Talk:Early Christian Ireland

Ireland High‑importance

	Ireland portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
High	This redirect has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Naming

The conventional name for this period seems to be Early Christian Ireland (as used by Charles-Edwards) or, if it is combined with the Viking Age, Early Medieval Ireland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as I get time, I'll write a proper start to an Early Christian Ireland article. I don't know how much of this material can be salvaged. The author has clearly done his or her reading on the topic...but the editorial tone, mechanics and organisation of information are in dire shape. The title is historiographically problematic and might even violate NPOV. I've eliminated the redirect from Early Christian Ireland, because I'm concerned about how this article currently reflects upon the other efforts in that series. Dppowell 18:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U fasach

This is one of the worst articles I have EVER read! Fergananim 20:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting going on

Criticism about the article from various sources has been taken to heart, consequently rewriting is going on. As always in Wikipedia, products are personal and written to the best of the authors ability. Criticism about factuals is most welcome, additions of new content is most welcome too. Additional text and illustration will be coming, they are under work.

Comment to mr. Angus McLellan: An alternative era name should be acceptable - but the current title will be changed and the title will be put in a chapter top.

Comment to mr. Ferganim: Some rewritings will be done in the next days, so I hope for a new comment from You whether the present text has been improved at least a little by early October. Author —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may be helpful to look at how other, similar wikipedia articles are written in terms of style and tone and layout. Something like Scotland in the High Middle Ages is the ultimate aim, but Franks or Anglo-Saxons might be better as an initial yardstick. Using the relevant section from History of Ireland as a guide can save time. It's a big subject. Perhaps making it bigger, by combining it with the Viking Age, would make it easier. Or not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this article seems to be based on very old Scholarship (based on the Skene book from 1889 ?) which is clear in statements like "Irishmen of the age are a mostly robust and hardy people, high as low live a hard life where it takes strength to survive" which is filled with the type of hyperbole found in really old histories, but which modern historians would be hesitant to touch. I'll be back later to help, I hope. Buirechain 14:49, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Buirechain (talk • contribs)

Fergananim regrets ...

Folks, I am sorry but seeing as there has been virtually no improvment in thhis article over the past several months, I feel I must greatly edit and reduce it. I applaud the motives and industry of the original author, but it is simply not up to standard. Fergananim 16:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where do we go from here

Having skimmed the article in its present state, I'm really not sure what to do about this. The article is far below standard, contains dubious facts and has an overall incoherent presentation. Some sections appear just as encycpopedic as the history sections in Age of Empire. So what should I do - the easiest would of course be adding tons of^{[citation needed]}, I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Any thoughts on how to improve this? Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]