Talk:Kenneth MacAlpin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Early Scottish Kings Names

There is a hope to resolve the remaining problem of early Scottish king names; it is hoped a friendly and constructive discussion, and one has been started at .Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland/Royal naming. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I will join that discussion. In the meantime, I support this article being at Kenneth rather Cináed, which was the move request. Certainly that is the most common name in English, whatever we do about the rest of the name. Septentrionalis 18:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles should be found under the accurate, contemporary name of the monarch if this is at all possible and have a redirect pointing to them from what may be the more common Anglicised name i.e. Kenneth pointing to Cináed. siarach 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is not policy. Please argue this position at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles); not here. Septentrionalis 16:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

In any case, ga:Coinneach Mac Ailpín appears to be plausible; this sort of disagreement is why we let the English language make up her own mind. Septentrionalis 16:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plausible in what sense ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

As being the Gaelic form of the name; if writers of Gaelic accept Coinneach, it has at least a claim against Cináed; and I see Calgacus likes Cainnech. Why need we decide between them? Septentrionalis 23:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The question at issue is the name in English. Only two variants are in use at present in printed works: Kenneth and Cináed. There are other forms used in English for "people whose name might be Kenneth", in print and on Wikipedia, but only those two for this particular person. Cainnech and Coinneach aren't used for any of them in English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

REGARDING THE USE OF THE TERM KING OF PICTS

There is little support for this term in scholastic discourse. The story appears to be military in events. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.174.31 (talk • contribs).

KING OR CHIEF OF THE PICTS

I take my previous comment back. King is the appropriate term. The Pictish culture would never have a "King" they would have a Cheif. Has anyone ever seen the term Cheiftain used in northern britain? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.123.174.31 (talk • contribs).

Pictish kings are called kings rather than chiefs. The first book to come to hand (D.P. Kirby, The Earliest English Kings) mentions and indexes "Nechtan, son of Derile, king of the Picts" and "Oengus, son of Forgus, king of the Picts". The second book I tried (Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England) didn't have any Picts, so I tried another one by the same author (Conversion of Britain). There we have "Bridei, son of Beli, king of the Picts", "Bridei, son of Derilei, king of the Picts", "Bridei, son of Maelchon, king of the Picts", "Constantine, king of the Picts", "Nechtan, son of Derilei, king of the Picts" and "Onuist, king of the Picts", et cetera. Kings of the Picts is what people use, not chiefs.

The introduction to the article should summarise the contents, which means that adding things which disagree with the contents is a bad idea. This didn't agree, so I changed it back. The recent changes don't correspond either. The first king of the Picts, according to myth, was the eponymously named Cruithne. The first king of the Picts found in any annalistic sources is Bridei son of Maelchon. The first king of the Picts known from surviving near-contemporary writings is Bridei son of Bili. Definitely not the first king of the Picts; almost the last one. Hope this makes sense, Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)