four Masters and clearly reflects the English perception regarding Seean's "pride". Should you be able to source any near contemporary use of "an Díomas" outside outside of any critical or contemptuous context, I would be most interested to be pointed to it.

Ciaran Brady first pointed out the Donnghaileach usage in his little Historical Association of Ireland book "Shane O'Neill", where on page 22 he notes that Brady supports this with Thomas Phetyplace's report on Séan Ó Néill (SP 62/20/92) also John O' Donnovan's note on the contemporary use of Donnghaileach in his edition of the Annals of the Four Masters for the year 1567, as well as his comments in the Ordinance Survey Letters: Armagh and Monaghan

Respectfully, I have restored the section, as I consider your removal edit to be effectively a simple misunderstanding on your part regarding just how fully supported the contemporary usage of the name Donnghaileach actually is in this case. I have added two more citations in support of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlain (talk • contribs) 10:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's try to get some perspective here, Rathlain. I deleted, and you restored, a section of roughly 300 words. About 50 words of that, making up one and a half sentences, dealt with the use of "Donnghaileach" and cited those two sources. The remainder was totally unsourced, and appeared to be original research. Specifically:

1. Although known throughout history as "Shane the Proud" (Irish: Séan an Díomáis), this was an abusive nickname developed in the writings of hostile sources such as The Annals of the Four Masters, whose authors had as patrons the O'Neill's enemies the O'Donnell lords of Tyrconnell. – Unsourced. Who says the AFM was hostile? More importantly, who says that their hostility is the sole reason for the use of the appelation "Séan an Díomáis"?
2. The word díomás in Irish contains the extra meaning of an irrational vanity and overbearing narcissism rather than any natural pride in the subject's self and abilities. It was a convenient epithet for his detractors, and the myth of the O'Neill's devilish pride was a convenience for later English historians wishing to explain why such effort should have been expended to destroy him and his reputation. – Unsourced. It has the look of something that you read in a book, but what book?
3. Abbé Jaques McGeoghegan...notably uses "John, or Shane Doulenagh O'Neil", where English historians to that date have consistently used "Shane the Proud". – Unsourced. What historian (of any nationality) says that it is English historians only that use "Shane the Proud"?
4. Shane O'Neill should more accurately be known by the name that would have been used by his contemporaries, Seán Donnghaileach Mac Cuinn Bhacaigh Ó Néill. – where do you get "would have been used by his contemporaries"? "Seán Donnghaileach Ó Néill" seems to have been used; "Seán Mac Cuinn Bhacaigh" might conceivably have been used as an alternative; "Seán Mac Cuinn Ó Néill" was almost certainly was. But you can't just lump the whole lot together and say that this was what "would have been used".

I have no problem with adding a short sentence saying that he was known as "Seán Donnghaileach" because he was fostered by the Donnellys, and that the Carew Manuscripts and MacGeoghegan refer to him as such. I would have done it myself but I didn't know where would be a good place to put it. But the section, as a section, has to be properly sourced to reliable, secondary sources, or be removed again. Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Apologies. I wrote the above having only seen your reversion of my edit, and not your subsequent edits where you referenced the Brady book and the Lyons thesis. Can you give exact quotes here please, so that we can untangle what is in the sources from your interpretation of them? Likewise for your O'Donovan AFM citation. Scolaire (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

While I'm happy enough to post quotes, the Ciaran Brady sections really need to be read in full to explain how I've used them. Do you have access to a decent University library? If so you can check the sources out yourself, which with the sheer length of some of the sources I'd suggest as such extended quotes are likely to infringe proper copyright usage if posted in full in all but the O'Donnovan quotes (which are of course out of copyright).

I strongly disagree that this is a single sentence issue. The term Séan an Díomáis is so ingrained in the public consciousness from much positive usage, firstly by Mitchel in his Hugh O'Neill book and following his lead, numerious others during the third Irish Cultural revival. This became common through a number of texts such as Conan Maol's (P.J. O'Shea) "Seaghan an Diomais" that it is one of the very first things people today think of with Séan. I first encountered Ciaran Brady's demolition of the common use of term in a lecture by Ciaran, but despite his having dedicated a full section of his "Shane O'Neill" to it, the abusive content of the term seemingly still requires a full explanation, as is shown by your own placing of it at the head of the article itself in an earlier edit in the apparently positive context Ciaran has so ably disproved. The full name usage Seán Donnghaileach Mac Cuinn Bhacaigh Ó Néill points to contemporary Irish language sources. I will try and dig out my other sources for those sections you still appear to question, they show sixteenth/seventeenth century usage by of "proud" by Holinshed and others, and will post them in support. I also note that the eralier section "Relationship with the English", only a part of which is my posting, requires citations, and will try and find sources for anything actually requiring support when I work through the note files I'll need to check out. Rathlain (talk) 07:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Again, let's try and keep a sense of proportion. I'm not asking you to transcribe the whole of page 5 of Ciarán Brady's book. If you can give me the gist of what it says, then you need only quote the sentences that directly support what you are saying. The same goes for T.B. Lyons's thesis; you haven't actually given any indication of what Lyons said. As far as O'Donovan is concerned, your footnote says "see years 1548, 1552, 1565/7". Well, I've looked at them, and I can find no reference whatever to "Shane the Proud", so can you please give me the precise sentences I am supposed to be looking at?

You also need to need to consider WP:UNDUE (undue weight). I (re-)added "Shane the Proud" to the first sentence because of how frequently it appears. Here is a list of 20th-21st century books using it found on Google Books. Early 20th-century examples are Seamus MacManus and John G. Rowe, as well as your Conán Maol, all Irishmen. As against that there is apparently one little-known book (I can't even find the title on Google Books) and somebody's MA thesis saying – if it is what they're saying – that it's wrong to call him that, so that section, even if it were properly sourced, does not satisfy WP:NPOV.

If we can sort out exactly what Brady (and Lyons) said, then I propose we substitute that section with a brief, neutral, encyclopaedic "Name" section at the top of the article. It can say that the name "Shane the Proud" is used in biographies, that it originated in the 17th century (Holinshed or whoever) (actually, Holinshed's Chronicles was first published in 1577, ten years after Shane's death), that it (originally) had a connotation of "arrogant", and that "Seán Donnghaileach" was used by others (including AFM, by the way). The digression into Turlough Luineach's name is just that – a digression – and wouldn't be needed in a properly worded paragraph. The more emotive stuff should be lost (even if Brady/Lyons used emotive language), and the reader should not be told how he or she ought or ought not to refer to him. Scolaire (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Relationship with the English" section at the time you began editing it in 2013 was taken wholesale from the Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 article "O'Neill", most of it verbatim, some slightly paraphrased. The current section comprises that version plus whatever you added. Although there are no inline citations, there is an attribution to EB 1911 at the bottom of the article. Scolaire (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I will of course post the material from the Annals, probably before Sunday, along with some early genealogical material which I'd hope may clear up the particular name usage explaination at the end of the section. The entire discussion on pages 5/6 of Ciaran Brady's book is relevant, which is why I'm suggesting that you should refer to the book itself rather than require me to post as much material as I would need to to explain this.

The most interesting thing about the list you have assembled from Google Books seems to be that all but one of the texts are simply popular histories, the Irish equivalent of "Our Island Story" and from the same period. John G Rowe was not an historian, but a novelist who wrote a highly popularised 'history', while Seamus McManus was a fine poet but would have made no claim to being an historian of the calibre of, say, Alice Stopford Green, who entirely avoided a usage that was already seen as mendatiously inaccurate. All your list of persons using "Shane the Proud" proves, as I have already pointed out above, is that the English translation of the uniquely Four Masters usage Séan an Díomáis, "Shane the Proud" is used by any number of third Cultural revival writers following its first modern popularisation by John Mitchel's "the Life and Times of Aodh O'Neill" in 1868. It may be a popularly used term, but this ubiquity over the last century and a half says nothing about the actual sixteenth century usage, and its very pervasiveness is exactly why it is so very necessary to explain that it is actually a loaded usage, and not the common usage of Séan Ó Néill's own period. This is not in any sense, as you imply, telling "the reader.... how he or she ought or ought not to refer to him" but is pointing out that the usage is almost entirely that of primarily English language texts over the past century and half and should not be inferred back to Séan's own day, so that they make an informed choice in the matter. In this it is a similar activity to the current move to employ the Irish language usage in proper names, rather than the various Anglicisations employed by historians until very recently.

If you were familiar with any of the wide range of current scholarship on Séan you would perhaps not have written such a bizarre sentence as "As against that there is apparently one little-known book (I can't even find the title on Google Books) and somebody's MA thesis saying – if it is what they're saying – that it's wrong to call him that, so that section, even if it were properly sourced, does not satisfy". Professor Ciaran Brady IS the acknowledged specialist on Séan Ó Néill amongst contemporary historians of sixteenth century Ireland, [1] and every modern academic treatment of Séan Ó Néill regularly refers to the authoritative, but still unpublished T.B. Lyons thesis in their bibliographies. This is now current amongst contemporary historians, and accordingly the issue of "undue weight" cannot meaningfully be spoken of here. Brady's book, which you seem unable to source, far from being a "little known book" is generally considered as the authorative contemporary foundation text on Séan, and is readily available in every academic library in Ireland. I highly recommend your purchasing a copy and digesting its contents before attempting to somehow dismiss its arguements by referencing a collection of popular and even sensationalist texts by non historians, mostly from over three generations ago. Copies of Professor Brady's book are readily available from Amazon or Abebooks. But to give you a flavour, here is an excellent discussion of Brady's ground breaking study by one of our most distinguished specialists in Sixteenth Century Irish History Hiram Morgan's review of the work.

The issue here is considerably more than simply that of getting a name right. Certain recent academic material has even erroneously taken Séan Donnghaileach and Séan an Díomáis to be two entirely different people. This section requires some extended explanation both of the history of the term "an Díomáis" and of the particular naming conventions of the Ó Néills of the sixteenth century before it may be of use in perhaps correcting this potential misunderstanding by those researchers who have not delved as deeply as Professor Ciaran Brady. Far from being an unnecessary digression, the sentence on Turlough Luineach's name in this context clearly shows the regularity of sixteenth century naming practice which Séan's full collection of names clearly parallels.

The whole point of Wikipedia as I understand its ethos is that current research should be deployed in order to permit a clearer and more accurate understanding of the subjects treated. Your suggestions appear to be motivated by personal taste rather than as a correction of any genuine innaccuracy of content, the sole reason on which the section might properly have been removed. If you have authorative academic sources which contest the arguement of the section, please present them, but so far it appears to me that you are arguing for its removal on issues entirely of your own personal feelings, rather than from any genuinely contested academic issue. [User:Rathlain|Rathlain]] (talk) 18:53, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

For a start, I am not familiar with with current scholarship on Shane. I first read this article at the beginning of last month because I realised I knew nothing about this famous Irishman and I thought that the Wikipedia article would be a useful introduction. However, I found a "bizarre sentence" in the lead: "He is also known as Seán Donnghaileach Mac Cuinn Bhacaigh Ó Néill and in English sources as Séan an Díomáis (Shane the Proud)." Now, I know enough about Irish and English history to know (a) that nobody is ever called [name] [nickname] son of [name] [nickname] [surname], and (b) that English historians never make up an Irish name for somebody. So I read the section below, and saw what looked like one person's essay, which was completely unsourced except for two refs for an uncontroversial fact. That's how I come to be in this discussion, and I've learned a lot by it. But I still don't regret deleting the section; it was unencyclopaedic, undue weight and contained exaggerations as well as inaccuracies.

As for Ciarán Brady, I know very well that he is an acknowledged authority on 16th century Irish history. I don't doubt that the book is cited by academicians, and is available in university libraries, but that doesn't make it a well-known book, in Wikipedia terms. I haven't seen it in any bookshop window; a Google search for Shane O'Neill doesn't throw up a multitude of references to it; and most significantly, this article has been on the go for 14 years without anybody citing it or mentioning it. If, as your edit says, Shane is "known throughout history as Shane the Proud", then rubbishing the whole of history by reference to this one book is against WP:UNDUE, which I linked to above. Also, you talk as though the book was a 100-page refutation of the "Shane the Proud", while I'm pretty sure it will turn out to be one or two paragraphs in the introduction. As it happens, I have seen Ciarán Brady speak on many occasions on a wide variety of subjects. He is profoundly knowledgeable and hugely entertaining, but much of the entertainment comes from the fact that much of what he says is deliberately provocative, designed to make you think rather than simply provide facts. From the History Ireland review that you linked to, this book does the same. The reviewer more or less says that he chooses his facts, and frames them in a certain way, and uses words in a certain way, to present his own unique viewpoint. That's great for the purposes of academic discourse, but very bad for constructing an entire section of an encyclopaedia article.

You are continuing to insist on the importance of "correcting this potential misunderstanding". Please have a read of Wikipedia:Righting great wrongs. It says there that Wikipedia is not meant to 'explain the "truth" or "reality" of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue', and that any attempt to do so must be done "giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion". I've already said that I'm open to a section which includes Brady's opinion, as soon as we know exactly what he said. The onus is not on me to borrow or buy the book, it is on the person citing the book to say what it says and provide direct quotes if asked. My interest is in making the article encyclopaedic, not on making it say something that suits my taste. I would rather work with you than against you. I will wait for you to come back with the information. Scolaire (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I really do not know where to begin with this. You admit that you are unfamiliar with contemporary academic work on Séan, and yet continue to argue that somehow your lack of an awareness of current research negates its value in the constriction of what should be an up to date assessment of fact! While popular works may not cite Ciaran Brady's work, if you begin to look at virtually every academic work where Séan is considered nowadays, or if you scan JSTOR (for example) for current research, you will find Brady's work articulating much of current understanding. IF you attempt a proper citation search on the internet you will find that it has been much used in current work. Wikipedia's remit is to use and digest the best authoritative surges available. That you cannot see them in a current bookshop window does not in any tell against their importance. Such a bizarre test would disqualify much of the most important work that has been carried out over the last century by the all important Irish Historical Studies group of historians!

This is not a matter of righting wrongs, as I have explained above, but of providing important information which may significantly qualify an old ingrained misunderstanding, which is to my mind the entire point of attempting to produce a rounded modern encyclopaedia article. In this it is important to assess current research, rather than simply regurgitating the exploded misunderstandings of the past, of making available current research the value of which is generally accepted, on an issue which is of some importance. I have already begun to work through my print copy of the Annals and have begun to cite pages. I will continue to re-write the piece to elucidate and reference the points, but will need to check the genealogies at Special Collections in my own University Library to properly cite sources for the re-written end paragraph, still work in progress. I too, would wish to co-operate cordially in making these issues clearer, but am concerned that if perfectly reliable sources which have entered mainstream academic discourse are summarily dismissed on grounds of another's personal unfamiliarity with them, such co-operation simply becomes impossible. Regarding Hiram's review, I have discussed with him often over a decade the small body of modern assessments of Séan Ó Néill, and the issues he critiques in Brady's work are certainly other than this issue of the mendacious "Shane the Proud" naming, as you can see from the review itself! I would agree with much of what he says in the review, some of which we have discussed in depth, but on the issue of names it is impossible to now find any serious historian of the period who differs from Brady's masterful exposure of the important name issue. It has fully achieved an unquestioned academic acceptance nowadays, and is in no way controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlain (talk • contribs) 10:12, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I followed your advice and did a search on Jstor. I searched for "Shane the Proud" (in quotes) in all publications between 1980 and 2017. It gave me thirteen results. Eleven of those thirteen were before the publication of Brady's book, and all of them used "Shane the Proud" without any comment as to the aptness or otherwise of the name. The last result was "The Battle of the Swilly (Farsetmore)" in History Ireland in 2011, and it also used "Shane the Proud" without any comment as to the aptness or otherwise of the name. Only the twelfth result, a review of Brady's book, made any reference to the name as a name, and all it said was "The name Shane the Proud was not used by the Irish in his lifetime." Of course, the article doesn't say, and never said, that it was used by the Irish in his lifetime. What it said was that he was "known throughout history as Shane the Proud". So, even doing what you told me, I didn't find any evidence that Brady's "Shane the Proud is wrong" (or whatever he said) has since become the consensus in the historical community. Once again, I am not "dismissing" the book. I want to see it included. I am only saying that in making the specific claim (whatever it is), he still seems to be in a minority of one, so due weight applies.

I admitted that I was not up to date on the current scholarship (I'm getting there rapidly though). I was not using my ignorance to justify the removal of facts that I was ignorant of (that would be "bizarre"). I was citing my ignorance as the reason for asking so many questions. It turns out some of my questions were good ones. The whole "nickname developed in the writings of hostile sources such as The Annals of the Four Masters, whose authors had as patrons the O'Neill's enemies the O'Donnell lords of Tyrconnell" bit was suddenly and inexplicably removed today. Because it was completely wrong, perhaps? On the other hand, "known throughout history" has now become "known generally during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries", which makes the following statement that it "makes its appearance no earlier than the end of the sixteenth century" something of a non sequitur. Also, as I've hinted in the above paragraph, my request to be told what precisely Ciarán Brady (and T.B. Lyons) said has been met with a persistent refusal, which makes it impossible to know what we're talking about when we talk about Brady's assertion(s). Here are some more questions:

1. Does Brady (or Lyons) use the word "abusive" to describe the nickname? If not, how do you justify it?
2. Does Brady (or anyone else) say that the díomás (recte díomas) "contains the extra meaning of an irrational vanity and overbearing narcissism". My Foclóir (An Roinn Oideachais, 1981) says simply "pride, arrogance". No mention of extra meanings. I have already said I would have no problem with the use of the word "arrogant".
3. Here is a review of Brady's book. Note the passage: "The portrait of Shane O’Neill transmitted to posterity was drafted by his British adversaries. He was portrayed as a quick-tempered, lecherous-drunkard, whose nick-name was 'Seághan an Diomais', Shane the Vain." Would you say that's a fair summary of what Brady says? If so, is it on page 5 that he says that? If not, in what respects is it wrong and what does Brady actually say?
4. Does Brady (on page 22) or O'Donovan (on page 75) write the entire string "Seán Donnghaileach Mac Cuinn Bhacaigh Ó Néill", as opposed to the individual elements of it?
5. Does either of them use the specific name "Séan mac Cuinn Bhacaigh"? Does any published source, primary or secondary?

Again, I'd rather if we could both just stop impugning each other's motivation and ability and just concentrate on the content and the sourcing. I'd also rather if you could bring your sources here so that we could discuss them, rather than just editing the article as if this discussion wasn't going on. Scolaire (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, we seem to be getting somewhere. 1. Brady uses the actual term "stigmatic" for the nickname. 2. Brady, and several professors of Irish I've spoken to state "irrational vanity" and suggest narcissism. Irish, as I imagine you already know, is a concrete language which lacks the abstraction of, say, Latin and so can have strong layers of figurative and even contradictory meaning when used ironically, Séan Bui" with its connotations of level fairness and its contrary being such a playing of terms. In this context díomas simply does not mean a neutral or positive pride, as Dineen clearly says on page 340 of his dictionary: "pride arrogance; Seán an díomais, John the Proud, Shane O'Neill; spite, vindictiveness, malevolence; viciousness (of beasts)" (out of copyright since 2004!). 3. The paraphrase of Brady from the Irish Catholic is correct, but still needs the original passage where he says that "Díomas...translates unambiguously as arrogance, scorn contempt or vainglory."4. Séan mac Cuinn Bhacaigh is used in an early genealogy, certainly a primary source, and was pointed out to me by a professor of early Irish here in the north, who also recommended the full string as an accurate representation of the entire bundle of names which a number of variants would have been drawn from in sixteenth century usage. The problem remains as to how to assemble this information tersely and accurately, in an authoritatively sourced manner, which I will now endeavour to do.

I am myself questioning the attribution of the origin of Séan an Díomáis to the Four Masters, which I'd noted from some good nineteenth century source (O"Curry, Richey?) but simply cannot find outside of one O'Donovan note in vol. V, although I'm still looking. I'm still trying to find where my note originated, and am also actively trying to find the first proper instance of its verifiable use, to which end I'm checking the State papers and Irish language sources. I have contacted a number of sixteenth century historians I know this afternoon by email to check if they know where it may have been first used. I believe that Holinshead, Campion and Hooker's emphasis on Henry Sidney's characterisation of Shane as filled with devilish pride is at the root of this term, and have certainly encountered this suggestion in a reputable nineteenth century source, Richey perhaps, although I'm going to check my own notes on the English sources. I am still checking this out, although I will need a University Library for this. I will raise this on this page with you, I hope, when I've sourced it fully. Any constructive suggestions will be welcome.92.28.228.4 (talk) 18:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Of course, this raises another thorny question: which came first, "Shane the Proud" or "Seán an Díomais"? If the English dubbed him "Shane the Proud", with its connotation of "arrogant", then it wouldn't require "díomas" to have any extra meaning. On the other hand, if "Seán an Díomais", with its extra meaning, came first, then it couldn't have been coined by the English. Since I gather that your secondary sources don't answer this question, then any attempt to address this will necessarily be original research (conversations with historians count as original research). It would be better to leave it. We have the names "Seán mac Cuinn", "Seán Donnghaileach" (which we like) and "Shane the Proud" (which we don't). Anything else is just a distraction. Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed wording

I propose the following (as a "Name" section):
The name "Shane" is an anglicisation of the Gaelic name "Seán" (John). Shane's name is given in the Annals of the Four Masters (at M1567.2) as "Sean mac Cuinn, mic Cuinn mic Enri, mic Eocchain" ("John son of Conn, son of Conn, son of Henry, son of Eoin") Elsewhere in the Annals (e.g. at M1552.7) he is referred to as "Sean Donngaileach Ó Neill". This refers to the fact that as a youth he was fostered by his cousins, the O'Donnellys. This was rendered as anglicisations such as "Donnolloh" in contemporary manuscripts, and as "John, or Shane Doulenagh O'Neil" in Abbé MacGeoghegan's 1758 History of Ireland. After he assumed the leadership of the O'Neills, he was referred to simply as "Ó Néill" ("The O'Neill").

The nickname "Shane the Proud" (Irish: Seán an Díomais), which appears in nineteenth and early twentieth century popular histories, was coined some time after his death by English writers, and originally had the pejorative meaning of "arrogant", because they wished to portray him as vain, self-indulgent and ruthless, and thus undermine the legitimacy of his claim to the earldom of Tyrone. Holinshed's Chronicles of 1587, for instance, had a side-note, "The proud taunts of Shane O'neile", the text remarking that "when the commissioners were sent to intreat with him vpon sundrie points, they found him most arrogant & out of all good order, braieng out spéeches not méet nor séemelie." Later Irish writers, such as John Mitchel and P. J. O’Shea (Conán Maol) used the nickname with more positive connotations.
Scolaire (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

References

This looks to me like an almost perfect solution of the problem of our earlier disagreement, offering the all important information and removing material less significant, although I (of course) reserve the right to possibly add to it, and would expect your critical comments in such a situation. Just for the record, I have been getting responses from my emails, and the earliest anyone can actually find the name Séan an Díomáis instanced is in I've notes on this from the William Benham notes to Linea Antiqua of Roger O'Ferrall, who of course is working from older sources , some lost. Here are they appropriate sections of Benham's English translation, exactly as he renders it: "John or Shaen or Diomius i.e., proud or Haughty (or Shaen Dowlenach) the eldest of Con's legitimate sons……...Conn or Connor, son of Shaen O Diomuis." I will be checking both the O'Cleary Geneology in Analectia Hibernia 18, which appears to be the source (hense the confusion with the Four masters earlier) and of course Dubhaltach mac Fhirbhisigh's genealogy in the first volume which covers the Uí Néill. The one thing I might think would help if added to your edit might be the Dineen not as something added to the text, but simply as another reference added to the first references, as you yourself were unaware of this meaning when using a modern dictionary and Dineen is tellingly clear about the actual historical meaning of an Díomais. I have added it to your edit, but am perfectly happy should you think this extraneous and remove it. Again thank you for your efforts to clarify the text, and my apologies for any instance of the "Red Mist" descending in my earlier comments, blame my Ó Néill ancestry!Rathlain (talk) 12:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathlain (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)