Talk:Chronicles of Eri

Interesting, but badly written and hugely biased - not to mention that the article seems to be sourced from, and a plug for, a website & associated campaign. EtaBetaPi (talk) 00:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Fraud

The chronicles of eri are a fraud/hoax. The person who added 99% of stuff to the article is obviously a total crackpot. He/she even links to their own site. Yes totally biased. HerodotusReader (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

fraud yes, but not entirely fiction

It's a literary fraud, especially the title page, however Conner might have incorporated some Irish oral traditions into his work. So the whole thing might not be fiction.

"In 1822 O'Connor published ‘The Chronicles of Eri, being the History of the Gael, Sciot Iber, or Irish People: translated from the Original Manuscripts in the Phœnician dialect of the Scythian Language.’ The book is mainly, if not entirely, the fruit of O'Connor's imagination."

Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 41. O'Connor, Roger

"All we have then is O' Connor's translation into English of whatever material he had. It is possible he took down oral tradition."

"The question remains, however where did O' Conner get his material. Allowing for his pretentiousness, his foolish exaggerations, he could hardly have imagined the entire book. If one compares the silly claims of his Preface with the sober recital of the text, one finds it hard to believe that both came from the same author."

"Before closing, however, notice must be taken of Roger O' Conner's (Cier-Rige) book, Chronicles of Eri, published in 1822. The text was re-issued in 1936 by L. Albert, editor, under the title Six Thousand Years of Celtic Grandeur Unearthed. Albert was disappointed with the reception given the book and in 1938 issued extracts relating to the Milesian Invasion (The Buried Alive Chronicles of Ireland). He also included a Roll of the Kings, a Commentary, and as an Appendix, certain 'Jewels of Ancient Wisdom' selected from the Chronicles of Eri.

Neary. M. (1973). "The True Origin of the Sons of Mil". Journal of the County Louth Archaeological and Historical Society. 18(1): 69-83. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

(cur | prev) 12:29, 22 December 2014‎ Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age ( "Reversing vandalism by previous editor who removed all content and replaced it with the hostile opinion of MacAllister who is shown in this page to be wholly unqualified to judge"

That's pretty stupid to say considering you first vandalized the article by removing the Macalister source etc. Basically you came here, vandalized the page, then uploaded your own little biased essay, which as others have pointed out is total crackpot. If you want to argue the book has some oral tradition fine, but its a literary hoax. The scrolls or manuscripts were never shown by Roger' O connor for obvious reasons (i.e. they never existed). IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Moved from WikiProject Ireland

The following has been moved from the WikiProject Ireland talk page:

A very large amount of pov and OR material was recently added to this article, more or less claiming that the chronicles are authentic. The article is full of comments such as "A factor in the general resistance to consider evidence with respect to the chronicle was the reports formally here on wiki and elsewhere claiming it to have been disproven. Wiki claims to follow the Darwinian principle of evolution, allowing all equal access to edit content with a view to enable an erosion of inaccuracies out of its pages. Skeptics of the chronicle are invited to add considered content to the section that follows." Anyone know anything about this? Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh great, the British Israelites are back. What is it about Ireland that attracts them? Anyway,the very title page of the first volume claims O'Connor translated the "Chronicles" from "the original manuscripts in the Phoenician dialect of the Scythian language", which should be enough to tell anyone who's every heard of the Phoenicians and the Scythians that he's pulled it out of his backside.

The great disadvantage of needing reliable sources is that very few reliable scholars bother debunking the (obviously nonsensical) works of Victorian charlatans promoted by white supremacists. However, here's a review on JSTOR from Irish Historical Studies in 1941, by none other than R. A. Stewart Macallister, archaeologist and editor/translator of the Lebor Gabála, an eminently reliable source. The "Chronicles of Eri" are a hoax and should be deleted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah, Nicknack009, the editor has proven Macallister wrong, he even mentions this in an edit summary, although not by name. He's also said in the article that Macallister didn't review the work, but that's not how I read the source, which I've read. Dougweller (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I've dealt with editors like this before, they won't be reasoned with. Zero tolerance. I've cut the article down to one defensible paragraph sourced to Macalister. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

For the second time in the space of two days the page on the chronicles of Eri has been replaced by an attempt to mislead people. The source scrolls were fully documented in the original, yet the party responsible for wiping it insists on the same falsification as the previous in overwriting illustrations of the source manuscript rolls by a claim they do not exist. As far as I understand things, such deliberate misrepresentation is not normally encouraged, or perhaps he or she may not have had the time to read what they wiped?

Regarding R. A. Stewart Macalister, can I ask with respect if you read the former page before now buried in the edit history? It dwells on the evidence that Macalister could not have read anything more of the chronicle than the calumniation of an earlier critic as he simultaneously repeats the same fundamental blunders of earlier critics concerning the authorship and content of the chronicle and the language it is written in. He was not even directly reviewing the chronicle in the much quoted extract, but rather another work partly premised upon it. [He was discharged from his religion led archaeological work in the Holy land for shoddy practice around the time].

Under these circumstances may I suggest you might seek a more reliable source for your point of view? Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Interested readers might want to see WP:NORN and also the original research claims for source scrolls at [1] which is a reverted edit of Chief Inspector's. Note also his heavy use of Barry Fell. Dougweller (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) You demand reliable sources of others?

Photos of rolls of paper, edited to remove all context, with no indication of provenance but your word, are not evidence that these are the manuscripts used by O'Connor to produce his book, and are in fact exactly the sort of evidence you would expect to be produced by a hoaxer. The arguments you have produced against Macalister are, like the vast majority of your version of the article, Original Research, and where sourced, usually original synthesis of sources that either do not comment on the subject matter or are not reliable, and have no place on Wikipedia. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who clicks on the above link will soon see that all these claims regarding the scrolls are incorrect- it is clearly provenanced and available to view at the location given, and is attributed to Roger O'Connor by the library. It is one of 6 different accounts of various other sources and is not the same as the one formally in Fells possession as is inferred here. Seems little point in taking you up on Macallister if you are going to make such heavy going of what is so clearly incorrect to anyone who has a few seconds to check the link. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You are obfuscating. You have not provided a reliable source that links your doctored photos of rolls of paper to the contents of O'Connor's book. These photos are worthless as evidence. Your personal website is worthless as evidence. Give it up. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? What about this: http://sources.nli.ie/Search/Results?lookfor=%22%20O%27Connor,%20Roger%22&type=subject

I think it would be advisable for you to back out of this one while you still can as now I can show that you have been informed of the inaccuracies you published. The provenance I had originally given is no less than is usually required. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I notice that one of those results was "Query concerning the member of the O'Connor family who wrote The Chronicles of Eri, published 1822. Answered by Anti-Humbug (Ulster journal of archaeology, 1854)." It strongly suggests that the whole thing was considered humbug even in 1854. However, the article is a secondary source, albeit an old one. If it could be accurately cited, it might provide some useful content for the page. That doesn't alter the fact that the content that was removed was unencyclopaedic and broke just about every policy and guideline on WP. Using language like "it would be advisable for you to back out of this one while you still can" will not help your case. The people who rightly edited down the article are not in any trouble or in any danger of getting into trouble. You, on the other hand, are in serious danger of being laughed out of it. Scolaire (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The link you posted is a purported scroll of the laws of eri, not the manuscripts of the chronicle that are mentioned on the preface/title page. You have probably confused the two. Even your own link states the manuscripts are absent, check the second source on your link which states this. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. First, the Buckinghamshire militia "entered his prison and outrageously took away his work, with such ancient manuscripts as he had, and he had never recovered them." Then, "the partner of his affections" begged him to let her go back to Meldrum "for part of his manuscripts left behind there, and to destroy them lest they might be found to compromise his liberty. He could not do otherwise than yield." Nothing daunted, he found another lot "in the bowels of the earth", only for it all to be lost when the house at Dangan burned down. Poor man! Great story! For anyone with Jstor, it's here. There's an article in this somewhere – just not the article that CIoIIA wrote. Scolaire (talk) 01:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The "laws of eri" are 9 laws. So that scroll is a single page. In contrast the Chronicles of Eri is a massive work (600+ pages?). O'Connor never produced the "old manuscripts" for the Chronciles of Eri that are mentioned on the first page. Its easy to forge a single page with 9 laws (lines or paragraphs) on it, but forging 600+ pages to look like an ancient document was obviously not possible by O'Connor, hence he never produced them. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Btw, the Chronicles of Eri are similar to the Oera Linda Book hoax. IrishBookofInvasons (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The roll contains 17 skins sown together- if you want to call that a single page thats fine. The description of it as the 9 laws actually relates to another scroll illustrated in the former page 'chronicles of Eri' seemingly confused with this by nli. Anyone who looks at the scroll will find it authenticates the chronicle as the Gaelic is the same distinct form that appears no where else and it alludes to places such as Gaalag only rendered as such in the chronicle. It is not really material that this may only be a small fraction of the whole- a single source which if found to long predate O'Connor changes the equation. When the scroll is eventually dated, it appears likely that there will be a flurry of interest in the chronicle- which the former page 'chronicles of Eri' shows can be authenticated independently by virtue of genetic and archaeological findings after 1822. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

If there is a "flurry of interest" sometime in the future, it will be reported in reputable journals and newspapers, perhaps even a book or two. These will be reliable sources on which we can base an encyclopaedia article. But it hasn't happened yet. Everything else in your last post – "another scroll illustrated in the former page 'chronicles of Eri' seemingly confused with this by nli", "Anyone who looks at the scroll will find it authenticates the chronicle", "a single source which if found to long predate O'Connor changes the equation" – is your opinion, and individuals' opinions cannot be added to Wikipedia articles per the verifiability policy. --Scolaire (talk) 12:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just had a look at the latest update to the article and it now at least contains reference to the Rylands scroll, but is riddled with inaccuracies. It claims O'Connor robbed a train decades before they first appeared in Ireland. It claims the Ryland scroll is only around 18 inches long. It claims that was the only one O'Connor produced- his tract of the nine laws appeared not only in the chronicle, but more significantly in respectable journals of his time. It is not a question of opinion as to whether this is the one in Rylands now- it is a simple fact clear to anyone who bothers to look at differences between the two. It ignores published evidence of four other source scrolls in addition to these two documented in the former page. The pirates of this page unashamedly displaced published reviews on both sides of the question of authenticity with only those biased to their hostile point of view. Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Have you really not heard of his famous trial?[2] True, it was a mail coach not a train, but you don't seem to know about it. I didn't, but then I hadn't heard of him before, but it very quickly came up in a search. Back to this scroll. Where can I read about it in sources that meet WP:RS and discuss O'Connor as well as this alleged scroll? Please don't tell me to look at it as that wouldn't help. We need sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am well aware of the trial- if you read second hand reports you will doubtless use them as another stick against O'connor, but there are first hand reports from the time which argue openly that it was a set up by his enemy Mr Pitt (PM). Before seeking my help with your research you might address the issues of bias in your choice of reviews and the inaccurate claim which denies the existence of the other published material reporting source scrolls - sources pertaining to both issues can be found in the former page which should mostly be acceptable to WP:RS Chief Inspector of Irish Iron Age (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Refuting "failed verification" of source

Here is a screenshot of the page in question, with the quote highlighted. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah. I see the citation only referred to the last page of the article, not the full page range. Have corrected. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research discussion

See here for a discussion relating to this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks. I had no idea the discussion was still going on. Looks like it's still going nowhere, though. Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Macalister and Webb quotes

After reading the various discussions on the various pages, I am coming to believe that the direct quotes from Macalister and Webb are not only unnecessary, but excessive. The language in them is, to use Macalister's own word, bombastic rather than scholarly. It should be enough just to say that the theories were dismissed by notable academics such as Webb, Prendergast and Macalister. In the interests of NPOV, perhaps it should also be noted that Macalister, at least, was responding to positive assessments of the theories by other, less notable, writers. It would help if somebody could find out something about F.T. Perry or his book. By the way, having read the Macalister review (of the Perry book), I don't agree with Chief Inspector that there is reason to believe he did not read the original. His demolition of O'Connor's work seems to me to be based on a critical reading of O'Connor's book, and not just on his interpretation of what Perry (or L. Albert, or any of the 19th-century critics) said about it. Scolaire (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be inclined to keep the Macalister quote at least, as it indicates the nature of the material contained in the book and is therefore informative. Although if an alternative quote that's more moderately expressed can be found, by all means substitute it. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

At least someone seems to have the courage to reconsider their position on this. Macalister's short piece makes much the same points regarding O'Connors work on Poenulus as an earlier journal article, but without my records to hand can't now recall where it is to be found. In any event I cannot understand how it would be possible for Macalister to accuse O'Connor of making spelling mistakes with regard to Hebrew if he had read the chronicle. Nowhere does it claim to represent Hebrew or even Phoenician as it is currently understood. The only claim with respect to this is by O'Connor himself in his choice of book title. However his reasons for that title cannot be taken at face value- he was talking of the origins of the Celtic language across Europe long before the Roman era, and his claim that Phoenicians spoke it does not seem all that unreasonable in view of their trading activities. The chronicle is translated from Gaelic from start to finish so for Macalister to mistake it for the Hebrew he was familiar with is serious error which seems to suggest he could not have read more than Perry's take on the chronicle. MacAlister is also wrong about the authorship of the chronicle [he attributes to Eolus the work of dozens after him, all named, and then calls Eolus Phoenician contrary to his chronicled Galician/Gaelic nationality]- no where else on wiki would a reviewer who misrepresents the language and author of a work be promoted as a reliable source - or would they? Would we accept Shakespere wrote his plays in Irish because someone with letters under their name said he did?

With regard to Perrys book, it defends O'Connor but being in the British Isreali tradition can hardly be taken too seriously.

With regard to Webb it seems dishonest to represent his short biography as a review of the chronicle- he gives only one citation- Madden- and his page is a precis of Maddens chapter on O'Connor. All he says of the chronicle is a description of its title page and the claim that it is a fraud- both points widely circulated in other calumination. He would have included the chronicle as a source if he had looked at it. 37.175.130.199 (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Written in his own person

See [3] for examples of this phrase, which has a very specific meaning. Paul B (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My mistake. Sorry. I had never come across the phrase before, and it looked strange to me. Scolaire (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)