Jump to content

Talk:Culhwch and Olwen

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

And now for something completely different

[edit]

Apologies to Monty Python for this section title, but it seemed fitting at the time it was written (which is now!). This note is by way of suggesting article improvement, and is not intended as criticism. I have no intent of changing the article itself, so that it fits my perspective; with consensus, the article may be changed in the course of time.

The article should include relevant translations, including descriptions, for the sake of reader understanding. The omission of those translations and descriptions has the affect that the same story will actually become two different stories, one for those with an understanding, and another for those without an understanding. It can surely be done more compactly than I have attempted below.

Also, I would disagree with the article suggestion that the story is a backdrop for lists and other such. Rather, it looks like those lists and other such were injected, likely by a transcriber with his own agenda, with perhaps a storyteller's enhancements from time to time (that is in the tradition of Welsh storytelling). In all, it does indeed seem to be a simple folk story.

  • Culhwch - This is a metaphor for a poor boy, and should not be read literally. "Hwch" is the Welsh word for a sow (perhaps once used without gender implication), and "Cul" is the word for narrow. Wild boar excavate burrows. "Culhwch" is a Welsh word for such a burrow, and when used as a name, it associates the person with the burrow, whether due to low social standing or due to circumstance. Metaphorically, it refers to one of humble origins. The name also exists in Gaelic, spelled differently but pronounced similarly, and having similar connotations. When used in self-description, it implies success despite humble origins, in the sense of having an indomitable spirit, and is a source of family heritage.
  • Olwen - There is a particular plant that sends out runners underground, and at intervals a runner sends up a shoot, and at each such location, a flower grows. It looks like a trace that follows the course of the runner. In the nature of peoples everywhere, whimsical stories arise. The Welsh word for a track or trace is "ôl", "gwyn" is the word for "white or fair", and "Olwen" means "White Trace" or "Fair Trace". So if one is walking along and sees this trace of flowers, one might whimsically say "Ah, Olwen has passed by here." Also in the nature of peoples everywhere, characters develop and evolve in their description: Olwen is a woman so wonderful that everywhere she steps, a flower grows; and every man who sees her falls in love with her, sometimes upon merely hearing her name; but she has a father who cannot abide suitors, because he has been told that he will die if ever she would marry.

This is a story of "poor boy makes good and wins the fair lady", common in many cultures. In the US it is called a Horatio Alger story. From the article Synopsis, one gets no sense of the culture that produced the story. The names of people, places, and things are untranslated and undescribed, when all have cultural (and relevant) meaning. The use of "king" in reference to Arthur is contentious, but that is a battle properly waged and edit-warred elsewhere, rather than within a single instance of usage, such as within this article.

Unrelated to this article but inherent in all such articles, I would suggest that lack of translation and description is a major source of honest disagreement between those who read a story with an understanding of proper meanings and culture, and those who read the same story without that understanding. The sides are both well-intentioned, but they're talking about different things, to the point that they're really talking about different stories.

I've gone on for too long, so that you've probably stopped reading this note long before reaching this point. 24.178.228.14 (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There seems to be some disagreement as to whether including a "Popular Reference" section is relevant. I believe that it is; having pointers to recordings and versions of Culhwch and Olwen seems entirely relevant to the article. I'm not quite sure why such a section would be irrelevant in this particular case. Thoughts?

XofWiki (talk) 23:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No dissention, so "In Popular Media" added.

XofWiki (talk) 01:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:POPCULTURE. Sections such as this are discouraged.--Cúchullain t/c 02:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reference to Wikipedia:POPCULTURE. In reviewing my update and this section, I'm not sure in what way my proposed update runs afoul of the policy. In particular, Wikipedia:POPCULTURE does not actually say that such entries are discouraged, only that ill-maintained and overly long lists and trivial entries should be avoided. Given that this is one of if not the only recorded near-complete versions of Culhwhch and Olwen, that seems completely relevant under the policy. XofWiki (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
HI XofWiki. The TRIVIA guideline offers a better discussion of how to deal with material in sections like this. The key here would be finding a third-party secondary source that verifies the material and establishes its importance to the subject.--Cúchullain t/c 14:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tolkien ref

[edit]

I've removed the Tolkien reference, as the citation is not a reliable source. While The Road to Middle-Earth, an acceptable source, is mentioned in the linked page, it does not appear to be in reference to the comparison with Culhwch and Olwen. If there are specific citations to reliable sources that justify this claim, it may be readded, but I am not seeing those now. Mintrick (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The references are now included and if you've had searched with more care you would have had see them earlier in the other articles,including the wiki article dedicated to Beren and Lúthien.(talk)

Anything added to any article really needs to be cited within that article, even if the material is verifiable elsewhere. It's basic citation. And as the one wanting to add the material, the burden of evidence is on you to add those citations.--Cúchullain t/c 01:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PauloIapetus, forum postings are not reliable sources. If you think those books mentioned in the forums are reliable, find them and cite them. Additionally, of all the many things this article needs, it does not need a long ellucidation of every similarity between Culhwch and Olwen and the Silmarillion. It constitutes undue weight in over-emphasizing the minor connection to Tolkien.--Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the first place I have the books mentioned and I can attest the veracity of the quotes made in the posts.The books were not simply mentioned they were quoted extensively in the linked messages. If I'd cite them I'd simply repeat their content in this page and this would realy be a case of undue weight.The quotes added as notes by Mintrick using the quotes that I've made in another Wiki's article are by far more extensive than the original paragraphy that dealt with the matter originaly.

Moreover, is a valid point if you think that the article itself does'nt need the citation of the similarities, what generates just one additional paragraphy with five or six lines, but to exclude any link to a page that cites reliable and acessible sources that comment about the connections more extensively and contains an interesting study about the underlying symbolism of the story of Culhwch and Olwen in comparison with Tolkien's tale is totaly unnecessary and, IMO, something that impoverishes the article such as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PauloIapetus (talk • contribs) 19:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to cite the books, not quote them. Meaning publication information, page numbers, etc. You don't have to quote them extensively (and you shouldn't). But you can't just link to a forum post as if it were a reliable source.--Cúchullain t/c 22:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quotes and citations of books of Shippey and Day were provided by me, and about the texts mentioned in Beyond Bree and Mythlore, as I've said, the information given in the forum is entirely true and reliable because I have the same sources quoted there. They were sumarized in the short paragraphy excluded by you, shorter than the current notes added to this article. But you 'll have the page numbers and with them the article should be shorter than currently is without the extensive QUOTES that were put in it as notes by Mintrick ( if you don't want quotes in the article you should exclude them too, I guess, just because you seem to think that is more easy to delete the information than simply ask for the page numbers and the complete citation. It isn't because of this that we have the "citation needed" tag? How many other parts of the article are currently with this tag without being edited out? Five? Six? Anyways, wait for the complete bibliographical reference, I guess that you'll be satisfied. See ya. ..--PauloIapetus t/c —Preceding undated comment added 01:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I don't understand what this dispute is about. All that needs to be done is for you to cite your sources in the standard manner. Nothing to get upset about.--Cúchullain t/c 12:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it will be done,although the bibliographical reference could be used already by yourself, since that it is included in the posts. And the information given in the supressed paragraphy can be so easily deduced including with the sources already quoted and the summaries of both the tales. Since that the citation needed tag wasn't used in this case in a article that has currently five of them what, is upsetting me is the obvious double standard about the issue. I'm not seeing other "unsourced" parts of the article supressed to satisfy your concern with the veracity of the information in the article. Furthermore, as I've said, the long quotes made by Mintrick that were not truly fitting to this article are the twice longer and a little bit more than the paragraphy deleted at the same time that you spoke about "undue weight". But I don't expect that you'll truly understand because, I guess, 'Pepper in another person eyes is delightful' as says the proverb.Take care. PauloIapetus t/c

Adaptations

[edit]

I suppose this is the descendant of section "Popular Culture" discussed above a few years ago.

(quote my edit summary) add 1989 award-winning book; reformat as plain text in chron order; wikilinks; {clarify} (2)

Some print edition Culhwch ac Olwen was published in 1988 or 1989. I don't know whether the heading "Adaptation" is appropriate for it. It may be, say, a translation from "old" language or script into modern. Does anyone know?

Our article on the film Y Mabinogi associates it only with Four Branches of the Mabinogi in general. What about Culhwch specifically? The other article is a stub and may not be reliable on this point, but the film title does suggest it may be quite general.

All of the Adaptation paragraphs need references. --P64 (talk) 17:12, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Culhwch and Olwen. 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) 08:12, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Culhwch_and_Olwen&oldid=1206840887"