This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ireland Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Gemology and Jewelry: Jewelry Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry 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.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Jewelry subpage. Anthropology: Oral tradition This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology 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.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by Oral tradition taskforce.

A full length artical about the Claddagh Ring and Claddagh village is available under "Claddagh Village" in the encyclopedia.

I believe much in this article is copyvio -- it's hard to tell, though, since it's been here since August and it's replicated in some parts of the net by virtue of being here. Still, I am sure that some of it is a quote, and I think much of it is lifted from elsewhere. Anyone have a thought on this, or an idea of what to do? I don't know if we should delete and start over, or just assume that having it in the history is a minor offense... Jwrosenzweig 15:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A lot of anon additions have seriously confused the significance section. As far as I am aware, the significance section's instructions are now backwards. This may, however, be a difference between claddagh wearers in the US and those in Ireland. Anyone know for sure which way a claddagh ought to point to indicate marriage? If no one does, I'll switch it back to the way it used to be (crown towards fingernail = marriage), and do some research to back up my claim. Jwrosenzweig 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This site supports my belief. This site doesn't. I fear we need a carefully worded explanation of the diverse opinions....unless this is cultural as I suggest above. Any help is seriously appreciated. Jwrosenzweig 09:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The way the article is now written is the tradition as I learned it (heart facing body equals married), and as I've seen it done in both Irish and Irish-American families from a variety of locations. I've never heard of the opposite being done. Are you saying that the tradition you learned was of the heart worn facing out to indicate marriage, and in to indicate less-serious relationships? Where is this the tradition? --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 06:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely heart facing in means taken, facing out means single in Ireland, how the Americans do things i don't know. however the opposite makes very little sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nato2101 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with the 'historical details' section? I didn't do any fact checking, but that's not what I'm even concerned about. It just doesn't seem to adhere to the tone and style of other objective entries. It's personal and somewhat weepy. Can anything be done to rectify this? I'm no Claddagh Ring expert.

I agree the "historical details" section is not objective. Subjective comments such as those referring to the "Irish psyche" or "half history" should be backed by facts or removed.

Many of these statements are unsourced and quick google searches that I've tried haven't been able to support them. For example "The popularity of the TV show led to an increased popularity of the rings." has no source, and many different keywords didn't locate data to even show escalated sales after episodes airing, and in no way at all made any link between buffy and sales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bifgis (talk • contribs) 20:23, December 3, 2006

Agreed, this article really needs sourcing. The Buffy thing is true, but possibly not verifiable. My "sources" are catalogs, street vendors, internet vendors and eBay. Whereas before the show the rings were rarely seen outside the Irish community (and diaspora), now they seem to be everywhere. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Claddagh Ring's symbolism was also explained in the Movie Ladder 49 by actor Joaquin Phoenix. That is how I first heard about the ring. Can anyone add this to the main page, I don't know how to do it and don't want to mess with the article.--132.18.128.6 (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From first paragraph, this information is irrelevant to the article. 87.210.35.24 (talk) 13:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'd be useful to specify exactly what it means for the design to be 'pointing inwards' - what part is pointing in? Is the point of the heart towards your hand, or is it the crown that's towards your hand? I'd put in the info myself, but I honestly don't know. -Elizabennet | talk 18:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we've had some confusion over how to best describe this. If you look at the picture of the ring, that's the design right side up, with the crown up top and the point of the heart at the bottom. So, "facing outwards" means the point of the heart is away from the body, and the crown closer to the body. The design looks right side up to someone viewing your hand. If the design is "facing inwards" it means that when you look down at your own hand, the design is right side up (crown away from body, point of heart towards body). Does this make sense? I certainly welcome a clearer, more concise way to describe it, as people keep getting confused about this. Slán - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)!!!!!!![reply]

Um how about putting a picture of it on the finger / hand to show what each of the four ways of wearing it mean! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.122.122 (talk) 18:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone knows how to pronounce claddagh, and they want to add a pronunciation, that would be awesome. My mom says this word "Claude". I usually say "clad-dag" but I have no idea what the correct pronunciation is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maurajbo (talk • contribs) 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its like clad-ah. You silly Americans – :P 86.42.12.126 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: actually claddagh is prounounced "clod-uh" XD- edited by a silly american —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.186.129.199 (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Within Australia, I hear the word pronounced as 'clad-ah' by those with an Irish accent, and 'clod-ah' by non-Irish, in order to mimic the way the word sounds with an Irish accent. – 58.178.148.161 (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• This article could use some really healthy background, and a paragraph from William Jones' Finger Ring Lore (London, 1890, sorry, I don't have it in front of me now) would do wonders. Jones explains this ring as exclusive to the fishing village of Claddugh [his spelling], is a species of fede ring, owes some design inspiration to the gemell ring (twin, interlocking rings). Furthermore, Jones makes it clear that the native women of the xenophobic village of Claddugh passed a ring from mother to first-wed daughter, as an heirloom. Therefore, Jones says, it was exclusively Claddugh's custom. Finally he says "these rings are still worn... today" [meaning 1890] and that they are "very old." Ideas?

04:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ideas included in history section.75.21.155.231 (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the legends behind the Claddugh have NO known citations in the literature such as it is. Jones is the ultimate authority on ring lore, and he makes no mention of any legends behind Claddugh rings. Can we somehow just put the original reference or citation of where these stories have been reported? Otherwise they should be removed from the article. And I will remove them if the work isn't done. I've tried and cannot justify the presence of these "legends of the Claddugh ring".75.21.146.222 (talk) 10:37, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Claddagh piece points out that Hardiman's story about Joyce doesn't include all the 'forging a ring in exile for his Galway girlfriend' stuff. That may be as difficult to pin down as some of the other legends. Lelijg (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the Margaret Joyce legend here Lelijg (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I question how much "info on the legends" will help this article. We don't need faerie tales, we need actual fact, notes about customs and usage. I was the editor who changed the wording about the orientation because no one seems to know how to express this in writing. I.e. the orientation of the ring-symbol. If it is wearer-oriented that means you see it the right way when you look at it...meaning to another it is seen upside-down. When it is viewer-oriented it means it's worn so that everyone can see what it is, and it looks right-side-up to a viewer. And this has an impact on the symbolism.

If worn on the RIGHT hand top-of-crown oriented toward wearer, it's "right-side-up" and it means there's a boyfriend, whereas upside-down means looking for boyfriend. When an engagement takes place the ring is transferred to the left hand but the point of the heart rather than the crown faces the wearer. It is turned around when the woman is married. That is how I learned it. Why all this fuss about how to write it? Why not just put photos?

Also, stop running to websites! They don't know what the hell they're talking about with website info, which is plagiarized from dummies in the first place.75.21.152.167 (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something vital about the classification of the Claddugh ring: this article rightfully mentions the fede ring (mani-in-fede). However, Jones and Kunz do NOT classify the Claddugh as a fede ring--it is "an Irish WEDDING/BETROTHAL ring" as these scientists classify it.

A fede ring has clasped hands--the Claddugh does not have clasped hands. So it's inspired by the fede but is not a fede in itself. To say Claddugh is "inspired by" the fede ring is correct. If no one has a heart attack, I'm going to try once again to rectify the rhetoric of the article ref this point.

May I also give another stab at re-writing the orientations of the ring? Can I just say it's a subject that has altered over the years? Though Jones is clear enough, and as he is the oldest and best source, well....75.21.152.167 (talk) 16:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Family details Sorry, but this unverified and frankly ponderous info doesn't belong in an article about Claddugh rings. I have removed it, again. Why not make a link to another page?75.21.152.167 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some records by Scottish band Simple Minds have a Claddagh symbol on the cover (Live in the City of Light, Silver box...), maybe someone will want to add it to the "Modern usage and the Claddagh in Folklore and Fiction" section.

... and I don't remember "when worn on the left hand, facing in, in the usual "married" configuration - as meaning, "the wearer is destined to be with his or her love forever." in the TV show Buffy the Vampire Slayer... Maybe the source (the book "Bite Me") is wrong... the dialogue in the show is (season 2 episode 13 "Surprise") :

"It's a Claddagh ring. The hands represent friendship, the crown represents loyalty. The heart, well, you know... Wear it with the heart pointing toward you, it means you belong to somebody."

It's Angel talking to Buffy, while giving her his ring.

Hope this helps,

Megatof (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not good enough in english to correct the page if necessary.

This is good resource material for modern usage in a very limited way. The reference to the band and to "Buffy" apparently must be fitted in someplace. However, you must supply the evidence and be sure no copyright violation is occurring--you can show the band's cover art. As to "Buffy", I think it is MORE THAN ENOUGH that it's even mentioned in the article. We need less garbage, not more.75.21.119.97 (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping back in to remind anyone to LOOK HERE 1ST if you want to edit the page. Too much garbage has been added to this in the past, and there is even an admonishment about adding unnecessary material here. I did not add that notation, but I applaud it. If it isn't verifiable Claddagh-ring-related, DON'T ADD IT HERE. Also, let's leave off the "Buffy" references. Just mentioning it with its cited source is more than enough. And I take back anything I said about the band Simple Minds. We can say they often use the ring on their cover art and no more. I don't think it would be wise to use a photo of any of their art here.75.21.119.97 (talk) 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Claddaugh ring has also been used a lot on Days of our lives. 67.78.233.99 (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this article is now clean and good enough for the removal of the request for citations/cited sources. I have removed it because it is totally unnecessary. Any floating admins out there come take a look and see for yourselves. Of course if someone swoops in here and adds more crapola to the article, it negates everything I hoped to achieve.75.21.154.247 (talk) 19:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...please stop messing with the grammar/structure of what is already done. You know who you are, so please cease. The article as about as sharp and well written as it can get. Bravo to whomever added the extra language about Jones and the Claddagh village stuff. By the way, the quote saying the ring is "a heirloom"...is that a typo or is it like that in the original?75.21.111.206 (talk) 15:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see the article improving, but there's still a way to go. Getting good quality historical info on this subject is so difficult, and sadly I discovered that Jones "collected" his Claddagh info from Chambers' Book of Days. Where did the statement that he had "seen the custom in practice" come from?

Presumably Kunz used Jones, since he makes the same spelling error.

I've tried to find more good quality sources, and prune out things that don't fit Wikipedia's guidelines as far as I understand them - e.g speculation, or discussing books which don't mention Claddagh rings. Hope you agree with the overall direction. (To answer your question, "a heirloom" is in the original book by the Carter Halls, but must have been a typo.) Lelijg (talk) 09:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, as to the query it's just that universally, any word starting with a hard "h" is preceded by "a"-- if the "h" is aspirated then it is preceded by "an". So it would be "an heirloom" since no one pronounces the "h" in that word. That was all--they may have made it out differently in the 19th century + a bit later, so if it is precise, I think "a heirloom" should be followed by a sic.

It is funny, I do not find the precise connexion Sir William Jones has with Hall's work, but it is possible. The addition of Jones' personal knowledge of it is inferred from his own writing. If you have it, re-read it. See if you agree. I don't think it matters, I am actually rather pleased to know for sure where Jones got the info.

Those 19th century people, always copying from one another.

Of course Kunz utilized Jones heavily, as I put in the article, and naturally McCarthy used them both heavily later. I can tell you as an academic, though I feel ashamed I missed Hall's mention of it, this subject has only the books of Jones, Kunz and McCarthy. Really McCarthy is remarkable only because he does not mention the Claddagh. He should have if it mattered back in the 1940s, but he gives no evidence of any knowledge of it.

Sounds like neither Jones nor Kunz had direct knowledge of it either.76.195.80.62 (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been other editors - not me - changing "a" to "an" and back again! I'll stick in a [sic]. Yes, those 19th century antiquarians left us with problems - and copying each other was not their only sin.

You can follow the links between Halls, Chambers, Jones online.

Hall

Chambers (search for claddagh)

Jones

And Delamer comments on the connection too. Lelijg (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I am grateful for all of the above. One problem, however: in my edition of Jones, I don't see any acknowledgement of Hall, nothing in Jones' Appendix notes, nothing even in my edition of Kunz. It would be of great help if you managed to put the Hall quote into the article. It would look very nice there and add to it.

If this cannot be done, perhaps some other reference or an external link. I have little time to follow them as you suggest, but if we're not on solid ground, I move that references to Hall be stricken. It's in keeping with the exclusion of anything NOT Claddagh-related.75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)--oh, please see new section below....75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, that's why I jumped back in--I read the Hall quote. It is spectacular, I love it, but... I cannot find the precise connexion or proof that Jones necessarily copied Hall. Inspired by Hall, yes, lifted the structure of the text, yes! Probably did copy Hall. Just...I would ask, can we not place the Claddagh ring quote itself (from Hall) into the text of the article, next to Jones'? It certainly belongs there!75.21.155.143 (talk) 17:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers (1863) copied Hall (1843), and then Jones (1877) cites Chambers although he didn't copy him word for word. All 3 use the same pic. Lelijg (talk) 12:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lord, this article has had the work-over of its life. I only just re-read the article. Henceforth I'm leaving the editing alone, unless I see a gross grammatical blunder. It was good enough as I had it, plus the addition of Hall's quote, but if you people want to muddy it with too much flotsam and jetsam, I'm washing my hands of this...which is what I'm sure you wanted all along anyway.75.21.155.143 (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the Fenian version of the Claddagh is nice. While you find the citations to support the statements, the statements should NOT be there. (About the crown and why it doesn't appear on the Fenian ring.)

My wife's Irish grandmother who died aged 94 explained to me that this Fenian ring was bereft of crown as a direct statement against THE Crown, and a secret plea for the disestablishment of the monarchy. See, I did not add anything like that to the article because that is what someone told me. I cannot use myself or my wife's grandmother as a source.

The same goes for placing any sort of statements that are not backed by proper authority, or leaving the authority out of the statement.76.195.86.50 (talk) 06:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopped back in to note: I have removed what I think is quite excessive in the details department by Dillon. Don't make the same error I did and just trust what someone wrote just because they wrote it.

If you want to add features of that sort under a topic, I suggest you word it better and add corroboration. You are winding down a steep, dark staircase with all this about Hall and Dillon. It is unnecessary unless you can support it and word it better.76.195.86.50 (talk) 06:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess one person's "excessive" is another person's "comprehensive"! I don't really agree with depriving readers of the information that Claddagh rings may have been made of metals other than gold, and cutting back the part about the rings being worn beyond the Claddagh and Galway town. However, I don't feel strongly enough to suggest any changes except the word "claim" about Dillon's report of Claddagh rings being worn in the Aran Isles, Connemara etc. There are plenty of reasons to think he should be treated as a serious source on this point (his family had been making and selling rings in Galway since 1750 and other Irish writers say the same thing) and his knowledge should be presented neutrally. I think this is in line with Wikipedia guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CLAIM#Synonyms_for_said

Lelijg (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am not arguing against any appropriate citations. Going back through a whole family or subject history is unnecesssary in an article that is supposed to be merely about the ring itself.75.21.159.227 (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP removing the above authors from the References section. These are authoritative books and the only existing books about rings. You will be reported if you persist in this. Those are legitimate (and were rightfully cited until someone moved them).75.21.144.68 (talk) 14:45, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please find interesting and really noteworthy references to the ring in pop culture, not just a list of "where's Waldo". Meantime, silly references and the "cruft warning" have been removed. We don't need that tired old finger-wagging on there either.76.195.82.230 (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...Even though you no longer seem to exist here, leave the article alone unless you plan to improve its content and information. Clearly you and someone else I cannot yet discover have tried to ruin the correct content.

We should NOT accept these major changes without consultation here on the talk page. I notice a lot of the new informaiton added here is from some gimmicky store's website. Enough! Any such careless or flimsy changes will be reverted.75.21.107.151 (talk) 08:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two main issues crop up after looking at January's edits to this page.

1. Reliable sources. I've got hold of McMahon's book (The Story of the Claddagh Ring, Sean McMahon) cited in some new edits. This seems like a reliable source by an established writer on Irish/historical topics and after a quick read I'd say it supports most of our origins section. But it certainly does not support the idea that there are four "symbolic" ways of wearing the ring. McMahon gives the more familiar three ways, so I'm writing it the way he describes. I'm also removing the links to websites which don't have much claim to be reliable sources. Also, as far as I can see, McMahon doesn't say that stuff about bad luck or about the other hand in cultures where wedding rings are worn on the right finger. It's not in the same chapter as the "three ways" material.
2. Copyright. The legends section has twice had text from another website added to it. (http://www.galwayphotographssite.com/story/claddagh_ring.html) See WP:COPVIO for explanation of why this is not OK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lelijg (talk • contribs) 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC) (Sorry, forgot to sign comment.Lelijg (talk) 13:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Lelijg, good to see you active and working. As per usual, you and I see eye to eye on this article and the issues with it. I'm glad you corroborate the badly sourced "luck" topic. Does not belong here at all.

Now...as to the wearing styles, Lelijg, if you would accept the word of my wife's Irish grandmother and a couple of other people confirming this, about the wearing methods:

They taught me the woman wears the ring, never the man.

On the right hand the woman would only wear it if she were unattached, available AND her mother or grandmother had already left her the ring. Otherwise, she wouldn't wear a Claddagh yet.

As to the left hand, that one's painfully obvious I should think, in that the lady wears the point of the heart facing her wrist if she's engaged, and then turns it round when she's been married.

This leads to the right-handed rules, if on the right hand it's worn with the point of the heart facing the wrist, the girl's 'single and ready'. If she's turned the ring round on the right hand, she's got a beau and that's as far as it has got. Something about the courtship not being complete or something.

No written sources on this, though, unless we lucked out and found some Irish memoire. No books I consulted said anything about the wearing-orientation, only that the right hand wears it if unmarried and the left wears it once engaged. So in that sense you are right about the simplicity, the 3-step wearing custom.

For now, I am with you: let us leave the 3-step custom, which is accurately referenced, and forget my input. I say it with no sour grapes intended, because you are, as always, correct. It's good to see this continuing to shape up well, Lelijg, and see you here working. You've done a hell of a job with this article, it ought to be nominated.75.21.150.44 (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting - thanks for the description. (And thanks for the vote of confidence.) I think "folk" traditions tend to vary from region to region, family to family etc. and it would be good if there was a way to make this point in the article. The trouble, as always with the Claddagh ring, is finding reasonably reliable sources. McMahon is quite clear and I believe his version of the tradition is quite widespread. (?) I suppose we could add something brief about some people's traditions following other "rules" - but probably that wouldn't fit a strict interpretation of Wikipedia policies, unless a good source appears. Lelijg (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. You are correct and I agree so much that I wonder if we should place your comments above into the article!...or even a simple line describing how wearing traditions may vary or something like that. A simple line of logical progression wouldn't be out of order at all.

It always comes down to that damnable Wikipedia rule of original research, and I hate that because it allows the editor no freedom to properly color an otherwise dry piece of data. "Color" is literary and is not error, myth or unverified anecdotal reporting. It's simply color...and is self-evident fact, in most cases. I think the different ways of wearing a Claddagh fits into that category of color, yet I think you're right about not going over the side with it.75.21.150.44 (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really have a clear opinion on this at the moment. The symbolism section gets edited quite often by people who seem to want to contribute their own versions of the tradition. I guess ideally we would find a way of bringing all the bits and pieces together in a coherent "encyclopedic" way. Lelijg (talk) 09:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, and for the silly Wikirecord, I second your opinion.75.21.158.211 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, IP 156.17.164.155 ! We've got your number and an eye on you. Stop clowning with this article unless you have the courage to iron things out on the talk page.

Keep warring with Lelijg and I'll have the admins on you for edit warring. I've said it before: ENOUGH !75.21.150.44 (talk) 09:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we simply create a "Wearing Traditions" section that would loosen the reins a bit on restrictions? Not to suggest we have them run rough-shod over us, but to give itchy editors a place to add their writings without compromising the hard work you and I have done legitimately.

By the way, beware of yet another IP starting with 80. This one is a handful, leaving sexual messages and is currently under an outright ban. The ban is scheduled to be lifted in a day, I think. My suspicion that I know this user was confirmed by an unpleasant Amazon comment-post I saw.

Be careful! This is probably the vandal who's attacking here.75.21.150.44 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lelijg, jumped in to tell you I have somewhat restored the wearing traditions that you said you culled from McMahon (sp.?) - tidied up a little bit. Let me know if it is acceptable.75.21.150.44 (talk) 10:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks fine. I changed the 'of course' because I feel almost sure it is un-Wikipedian though I can't name chapter and verse of policy. Then I added quotes from McMahon which I hope will "legitimise" our writing about varying traditions without having lots of citations. I like the idea of a 'Wearing Traditions' section in a way, but perhaps it would encourage too much rambling about fingers, ring orientation, dating status etc.? The alternative might just be to tidy up now and again and/or ask people for sources. Lelijg (talk) 11:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought - Can we really start a section on a theme with no or very few reliable sources? Lelijg (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, quite right - I daresay we cannot just throw in a new section at this stage with really nothing to add. You also make a very good point: the new section may even entice vandals and other goofs. It's also agreed that phrases such as "of course" be avoided, unless it is grammatically acceptable to place it, such as when stating the well known obvious. May I say, you are the ultimate guide in this issue.75.21.157.38 (talk) 11:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lelijg thanks for rectifying the McMahon reference; I'd forgotten about that and I knew I had screwed it up somehow.75.21.157.38 (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you did anything wrong! Lelijg (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you know I changed around the wearing traditions (as I was taught them to be) and after conferring with you, I tried to set the matter straight in the article again - reverting what I have done isn't easy for a dopey bastard like me. I thought I had it all right but had loused up your reference. Glad to see you always here caring for it, though. With all the work you've done, and improvements, well, I still see this article as one of my "babies". I have nearly a hundred here, but only a handful retain the integrity I tried to give them.75.21.157.38 (talk) 13:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, this: "There are other traditions involving the hand and the finger upon which the Claddagh is worn - but these are difficult to reference. Folklore about the ring is relatively recent with no "slow growth from antiquity" and "very little native Irish writing about the ring" according to Sean McMahon." is BRILLIANT! It encompasses all we need on the subject. My apologies for not writing it myself.75.21.157.38 (talk) 13:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)13:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

L., and any other editor around (yeah, right) it would be nice if this user could at least have some courtesy and come to the talk page before adding goofy things. Oh, I'm all in favor of us learning from our errors, as I do quite often - but this is just plain weird.75.21.157.38 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, DO NOT ADD films or TV shows into this article. It is about the Claddagh ring, not about film, television or other non-notables.

Also, we do not need lists of people who have worn or exchanged the rings. Djathinkimacowboy 08:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I came to this site I expected to learn about the ring. I don't care about authors who wrote about the ring or comparing what they had to say. This was very poorly written. It does not stick to the topic. It needs work with transition. It seems to jump around and repeat. Information is unclear due to the fact the article contradicts itself. Inside or outside? Which way is the ring supposed to face? This is very confusing. A picture will help. There are different styles for the Claddagh ring, none of the styles are discussed. There is a quote in the text discussing a picture, but the picture is not there. That part of the quote is not necessary if the picture cannot be seen. In the section comparing similarities between 2 quotes "almost verbatim" is used. It was nowhere near verbatim. They were discussing different things about the ring. The only similarity is how the rings are passed from mother to daughter. The rest of the quote was unnecessary. The article would be better without quotes from other authors...especially if the others are saying opposing things. That entire section could have been summed up with: Some rings have been passed from mother to the first marrying daughter. This was not always the case. The ring was originally only for men. Or something to that effect. Overall this article taught me a few things, and some of what I learned I don't even know was true. It was not an article about the ring, it was a poorly written essay comparing differences and similarities between what the "experts" say about the ring. This article is a fine example of why Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source of information by academics.75.191.171.159 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cruel, but true and to the point. If someone was waiting for a kick in the butt to start improving this article, hopefully the above is sufficient? To add to it, I've been holding this article on my watchlist for three years waiting for it to make any kind of sense...—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 27, 2012; 19:30 (UTC)

It is true that all WP articles need work and help. So ... get to workin' and to helpin', and stop moaning! Remember to assume good faith, cite your facts and don't just take out facts or details because you don't like them. Edit wars start that way. Also, stick to the talk page. Don't complain, help make it better! Some of us worked for months trying to shape up this article. "Holding" an article "waiting for it to make sense" is just plain silly. Edit and help, or hold your peace. And recall the most important thing: disruptions will be dealt with severely.—Djathinkimacowboy 23:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's the spirit; give us both a lecture!</sarcasm> Because, of course, our best articles are produced by people who don't know shit about the topic (like me here).</also apparently, I closed my sarcasm tag too soon> You no more want me to contribute to this article than you want me to contribute to an article about particle physics. I do, however, contribute plenty to article about the subjects I know something about; thank you very much. If a note like one above appeared on a talk page of an article in my area of competence, I'd already be working on it, not posting witty rejoinders to the person who genuinely found the article confusing, contradictory, and outright useless. What gives? Can you help or not?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 28, 2012; 00:05 (UTC)

Ezhiki, I suggest you check the history of this article and see what I have done before shooting off your mouth in such a rude fashion. Your post borders on a personal attack. I'm finished responding to you. There are too many others like you I've been suffering lately. Now that I think about it, why not go back to the articles where you are 'expert'?—Djathinkimacowboy 00:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I sounded rude; I most certainly didn't mean to demean your efforts (which I indeed haven't had a chance to review yet). It's just that it irks me every time when a genuine concern is addressed with a "sofixit" lecture. Not everything can be fixed by a random passerby (even one with Wikipedia experience such as myself); most articles get consulted with because the reader wants to learn about the subject, not share his/her (often non-existent) knowledge about it or do an outside research and contribute. That approach certainly doesn't win Wikipedia new editors. Addressing the concerns promptly does, if only occasionally. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 28, 2012; 12:04 (UTC)

Yes, the article could be better. Yes, more pictures would be good, and "heart facing outward" may be ambiguous. Should we say "heart pointing outward"? Unfortunately we can't begin solving problems by assuming there is a clear, tidy set of established facts to draw on. Very few serious authors have written about Claddagh rings or the people wearing them. Very few people have done any research related to the rings.

Wikipedia's articles generally try to present the current state of knowledge about a topic. When it comes to Claddagh rings, there is surprisingly little knowledge in any book or article that qualifies as a reliable source. The internet is flooded with info on the rings, but where did it come from? It seems to include quite recent "tradition" and spin. In fact, the tiny amount of research work that has been done challenges a lot of what jewellery sellers and Claddagh fans say. If we want Wikipedia to be "considered a reliable source of information by academics" we cannot claim to know things without a solid basis. (But I must admit I like to have an idea of what different authors have to say!)

If the article seems unclear, this may reflect the lack of scholars interested in Claddagh rings. Their story is unclear. If anyone can find out more about the ring-wearing customs or "rules" for left hand/right/up/down etc., their origins and their variations, it would be a real breakthrough for this article, but I have a feeling it would involve original research by a social historian of some kind. Lelijg (talk) 12:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The point is those of us who worked very hard to bring this article up to snuff were very careful with what we put in and how we put it in - it feels wrong to have to read somebody else criticising and not helping. But that is the standard on WP; of course everyone is welcome to post as they are welcome to edit. An example is the way we worded the orientation of the ring. I was very picky about it but there were others who wanted only to copy from a source (without plagiarising). We finally went with someone else's way, and here is the proof that I had said long ago: someone will complain about that wording. I actually agree about the wording of the orientation of the ring on the finger. But if something looks wrong, then fix it. Otherwise care should be taken in the wording that is used to 'complain'. I used to do that a lot and I got into some majour trouble when I was extremely new here. 75 made good points in his post, but some of it also sounded a little bit like an open-ended attack.—Djathinkimacowboy 19:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition: Regarding how the Claddagh is traditionally worn ... we have a source which has been criticised and frankly I do not like it either. What if we streamline that source and find a better citation that tells us no one is really sure how the thing is worn in specific? What if it said just that? - "No one knows for certain how the ring is to be oriented, or on which finger it should be worn." IF we can find a source! Frankly I'm not at all happy with that part the way it stands. It needs some changing. Thoughts?—Djathinkimacowboy 20:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that finding a source for "no-one can be sure" would be fantastic. But I have no idea where. I thought McMahon's overview of common practice was OK-ish. The more recent version is reasonably mainstream too, though the source is not ideal. Does anyone have any idea when or where any of the "orientation" customs arose? They don't seem to go back to the era when non-Galway people first discovered the Claddagh ring. Lelijg (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A recently-added section saying Queen Victoria, Edward VII, and Queen Alexandra used to wear Claddagh rings doesn't seem reliable because the only source was the website of Dillon's, the Galway jeweller. Dillon's used to present Claddagh rings to visiting VIPs but there's no evidence I know of that any of the people mentioned wore the ring regularly. One of the earlier Dillons (quoted by McMahon) claimed Edward VII wore it when "passing through this portion of his dominions" but, even if true, that wasn't very often! After the visit when he was given the ring (1903) I don't think he ever went back to Galway, and only made a couple of other visits to Ireland. I looked for evidence that Queen V. wore her ring but found none. Lelijg (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lel. With you, I have to agree (albeit a bit late). Neither have I found any source that states any of the royals wore a Claddagh ring. In fact the best sources only tell us the children of King George V wore their signet rings per custom, and that the Duke of Windsor wore two Cartier Trinity 'puzzle' rings in place of any signet. Photos of the duke in his early years of marriage show he wore a plain wedding band with a heavy stone-set ring on top of it - and that is all regarding rings on modern royals. Photos exist of a beringed King Edward VII as well as Prince Leopold, but they are not enough evidence to show whether these men wore Claddaghs.~©Djathinkimacowboy 04:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact my recent work here at Pinky ring shows Prince Leopold (I plead guilty for that one but have excellent refs). I have heard it said quite a bit that he was wearing a Claddagh on there someplace in that stack of rings, but my OR showed me Leopold was not wearing a Claddagh ring. I have never in my life read a source that claims Queen Victoria wore a Claddagh - but I know Queen Elizabeth doesn't wear one either.~©Djathinkimacowboy 09:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this text about a legend from the Joyce family which doesn't seem to have anything to do with Claddagh rings: "A more mystical legend is also associated with the Joyce family: Margaret Joyce used her inheritance (from her late husband, Domingo de Rona, a wealthy Spanish merchant who traded with Galway)^[1] to build bridges in the province of Connacht. In 1596, she remarried Oliver Og French, Mayor of Galway.Claddagh Museum at Thomas Dillon's Claddagh Gold, Galway, Ireland." (Also, how is this "mystical"?) 128.148.231.12 (talk) 13:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody might want to add a short paragraph about how some of these rings were made. In Ancient Roman times, many specimens of this type of ring were Bronze. Marc S. 206.192.35.125 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claddagh ring. 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/20131003022908/http://claddagh.com/library/joyes.htm to http://claddagh.com/library/joyes.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:10, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Claddagh ring. 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/20061016112002/http://www.greenspeak.info/book/examples/claddagh.ring.php to http://greenspeak.info/book/examples/claddagh.ring.php

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:25, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has any scholarship been done that shows a connection between the development of the Claddagh to multicultural historical and prehistoric Yoni symbols. At least visually the connection seems almost obvious, but of course it could just be an independent development. Mklrly (talk) 19:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 11 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Adigiacomo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Lindseybean28 (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]