Jump to content

Talk:Cadwaladr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Cadwaladr biography is on Wikipedia. i simply wanted to suggest that Cadwaladr is mentioned as an ancestor of Edmund Tudor, husband of Margaret Beaufort, Queen Mother of Henry V11. The book is THE RED QUEEN by Phillipa Gregory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.160.201 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from here. I have not placed this into the article as I have been unable to verify the information. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a commonplace I think, but a novel is not an appropriate reference. It is almost mentioned here already (in the bit about the Red Dragon). The real meat of any discussion, however, needs to go in one of the articles about Henry VII or the Tudors. For a reference, this or this would do to reference the fact that Henry Tudor claimed descent from Cadwaladr. Claimed descent. Not was descended. King Arthur and all that stuff were popular in Tudor times too. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

[edit]

A claimed citation from a book dated 1869(!) is given to support the following contention: "Geoffrey's story of Cadwaladr's traveling to Rome may have originated from a version of the Brut y Tywysogion (English: Chronicle of the Princes), which contains the assertion." The Welsh Brut is, in fact, a Welsh translation of Geoffrey; and the citation provides no support whasoever for the contention. Both the claim and the citation have been justifiably deleted from the article text. It is absurd in any case that this kind of outdated scholarship would be cited in a 21st-century encylopedia.RandomCritic (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to start out on the wrong foot, but your comment sounds ideological. Haddan and Stubbs are still-respected scholars, and their works (one of which you are disparaging) are still cited by modern scholars. Your opinion (" ... from a book dated 1869(!) is given ... ") should not be used (even in part) in justifying unilateral erasure of a reliable and cited source.
For the matter at hand: the Brut y Tywysogion is not taken to be a pure copy of Geoffrey. If you assert that it is in fact a pure copy of Geoffrey, composed without a source other than Geoffrey, then please provide something reliable to back up your opinion. And if you take issue with Haddan and Stubbs as well, then please provide something more substantive than personal outrage.
If you have something of substance here, I will be interested to hear it. In the meantime, could you please leave the material in the article, at least until we can engage in some dialogue? As I understand it, the wikipedia principle applying here is to seek consensus without repeating edits that are controversial to someone (here, myself) who is willing to discuss the matter. If the article contains anything as falsely outrageous as you assert, I would readily agree to its removal. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim of insubstantiality is itself insubstantial, and your claim of ideological motivations sounds like projection. You are simply not dealing with the fact that the citation in no way backs up the claim. The onus is on you to at least make an attempt to prove that it does.RandomCritic (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of citations within the citation, all of them relevant to the topic. What is it that you don't like? Sorry, but so far it looks like your objections are personal opinion; you say that you don't like the date of the cited source; you suggest that Haddan and Stubbs and their Ecclesiastical documents is not a reliable source, calling it "outdated scholarship"; you assert that the Brut is a pure copy from Geoffrey; etc. You're making assertions with nothing to back them up.
Simply read the cited material. For example: "It is quite impossible that a Welsh King in the very height of the schism should have made a pilgrimage to Rome, ... ". Is there some misrepresentation in the article text? It looks like a fair reference for the article text saying " ... it is virtually impossible that a Welsh king would have made a pilgrimage to Rome at the very height of the great schism between Rome and the Celtic Church ... ".
I will restore the article, pending some resolution here—the principle is (I think) to leave long-standing but recently contested material in-place pending resolution. If there is no resolution, we can go from there, but please do not again erase the cited material prior to a dialogue and an effort at resolution. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a misrepresentation. There is nothing to support the contention that the Tywysogion is the source of Geoffrey. As for the rest, it's opinion, not fact. There is absolutely no obligation to keep erroneous, inaccurately sourced pseudo-information on Wikipedia simply because a user thinks it ought to stay. RandomCritic (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming a bit late to this conversation, but I'd like to see if we can't sort this out. In my opinion, the line about the possibility of Geoffrey getting the Cadwaladr story from a version of the Brut y Tywysogion (which is not simply a translation of Geoffrey, as it contains mostly material that does not appear in Geoffrey), may be appropriate. However, I can't find where in Haddan and Stubbs that claim appears. If we have a direct quote, I see absolutely no problem with a line saying something like, "According to Haddan and Stubbs, Geoffrey's story of Cadwaladr's traveling to Rome may have originated from a version of the Brut y Tywysogion, the extant versions of which contain such an assertion." I don't think the line saying "Aside from the questionable reliability of the source, it is virtually impossible that a Welsh king would have made a pilgrimage to Rome at the very height of the great schism between Rome and the Celtic Church, though it became common for them to do so 200 years later" is necessary, however. Nothing against H&S, but the comment seems to be based 19th-century conceptions of the "Celtic Church" and its animosity with Rome, which don't match up with the modern consensus. There are plenty of other good reasons why it's dubious that Cadwaladr went to Rome.

Notuncurious, I think if we can get the page number for H&S and attribute the interpretation to their authority in the text, the material should be included.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a separate note, I found this interesting overview of the conflation with Caedwalla, which may serve us here.--Cúchullain t/c 19:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadwaladr. 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:

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) 14:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nisbet

[edit]

This edit [1] adds having first appeared in Alexander Nisbet’s 1718 work, An Essay on the Ancient and Modern Use of Armor. This is unreferenced and also speculative. It seems this claim is made in a YouTube video, and the author of the video may be correct, but they themself only say this is the first usage they can find. If they publish their research, we would have a source we could quote for some appropriate wording, but as it stands, this claim cannot be in the article. I'll pre-emptively say, please don't quote the video as a source. It was quoting unsuitable sources that got the wrong information in the other articles in the first place. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit stubborn to refuse to include a direct, named citation from a primary source because it's mentioned in a youtube video, more so when said video set out to correct a series of misinformation on this and related articles.
He cites the actual source, that is the main thing. Not including it seems petty. Ummunmutamnag (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can't simply quote Nisbet, because all that shows is that Nisbet made the association. Was Nisbet the first to do so? Nisbet won't tell you that. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cadwaladr&oldid=1206505508"