Óengus I is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 28, 2016.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 4, 2006 Good article nominee Listed November 5, 2006 Peer review Reviewed December 1, 2006 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WP1.0 Medieval Scotland FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medieval Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Medieval Scotland 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.Medieval ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject Medieval ScotlandMedieval Scotland articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as High-importance). Military history: Biography / British / European / Medieval FA‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force British military history task force European military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Middle Ages FA‑class Low‑importance This article 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 FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Politics FA‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Whoever wrote this page on Oengus I of the Picts did an excellent job of bringing the facts of his life out into the open. I do have one question for the writer of this page, however.

The writer of this page wrote that King Oengus campaigned in Munster alongside King Cathal mac Finguine (d. 742), with whom Oengus claimed kinship. I have no reason to doubt this statement, but I was just wondering where can I find some historical references to prove this claim? I need it for a project I'm doing on Medieval British and Irish history.

Thank you for your time. Please get back to me when you can.

Best wishes,

Albert

It's a paraphrase of Alex Woolf's article Ungus (Onuist), son of Uurgust in M. Lynch (ed.) The Oxford Companion to Scottish History (Oxford UP, 2002). There will presumably be more in either Fraser's From Caledonia to Pictland or Woolf's From Pictland to Alba in the new Edinburgh history of Scotland, but these are not due until 2008 and 2007 respectively. Angus McLellan 15:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Angus. I appreciate your help.

Best wishes,

Albert

The recent edit on this article is fantastic; and I'm very glad someone else is putting serious efforts into improving the standard of coverage of early medieval northern Britain, especially this man, one of the greatest kings to come from Dark Age Europe. The article is fine, and particularly great considering the difficulty of the subject matter. If you could find or make a few images, preferably about two or three, I'll be happy to list it as a good article; thereafter, the article could stand a good chance of being featured. - Calgacus 20:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Angus,

Can you tell me a little bit more about Ungus's campaign in Ireland? Thanks.

Best wishes,

Albert

Great work guys. Obviously, it could use images, but I don't see that as being a requirement for GA status. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has an FA nom been considered? They would expect an image; maybe a map could be added, at least. But this looks really good to me. Is there any more info that could be added? Everyking 11:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A map is certainly feasible, and some other more or less appropriate illustrations can be included. So that's not really a problem, but there's still some other work to be done. I wouldn't like to have it nominated for featured, or even to go to the trouble of peer-reviewing it, until someone has had the opportunity to compare the article with Alex Woolf's "Onuist son of Uurguist : tyrannus carnifex or a David for the Picts?" which appears in David Hill & Margaret Worthington (eds), Æthelbald and Offa : two eighth-century kings of Mercia. British Archaeological Reports, British series, 383, Oxford, 2005. I don't think it's guilty of original research any more than any other article of it's type. However, as with the article on Penda of Mercia, the fact is that it's strung together from a whole lot of sources, and comparing it with a relatively long piece on the subject (of which Woolf's is the only one I am aware of) seems like a good idea. A second concern is that I asked a non-anglophone acquaintance to read through it to see if it made sense. While we haven't sat down and gone through it in detail, she did say that she found it quite hard going, in part because of the unfamiliar names, background, & so on, which is unavoidable, but also because of the way it was written, which could be addressed once I know exactly what she had in mind. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow I managed to hit save before finishing my edit comment. I changed the section titles to "Notes" and "References" per WP:CITE. --Craig Stuntz 19:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At Angus, maybe we could have a full section devoted to the Mercian alliance and Óengus' greater political status in the British Isles. Both T.M. Charles-Edwards and then Alex Woolf argue that Óengus and the Mercians formed a joint overlordship of Britain. Charles-Edwards argues explicitly that Óengus was king possessing the image and authority of a "Bretwalda". Also, Charles-Edwards argues that Fortriu-Mercia alliance to control Northumbria and Dál Riata also effected to contest for the High-Kingship of Ireland, implying that Óengus was the leading player in a power-system that stretched from Munster to Kent to Orkney. His conclusions seem surprising at first, but the whole situation is put into good context by Herman Moisl's fantastic article, "The Bernician Royal Dynasty and the Irish in the Seventh Century" (Peritia, 1983, pp. 103-26). - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be some redirect from Aengus? It is not easy to type Óengus in my browser. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now added there, and to Angus (disambiguation). I created an Onuist dab page and redirected Ungus and Hungus there. There is already a redirect from Oengus I of the Picts (which is how I usually get here). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, Angus! I understand that the king is your namesake? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:16, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is, although there's unlikely to be any connection. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am minded to move the article to something more resembling forms found in print. "Óengus I/Óengus II" appears in the works of Alfred P. Smyth, surely not my favourite writer on the Insular Early Middle Ages. Sticking with Óengus rather Onuist (if nothing else, it's easier to pronounce for those who like to know how things sound) and Fergus rather than [UW]rguist (which is positively unhelpful unless you're Welsh), we might have:

• A Óengus son of Fergus (d. 761) - short and simple and as anglicised as you can get without being antiquarian, piping gives Óengus son of Fergus
• B Óengus mac Fergusso (d. 761) - axe grinding ? salami slicing ? probably, piping gives Óengus mac Fergusso
• C Óengus son of Fergus (King of the Picts, d. 761) - longwinded and just what does King of the Picts mean, piping gives Óengus son of Fergus

The other Óengus could be disambiguated by (d. 834). I have not opened a formal requested move as there seems little point. Unless there's a better suggestion or strong disagreement, I will go with A. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if you find many people qualified to pass an opinion on the matter. I'd never heard of him, and I enjoyed your article very much, but I don't think I'd've read it if it wasn't named the way it was. However, that's not a good reason to keep it, if it's, as you suggest, questionable.--qp10qp 15:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those titles seem particularly appealing. Óengus I. or Onuist I. seem fine to me, or Óengus I, King of the Picts. The "of the Picts" format is too clumsy; considering the problematic nature of the evidence (e.g. the king lists), even numbering Pictish kings is pretty risky (though in this case it is fine). The Germans have got it so much better with the Óengus I. (Picts) format, but it is out of line with English wiki convention. "son of" also looks clumsy, and besides poses the "Echdach problem" (Echdach being genitive of Eochaid), whereby because some of the patronymics occur only in the genitive case, the father names first have to be de-genitivized to be used .... not always possible with some of the more obcure names. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ideally

I'd be rather inclined to avoid going with a new way of naming him that instantly means he needs to be disambiguated. Assuming the suggested monarchical naming conventions pass, Óengus I, King of the Picts would seem to be okay with me. You seem to be opposed to this form, but I'm not familiar with Alfred P. Smyth, so I'm not really sure what the problem is. Could you possibly clarify why it's not a good way of doing things? Proteus (Talk) 19:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a case to be made for this article and it's namesake, but only for those. Where's the benefit in using a system which wouldn't be used on any other articles on the topic ? The Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain uses numerical disambiguation in these two cases only (see p. xxxii). Smyth and Marjorie Anderson (Kings and Kingship) give complete listings of kings from Bridei son of Maelchon onwards, in most cases with Gaeliform and Pictiform names. The articles here on kings before Bridei should be zapped anyway, perhaps excepting Drust son of Erp and his brother Nechtan. Have a look at Category:Irish kings and Category:Welsh monarchs. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So are you suggesting moving all the articles on Pictish Kings from their numerically disambiguated titles? Proteus (Talk) 08:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely think the Pictish kings should be moved. It is common to use "m." instead of "son of", because that is ambiguous. "Mac" is common, and although "map" is totally and utterly unattested in any Pictish or non-Pictish source for a Pictish person, historians who think all the Picts always spoke a dialect of Welsh like to use that form (the argument wrests on a few names in king lists and a couple of other sources which lack Irish Gaelic orthography, some placename elements which include words also used in Welsh and one half-Welsh place name from the Welsh area south of the Forth reported by Bede as "Pictish"). Anyways, Marjorie Ogilvie Anderson's articles on Pictish kings are titled as follows:

• Brude mac Bile [Bridei son of Beli] (d. 693), king of Picts
• Brude [Bridei] mac Maelchon (d. c.586), king of Picts
• Kenneth I [Cináed mac Alpin, Kenneth Macalpine] (d. 858), king in Scotland
• Nechtan mac Derile (d. 732), king of Picts
• Oengus [Angus] mac Forgusso [Onuist son of Uurguist] (d. 761), king of Picts

The sub-articles of Picts, kings of the (act. c.300–c.900)

• Nechtan Morbet (d. 481?)
• Talorgen (d. 657)
• Drust (d. 729)
• Talorg mac Congus (d. 734)
• Talorgan mac Drostan (d. 739)
• Constantine mac Fergus (d. 820)
• Oengus (d. 834)
• Eoganán (d. 839)
• Drust (d. c.848)

Frankly, the current system is silly, and Angus is correct to want to move it. I see nothing wrong, in this particular instance, of Óengus I or Onuist I. Even Óengus mac Fergusa/Óengus mac Forgusso or Onuist (I) m. Urguist would be fine. Simply Onuist may even work, with a "For Onuist II, see blah blah blah". Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Later generations may have conflated this king Óengus mac Fergusa with his 9th century namesake." from Cult of Saint Andrew section

Isn't this a wrong use of namesake (the 9th certain one didn't give his name to the 8th centurry one.) Also why use Óengus mac Fergusa? Rmhermen 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fergusa is genitive of Fergus. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 02:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change "namesake" to "king of the same name" for clarity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template Infobox Monarch would probably be appropriate per WikiProject Biography, and the tag saying that the article needs an appropriate infobox.
--Cliff smith 02:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added, and it doesn't look as bad as I feared. I'm not a great fan of infoboxes and dynastic templates, or even of succession boxes, as they can be rather obtrusive and/or misinforming. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was afraid of it ruining the page as well, but you did a great job with it. Cliff smith 18:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Onuist's victory at the battle of Moncrieffe in 728 appears to have secured him access to the kingship of the Southern Pictish zone. This view is further reinforced when one considers the close proximity of Moncrieffe to the Pictish royal centre at Forteviot. It is also highly likely that Onuist and Elphin, whose army he defeated at the battle, were rivals for dominion in the region.

According to the Annals of Tigernach (728.4), Óengus took the royal power in the wake of his victory over Elphin and his Pictish army. It is important to note that Naiton was not rex Pictorum in 729, but restored king of the Waerteras or king of the main Northern province in Pictland. Onuist, therefore, did not replace him as rex Pictorum but became such through his own ruthlessness and determination. He was probably counting on Naiton to assist him when, following Moncrieffe, his eyes turned northward.

The article, at present, seems to suggest that Onuist first gained the status of Pictish King in 732, which could be challenged. Onuist first appears to have achieved kingship in 728, that’s if we are going to take the source word for word. Let’s also not forget that Pictavia was a composite realm as Bede confirms in his Ecclesiastical History, written around our time period. I'm not sure if the article emphasises this aspect of Pictish kingship enough. The composite nature of Pictavia probably remained despite Onuist’s apparent success in capturing Fortriu and the North, and restoring Pictavia to the authority of one high king. Though this is not to say that Onuist did not play a v. important role in uniting Pictland and spreading its influence across Northern Britain during his reign.

Great article overall!

(S0569035 (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I suppose it's possible, but the odds are pretty bad that the Irishy Scots had a major battle at a Scottish location named "Mount Carno" the very same year that the Welsh had a major victory at a Welsh location named "Mount Carno". Surely something has gotten garbled by some scribe.  — LlywelynII 18:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: This is a Featured article, we should strive to settle issues. What should we do here? – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on getting it to featured status. I'm not sure what there is to do if no scholar has noted the issue, although if you have university access you could start poking around through these. I suppose the minimum would be to note parenthetically that the Welsh were recorded as having a victory under the same name in 728, along with a cite to the original chronicles so interested scholars could figure it out.

...

Now, having looked around for the Welsh account, I found this and this which (per Caradoc of Llancarfan's page) suggests that the Welsh victory might have been an invention by Iolo Morganwg. It doesn't seem to appear in Lhoyd/Powel's earlier edition of Caradoc. That's a bit to get into for an article on a participant in a different battle, but it does make it look like the garbling is happening on the Welsh side. Find whatever the original source is that Woolf is using and cite it and this should be fine. — LlywelynII 02:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: I am utterly unfamiliar with this topic (and had no part in the FA effort). I just happened to pass by this article as I was looking at Featured articles with unresolved issues. Since you are the one who introduced the tag, and there was no discussion for almost three years, I guess you are the best person to solve this issue. If you can, make any changes, or alternatively conclude that the 'dispute' is over. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or, alternatively, I'll just leave it and interested editors can address the issue as I explained above. — LlywelynII 04:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LlywelynII: the problem is that this is a Featured article and we all want to keep it that way. Having dispute tags linger about for years is not good news for keeping that FA status. Since you are the only person who has engaged in any discussion about it, it's not even a dispute. As the only 'party' to this dispute, I think you should either make changes or conclude that no changes are needed. For three years no one else has thought of it as a problem, and given that track record, I don't think we should leave this discussion open for another three years. Naturally, this talk page section will remain here, if interested editors want to make some conclusions. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:46, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Woolf cites the Annals of Ulster (729.2) in his paper. Fraser, in his book From Caledonia to Pictland (pp. 291-292), also notes the battle and cites the Annals of Ulster and Annales Cambriae (728.1). His source for the latter is: Dumville, D. N., Annales Cambriae, A.D. 682–954: texts A–C in Parallel (Cambridge, 2002). I don't have access to the latter work, but here's a link to a modern transcription of the "A" version of Annales Cambriae [1]. Search the pdf for "a287.1", that's the line that marks the battle. Just three words. Read the editor's footnotes, see how he associates the entry with the battle recorded by the Annals of Ulster. Seems like the 'Welsh' battle is in fact Pictish. Other editions of Annales Cambriae can be found here [2].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, other sources place Talorgan's death at "Catohic" or "Cato". Where did Anderson get "Mocetauc" from? Is it just a proposed variant of the Catohic name? did the other scribes screw it up? or what?

Offline sources are peachy, often newer and better. But you end up needing to explain things a little more clearly where they disagree with the earlier sources people can easily find online. — LlywelynII 17:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the Annales Cambriae clearly call Talorgan "king of the Picts". Easy enough to just assume they got it wrong, but was Angus sharing power? — LlywelynII 17:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? Bridei is listed under issue but the only Bridei mentioned is his brother and heir presumably due to tanistry. Did he also have a son named Bridei?

Weesiwel 22:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the article: "His close kin included at least two sons, Bridei (died 736) and Talorgan (died 782), and two brothers, Talorgan (died 750) and Bridei (died 763)".--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just blind. Cheers. Weesiwel 16:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weesiwel (talk • contribs)

I have a feeling this needs a few more inline citations in several parts. Besides a few spots where there's outright no citation, there's a number of spots where footnotes that seem to be more notes than references are used in place of referencing. My inclination is that WP:FACR #1c is not met in the article's current state. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]