Talk:Ragnall ua Ímair

Not besieged by Niall

I have corrected this to what it actually was, a stand-off. AU actually describes the Irish army running away back to their camp when Ragnall arrives, and then Niall taking a second position to prevent their slaughter by Ragnall. So the Irish in this case are in the defensive position and Ragnall is free to leave if he chooses, which he eventually does, after twenty days, and returns to Waterford. And this is all in Munster. Meanwhile, Niall sends word to Leinster to come to attempt to besiege either the force of Ragnall, which he is not strong enough himself to engage, or the second force under Sitric. So either Sitric counter attacks a force moving solely against him somewhere else, or he intercepts the Leinstermen on their way to Munster. In either case there is no real siege. Back in Munster Niall is encamped against Ragnall to prevent him going further but they never actually engage. All of this can be checked in AFM. It seems the occasional writer gets confused. DinDraithou (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

It should probably be mentioned however that some "foreigners" entered Waterford (Loch dá Caech) in 914 (AU 914.5), and when Ragnall first appears here he "moved against the foreigners of Loch dá Chaech" (AU 917.2). So even if Ragnall and Sitric appear to have acted in unison, there where some other Norse players involved in this. Finn Rindahl (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, and this is where the Cogad, which preserves what should be in the Annals of Inisfallen, comes in. We can be certain that these additional forces, at least from 917, were led by Ottir Iarla. There seem to be different interpretations of how Ragnall came to rule there and it may be that he did not have to try very hard. DinDraithou (talk) 02:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

And I see you concerning the "foreigners", not so foreign by this time. At the same time the AU notice of Ragnall's death is extraordinary and shows us that no matter how xenophobic the Gaels were, they recognized sovereignty without discrimination. Note no title was given to Sitric until after Ragnall died. DinDraithou (talk) 07:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ragnall ua Ímair/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa (talk · contribs) 11:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Grabbing this one for a review shortly. Miyagawa (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, here's the review at last.

• Just reading through the first couple of paragraphs and you might need to take a look at the linkage there with WP:OVERLINK in mind. In particular, I think you could drop the England, Scotland, Wales links etc. I'd keep Isle of Man and Waterford etc linked as I wouldn't count them as "major" under the policy.
• I freely admit I had to look up Capitalization in English as I wasn't sure about King/king in certain contexts. But with that in mind, I have to ask - why is king of Scotland in lowercase, while King of Northumbria is in upper? Later king of the Northumbrians is in lower, so I is that single uppercase example a mistake?
• "chose Edward as father and lord" - needs a direct quote after the following comma. (It'll just be a repeat of cite #21 from the end of the sentence I suspect)
• Likewise "king of the fair foreigners and the dark foreigners" needs a direct quote at the end of the sentence, which I imagine would be a repeat of cite #12 from the following sentence.
• You can delink House of Yngling and Vestfold from the image caption as they're linked in the article text.
• Is there a cite for note #4?

That's the lot. A very interesting read on a relatively little known figure in history to me. I always think that it's shocking given the length of time and the Kingdoms existing at the time that History lessons at British schools don't cover Viking settlements - at least when I was at school, it always made it sound like they sailed up and down the Eastern coast raiding abbeys and that was it. It's articles like this and a little too much Crusader Kings II that help to inform me. :) Miyagawa (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Just realised I'd failed to @Retroplum: the nominator to let them know about the review. Sorry! Miyagawa (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been a while since I've done anything with this article so it's been changed a little bit since I nominated it. I'll get to making the necessary changes as soon as I can. Retroplum (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, dealing with the points one by one:

• Fair point re the links. I've removed the ones you suggested and also a handful of others. I took out all the duplicates I could find.
• Yep, the uppercase was an error and I've corrected it.
• Added citation.
• Added citation.
• Delinked.
• Added citation.

Right I think that's all the points addressed. Agree about not learning about the Vikings, I had a similar experience. It's only lately that I've come to know very much about the Vikings by reading up just out of interest (I'm not unfamiliar with CKII either). Interestingly, it's by no means a dead field of study though, I created an article a few months ago for a Viking king who was only identified in 2011 (Airdeconut)! I've been slowly working through the notable Vikings of the Uí Ímair trying to get each article up to a decent standard. If I ever get round to it I hope to do the same for other Vikings too. Anyway, thanks @Miyagawa: for the review. If any more points need addressing just let me know and I'll get to them when I can. Retroplum (talk) 15:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, happy to promote now. Miyagawa (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ragnall ua Ímair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923214455/http://www.dias.ie/images/stories/celtics/pubs/celtica/c23/c23-312.pdf to http://www.dias.ie/images/stories/celtics/pubs/celtica/c23/c23-312.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)