Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history/Sub-Roman Britain task force

Soooo... Do we have any priorities etc as this taskforce? cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just signed up for 3 new wikiprojects this week, so my time will be fragmented, but I'll help as I can. - PKM (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do

Rheged could use some cleanup. The references are incomplete (missing publishing data) and include Morris's Age of Arthur, and there are only 2 footnotes in the entire article, one of which I just added. There was discussion of cleanup needed a couple of years ago, but it's been quiet since. - PKM (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hen Ogledd has no references or citations. - PKM (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added one. - PKM (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for the brave, the article on John Morris doesn't mention the critical response to The Age of Arthur. - PKM (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done :-) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. - PKM (talk) 09:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And Bernicia only cites the online EBK as a source. - PKM (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Morris

I've got Age of Arthur, but I haven't read the whole thing yet. When I get through I'll try to fix that. I'm trying to find good books on the various kingdoms, but I only have two books of my own that are of any use. I'm working through them and I'm trying to make my way through the local university library. Over the next week I'm trying to fix up the page and start on several of the articles. By the way, PKM, welcome to the task force! ---G.T.N. —Preceding comment was added at 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The scholarly reactions to The Age of Arthur were rather devasting, and permanently damaged Morris's professional reputation. I have some sources for that somewhere; the bottom line is that we shouldn't cite Morris as a source for any article, or should do so with extreme caution and verification from a more recent scholarly source.

But it's a great read... (sigh). - PKM (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree strongly with the above. Please see below for websites in the same category. Tnx, Enaidmawr (talk) 21:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it suspicious there is such an aversion to certain authors with perfectly reasonable stances on the sources. John Morris does not fabricate any sources, he certainly fabricates some information on the basis of his sources, this is not unreasonable though. On the level of King Arthur's historicity, and the source material available for the timescale of The Age of Arthur, his assessment follows scholarly parameters. His criticism wavers, yet only on the basis of his acceptance of the sources as correct in their support of a possibility. If one wants to denegrate his reputability on the basis of his publication of a reconstruction of possible history, rather than his correctness on the possibiility of it itself, it is entirely unreasonable. Let it not be forgotten those modern historians with an apparant edge on the theories of JM are still unable to unequivocally disprove the validity of the sources he uses. They offer critique, yet do not offer an alternative. This denotes discredibility for the dissenters, on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, and the principle of resonable doubt. This case is at hand, and the project here should not be reticent on the outcome if it is not within reason. Use of references should not be a matter for consensus to dictate here. Truth will out itself I think. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morris's views are "perfectly reasonable"?! Wikipedia requires that we use reliable sources, and part of the assessment of reliability is peer-review. This can act in several ways, the most obvious being publication in a peer-reviewed journal, peer-reviewed/academic monograph series, or positive citation in academic works. In the case of books, we can also add book reviews in academic journals. John Morris's Age of Arthur fails all of these tests: he was savaged in the scholarly press and his text is never now be cited as an authority for anything other than his own theory (I certainly have not seen his work being used otherwise in my reading). The most important and comprehensive review of his work concluded that the Age of Arthur was "an outwardly impressive piece of scholarship", but it "crumbles upon inspection into a tangled tissue of fact and fantasy which is both misleading and misguided" (D. P. Kirby and J. E. C. Williams, "Review of The Age of Arthur", Studia Celtica, 10-11 (1975-6), pp. 454-86). This was, in fact, the conclusion of virtually all those who reviewed the work from a position of knowledge; as such The Age of Arthur counts as a Questionable Source and according to Wiki policy "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of information about themselves". Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some good references for this task force

Snyder, Christopher A. 1998. An Age of Tyrants: Britain, AD 400-600. University Park, PA: Penn State U. Press. ISBN 0217017805. (paperback)
Charles-Edwards, Thomas. 1991. "The Historical Arthur." In The Arthur of the Welsh: The Arthurian Legend in Medieval Welsh Literature, ed. Rachel Bromwich et al, 15-32. Cardiff: U. of Wales. (paperback)
Higham, Nicholas J. 1992. Rome, Britain and the Anglo-Saxons. London: Seaby. (I have not read this myself - PKM)
Higham, Nicholas J. 1994. The English Conquest: Gildas and Britain in the Fifth Century. Manchester and New York: Manchester Univ. Press. (I have not read this either)
Higham, Nicholas J. 2002. King Arthur: Myth-Making and History. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415213053
Jackson, Kenneth: Language and History in Early Britain, Edinburgh University Press, 1953. (50 years old and still the canonical reference, or so I believe)

Please add to the list or comment on the entries; I am a rusty (but formerly enthusiastic) amateur, not an academic. - PKM (talk) 19:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and this is emphatically not a criticism of contemporary sources ... not to sink into cliche, but there is not much new in ancient history. One can find most of the information on-line, particularly at http://books.google.com (searching is very productive once one gets used to the methodology) and at http://www.archive.org and also a few other sites. Such information is available to everyone (ie, try to avoid using "exclusive" sources). Many of the newer works are re-publications, or rehashes, or similar such. Some newer works have new information (based on archaeological excavations, or a newly-available manuscript, etc); and modern insights by capable historians are valuable. But the vast majority of actual evidence was printed long ago. And personally, I find it preferable to read the work of someone who has actually read the original source, rather than the work of someone who has read someone else's synthesis of a synthesis of the original sources – the latter is fertile ground for theory-promotion, under the guise of "so-and-so says this". Many older sources have a clear bias, often discredited or objectionable, but it is also true that many modern sources have a similarly unwelcome bias, though it is stated with more subtlety (whence the phrase "the consensus of mainstream historians ..."). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable must-have list

Bertram, Charles (1757), Hatcher, Henry (ed.), The Description of Britain, Translated from Richard of Cirencester, London: J. White and Co (published 1809) {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link) — commonly known as De Situ Britanniae, it is a fraud and a forgery, never an acceptable reference. It was once the primary authoritative source of information on late-Roman and post-Roman north-British history, especially regarding Scotland and N. England, where there is little legitimate information. Once debunked, it's spurious information continued in use by some, though without attribution. Trivia: this book is the origin of the name of the Pennine Mountains of England.
Williams, Edward (c. 1810), Williams (ab Iolo), Taliesin (ed.), Iolo Manuscripts, Llandovery: William Rees (published 1848){{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) — needs independent and critical verification for any assertions of historical fact, and is not usable without that. Some later works quote its contents without attribution.
Elrington, Charles Richard (1847), The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., vol. V, Dublin: Hodges and Smith - Brittanicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates; caput I-XIII (1639) — Ussher played fast and loose with the facts, sometimes (and sometimes not) altering the evidence. Not a reputable source without independent and critical verification. Some later works quote its contents without attribution.
Elrington, Charles Richard (1847), The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, D.D., vol. VI, Dublin: Hodges and Smith - Brittanicarum Ecclesiarum Antiquitates; caput XIV-XVII (1639)

Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC) —— corrected url. Notuncurious (talk) 03:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the article on Sub-Roman Britain

Shouldn't we start with this one and clean it up? I'm thinking of the Kingdoms bit, which in one case has another Wiki as a source. And speaking of sources, are we definitely happy with David Ford's site? I like the guy, but is it a RS? The same goes for the Vortigern Studies site, which has various authors. Doug Weller (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither site is suitable for use in the references, but they're OK for the external links, perhaps? Pref. they would come after some reputable web-sources, though IMHO these are exceedingly few and far-between (is Snyder's sub-Roman gazetteer-article at the journal Internet Archaeology still free-access? It used to be and it would be a very good link to have...) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gazetteer is no longer free access beyond the TOC. His introductory essay at ORB is still available. - PKM (talk) 22:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple use of unreliable sources and other concerns

Thought I should draw your attention to a new article which has suddenly appeared - Luitcoyt (i.e. Llwydgoed/Caer Lwydgoed) - which epitomises one of the major problems facing this task force (and the Celtic project in general). I refer to the tendency for people who know next to nothing about the subject other than what they may have read in dated and inaccurate books or works of fiction to come here and write about people, places and events that belong to legend or speculative reconstructions of early history as if they were widely accepted by mainstream historians. To support their case they usually cite people like John Morris or Robert Graves or one of the "Celticana" websites; I'm thinking especially of 'earlybritishkingdoms' (Nash Ford) and the highly misleading 'historyfiles.co.uk' (one or two others come to mind). The latter are the more inviduous as they are readily available online and appear to be comprehensive and authoritative. They are not. Sources are not normally given, fact, legend and imaginative reconstructions are hopelessly intermixed and presented uncritically: these are not acceptable sources. So I'd like to ask two things. Firstly, would it be a good idea to have a policy on reliable/unreliable web-based resources? Secondly, would somebody care to have a look at "Luitcoyt", which is a chaotic mix of fact, fiction and speculation, and... well, I'm not sure, but something needs to be done about it.

PS Thought for some reason my name was already down here, but it seems not - as I mentioned to GTN, my contributions will be mainly limited to "patrolling" articles as they develop (or regress!), as I'm heavily committed over on the Welsh wikipedia. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! What a load of cobblers that article is! Definitely needs nominating for deletion IMO -- badly researched, badly written and on a topic which certainly doesn't need its own page... Just my humble opinion, of course ;-P I'd do it if I knew how... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You took the words right from my mouth! I can't delete it either: maybe we should just redirect it to Lichfield ('Caer Lwydgoed' in Welsh)? The article's on my watchlist and is beginning to get annoying, not to mention being an embarassment to this project and the wider Wikipedia. By the way, the anon editor actually has an account - User:Caer Luit Coyt (see Special:Contributions/Caer_Luit_Coyt), created at the same time this nonsense started but virtually unused - and even welcomed himself to Wikipedia! Think it's worth keeping an eye on his/her other contributions as well; putting links to this article in a number of places. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed his contributions to Sub-Roman Britain (red links, url references to breton wikipedia, earlybritishkingdoms etc). Another article to keep an eye on is Glastening; really needs sorting fact from fiction over there. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, they've been on my watchlist and I've been trying to find time to do something about them. Is it worth putting the Luitcoit article up for AfD? I'm glad to see the rubbish gone. Doug Weller (talk) 06:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do so, you'll have my full support (I suppose a redirect would only be reverted). I'd do it myself but as I've already tagged the article and got rid of some stuff it might be better for somebody else to do so, for the sake of appearances. Enaidmawr (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think it should be a redirect. Why did you revert Letocetum, O.W. Cair Luitcoyt? I've got several sources for that, including Graham Webster, who I think is good enough. Also Kenneth Jackson in an Antiquity article. Doug Weller (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't mean to revert 'Cair Luitcoyt', I was in a bit of a rush, but it's the same as 'Caer Lwytcoed' anyway (Middle Welsh, ='Caer Lwydgoed' [Lichfield] in modern orthography, but rarely used as a place-name other than in books on the Middle Ages). Agree perhaps a redirect is the best solution here. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS A number of other variant orthographies for the Old/Middle Welsh could be found, if one had the time, e.g. Cair is by no means the only form in OW for caer (e.g. kayr, kaer, kair, caer). Enaidmawr (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) A suggestion on the topic, for what it's worth. Have a "Theories about Sub-Roman Britain" category, and place all such articles there ("Theory of Arthur from the North", "Theory of Arthur from the South", "Theory of Arthur from Galloway", etc, ad nauseum). If we must live with all the pet theories, and we probably must, then give them a fair and distinct place, and don't clutter up articles on the historical Sub-Roman Britain with them. Perhaps the Luitcoyt article might fit here, as might a number of other similar such - then when such articles appear, they can be moved appropriately, leaving the redirect in-place. And if they are referenced from historical articles, reference them by their "Theory of" names only, so that people will know what to expect. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypotheses rather than theories please. :-) Luitcoyt is now a redirect to Letocetum. These aren't Arthurian stuff but 'Early British Kingdoms'. I've raised the issue of sources here [1]. I plan to work on Glastening soon. Doug Weller (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't intend to focus on Arthur only; I did intend to apply it to some of the alleged "kingdoms"; Luitcoyt article is now better than when I last saw it; with benefit of hindsight, yes that link would have been a better place for the comment; your "Hypothesis of" is probably more acceptable than my "Theory of"; however, I think the rest of my comment holds up well :-) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I've added a few comments and suggestions at RS. By the way, there is a pseudohistory category: perhaps we could tie in with that? Enaidmawr (talk) 22:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "pseudohistory" won't work - there will be an emotional reaction and edit war, and it's already in over-use by arguing editors (when any 2 theories are mutually exclusive, someone uses the word pseudohistory). Calling it a hypothesis and giving it a category is probably the least bad way to go. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say "If we must live with all the pet theories, and we probably must..." -- but must we? I think the notability clause must kick in somewhere around here -- a lot of these theories cite nothing but websites and are simply not notable, if we're honest... A notable theory is one that is both published and has had a significant influence. To give an example, the Freudian possibilities of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight have been left out of the wiki article on this (see Talk) because, even though they have been raised in a couple of articles in academic journals, they are very much a fringe theory with no wider impact on the interpretation of the poem. The same sort of principles ought to be applied to 'sub-Roman' articles, in my humble opinion :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Talk:Glastening. Just beginning to realise the extent of the problem! Enaidmawr (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A noble thought and a righteous cause – but take a step back for a second: suppose you succeed in pitching all those references. Have a look at the article that you are left with, then ask yourself "is this article salvageable in its present incarnation?" – if so, proceed. However, as you now look at the article, would it be more productive to simply write an article and replace the existing one? And also, considering how many articles use Morris as a reference, is this how you want to spend the rest of your life? With empathy and sympathy, Notuncurious (talk) 23:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't want to fight forever, then we probably must live with it, but we need not live with it as it now exists. The definition of 'reliable' is a legitimate debatable issue, and not necessarily winnable. The definition of linkspam would probably be more productive - a link (or reference) to a personal site (or source), and thus unacceptable.

How things might have been arranged in the past to ensure good articles no longer applies if we want to see a good result in finite time; also, we don't want to address problems one-at-a-time (the whack-a-mole solution, it just pops up elsewhere, forever and ever).

There will always be those who push pet theories and interesting alternatives (and EBK is a magnet for this), so perhaps rather than finding an answer, it might be more productive to make the question go away. However, don't address it in the negative – for example, a list of sites (or sources) that are banned from use can legitimately be called 'information control'.

At present, my best thought is something like a category of "Hypotheses of Post-Roman Britain" under the project's auspices, then move appropriate articles to the new name of "Hypothesis of [current article name]", leaving the old article name as a redirect. I would welcome a better practical suggestion (something that does not preclude endless warfare with theory promoters is not a better suggestion, however righteous the cause). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies on reliable sources, and on self-published sources are pretty clear. WP:RS. You can't just replace an article with a new one, but you can rewrite it. We are expected to use good sources and in this case that means academic ones. The only real problem I see is with John Morris, the ones I've listed are all self-published web sites. Doug Weller (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just worry that we're going to create a ghetto of useless articles citing only websites/Morris by doing this, which people will have even less reason than now to try and correct because of their 'hypothesis' tag. I see what you're saying, however, don't get me wrong -- there's a serious issue over time/energy etc. But my position would remain that, if there is enough legit/reliable material to produce an article from, then that article ought to be in the main 'sphere' of wiki e.g. if there is serious discussion of the possible existence of a kingdom called 'Luitcoit'/'Glastening', then this hypothesis ought to mentioned [and properly referenced] in the main article on this (Letocetum, Glastonbury etc), as it is obviously noteworthy etc. On the other hand, if there isn't -- if it's all speculation derived from websites, discredited authors, and wishful thinking -- then it oughtn't to be here at all... If there's nothing solid to back the ideas up, then they're not hypotheses, they're day-dreams. Should we even be giving them the veneer of respectability via such a category, even if not doing so makes a rod for our own back? :-/ For myself, I'd be happier redirecting to the main article on the place/region and adding a short sub-section which summarizes anything that's actually based on solid evidence... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 08:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I doubt that 'we' will be the creators of useless articles (leave that to the hypothesis fans), but 'we' will have to live with their ongoing creation, like it or not. And the criteria for acceptability will always be fuzzy. The current citations of private web sites can be addressed head-on, but that is only one manifestation of the problem. And as for RS, how is an encyclopedia (eg, EB) acceptable, especially by academic standards? As a stub/placeholder, or for trivialities, fine; but EB, DNB, and the like populate (? infest) wikipedia, and are treated as acceptable. For now, perhaps look for a practical approach that will keep fanciful theories separate from articles that are based on RS, never mind (for now) whether such theories 'should' be in wikipedia. Something that will avoid a them-versus-us situation. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EB isn't automatically a reliable source. I've been working on Glastening and Cynddylan and added a bit to Letocetum‎. We just steadily work on them. Anyone want to work on Pengwern which needs some sources? Doug Weller (talk) 17:06, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just given it a fairly substantial edit, aiming to keep to mainstream opinion, but it's late - too late to start digging around for references etc - and more could be done. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) For anyone's future free time: this external link, and this one. It's not really too daunting, except that correcting the article and citing legitimate references will be tedious. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've only just noticed this discussion, which I've read with great interest. I must admit at the outset that I am one of those editors "who know next to nothing about the subject other than what they may have read...", who has added EBK and no doubt other dubious sites as references in the past. My excuse is that I have been trying to create or develop articles, using and citing online and other sources in areas where I have an interest (mainly related in some way to the Gwent/Monmouthshire area), and in doing that I have not been necessarily aware of how unreliable some of those sources might be. Some of you have put me right on some issues in some articles, and I'm grateful for that. It is a highly educational process for me, and it is in the nature of WP that errors like this are made - WP is a process, not an answer. But obviously errors do need to be corrected by experts. Can I suggest that, if the EBK site is a particular concern, as a first step it would be useful and not too difficult to add a {{dubious}} tag to those statements that cite (or derive) from it, as identified by Notuncurious, and that each case is then discussed on its merits on the talk page. (Presumably not every statement cited from EBK is incorrect, although the site as a whole may be dubious.) This process could start with the most viewed pages on the list, which could be identified from this site. My personal view, for what it is worth, is that is OK for WP to refer to unorthodox views, so long as it makes clear that they are not the orthodox view, and makes clear what the orthodox view is and the evidence for it (or the lack of good evidence for alternative views). Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumnonii edits June 2009

I am positng here in responce to issues raised on Dumnonii-

The initial comment seems a bit of an over-reaction and fails to take account of a few points.

The attack on John Morris:- John Morris' theories caused "outrage" in the academic world because it appears he seemed to put 1 and 1 together and come up with three. Nevertheless, Morris was a well-respected academic and his source materials were not in error. He did not invent names, places or archaeological finds. The problem, if you like, was not with John Morris' facts as such, but rather with the theories he built on those facts. I think we need to make a distinction between what is "reference", i.e. names, dates, battles, and what might be seen as "hypothesising" or "theorising", which I agreee, wikipedia is not about.
Any discussion of sub-Roman Britain is difficult in view of the source material. Take the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for example:-

A.D. 793. This year came dreadful fore-warnings over the land of the Northumbrians, terrifying the people most woefully: these were immense sheets of light rushing through the air, and whirlwinds, and fiery, dragons flying across the firmament. These tremendous tokens were soon followed by a great famine: and not long after, on the sixth day before the ides of January in the same year, the harrowing inroads of heathen men made lamentable havoc in the church of God in Holy-island, by rapine and slaughter. Siga died on the eighth day before the calends of March.

Does this mean that we can no longer use the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a source? Does it mean that the following year's reference to Pope Adrian is de facto dubious? Do we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? No, it means we must be careful how we word things, we must point out what the sources are and what the pros and cons of these sources be and NOT get involved in theorising. As for Nash's hypotheses, well they are up to Nash but surely anyone with a modicum of intelligence appreciates the difference between a hypothesis and an accepted theory and as long as the wording in the articles reflects such in all cases I don't think we have a problem. It's the difference between saying "This is the period attributed by Medieaval Sources to the reign of King Arthur" and "In this period King Arthur reigned"--if you follow me.

Would other areas of history stand up to verifiable source scrutiny? At a certain point history becomes legend and that just goes with the terrain. Imagine the Old Testament, the early history of Rome, or even Tacitus being subjected to modern scrutiny and thus written off completely? I am sure they would fail miserably, yet they are still quoted as sources with the caveat rhat they are perhaps not ideal sources.

My final point would be to ask. Is it really up to Wikipedians to decide on who is relaible and who isn't to such a degree? Some discernment is obviously necessaary but with academia there are always going to be conflicts between warring theories etc, in geology plate techtonics was scorned 50 odd years ago if I am not mistaken. Again as long as the sources are references and any issues with them are mentioned, e.g. Geoffrey of Monmouth, I don't think there is such a problem. Brythonek (talk) 14:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a PS (I've also responded at Brythonek's talk page) - I don't think that simply putting in the references and expecting most readers to check them, and be aware of their reliability, is good enough. Per WP:SOURCES, conscientious and neutral editors should not give much (or any) weight to information where there is a consensus that the sites referenced are unreliable. Expert knowledge is important, even on WP. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fully endorse Ghmyrtle's comments. I've just visited Brythonek's talk page where I found the following 'Dumnonian King list'

Vryen m. Kynuarch m. Meirchawn m. Gorust Letlwm m. Keneu m. Coel
Llywarch Hen m. Elidyr Lydanwyn m. Meirchawn m. Gorust Ledlwm m. Keneu m. Coel
Clydno Eidin & Chynan Genhir & Chynuelyn Drwsgyl, Kynvawr Hadgaddvc & Chatrawt Calchuynyd, meibon Kynnwyt Kynnwydyon m. Kynuelyn m. Arthwys m. Mar m. Keneu m. Coel
Dunawt & Cherwyd & Sawyl Pen Uchel meibyon Pabo Post Prydein m. Arthwys m. Mar m. Keneu m. Coel
Gwrgi & Phered meibon Eliffer Gosgord Uawr m. Arthwys m. Mar m. Keneu m. Coel
Gwendoleu & Nud & Chof meibyon Keidyaw m. Arthwys m. Mar m. Keneu m. Coel
[Trychan cledyf Kynuerchyn a thrychan ysgwyt Kyrtnwdyon a thrycha wayw Coeling; pa neges bynhac yd elynt iddi yn duun, nyt amethei hon honno]
Ryderch Hael m. Tutwal Tutelyt m. Kedic m. Dyuynwal Hen Mordaf m. Seruan m. Kedic m. Dyfynwal Hen
EIffin m. Gwydno m. Cawrdaf m. Garmonyawn m. Dyfynwal Hen
Gauran m. Aedan Uradawc m. Dyuynwal Hen m. Idnyuet m. Maxen Wledic, Amherawdyr Ruuein
Elidyr Mwynuawr m. Gorust Priodawr m. Dyfynwal Hen
[Huallu m. TutuwIch Corneu, tywyssawc o Kernyw, & Dywanw merch Amlawt Wledic y uam]

The source given is Britannia.com. This is truly a massive rewriting of history! All the names on this list (except [-]) are kings and chieftains of the Brythonic Hen Ogledd and they are indisputably associated with the sub-Roman Brythonic kingdoms of that region (southern Scotland, northern England). To take just one example, Vryen m. Kynuarch is better known as Urien Rheged, attested as king of Rheged in the 6th century. This proves just how utterly unreliable such sites as Britannia.com, EBK and other self-publishing sites can be. That is why they should not be used as reference sources. Any information given by them should be checked against established academic sources and those same academic sources should be used rather than these so-called "history" sites. Enaidmawr (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enaidmawr- The King list on my page was something I was looking at myself as a couple of names come up that I wanted to check out, TutuwIch Corneu, , tywyssawc o Kernyw the omnipresent Maxen Wledic, Tutwal as they correspond so called Dumnonian king names and/or have the interesting word Corneu/Kernyw. I did not say this was the Dumnonian king list, just one of the many sources. I think you may be guilty of jumping the gun here. This shows not how unreliable the Medieval source book is, but rather how important it is to read things carefully. I am fully aware that this king list has more to do with the hen Gogledd than Dumnonia. As for Urien Rheghed, I wouldn't put my bets on him so much either, Geoffrey of Monmouth claims him as king of Moray and others have him in some muythical Gorre, perhaps a reference to Isle de Voirre yet others have him in Glastonbury, Somerset, or Bath. He is also quoted as being Arthur's nephew in some legends and appears in the Mabinogion married to the goddess figure Modron, that's of course when he wasn't the husband of Morgana La Fay!!!! :) See what we're up against. :) Brythonek (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I may have 'jumped the gun' a bit with that particular interpretation - but then it was headed 'Dumnonian King List' (btw I didn't say that the medieval source - looks like a copy of Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd - was "unreliable", just the website). As for what you say about Urien Rheged, all that is later myth and legend, with which I am familiar. The historical Urien Rheged is the well-known subject of several praise poems by Taliesin. Taliesin himself developed into a figure of legend in medieval Wales and became the 'son' of the goddess/sorceress Ceridwen, amongst other things. So what? I love the legend but we have to distinguish between historical evidence and myth. Virgil is portrayed as a kind of soothsayer or prophet invested with all sorts of mystic lore in medieval legend; so is it a case of "not putting our bets on him so much either"? We must use reliable sources and distinguish between myth and historical reality, even if that reality is sometimes elusive, as you note. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am playing Devil's advocate here, I am not trying to provoke, but you do realise that there are many who would question the worthiness of Taliesin himself as a reliable source!!! Anyway, my talk page is not always very well organised, but have a look at the article in which I added a small paragraphy discussing the main sources and the problems therein and then the handling of the "history/legend" chronologically. Where I can find archaeological references or possible "concrete" historical references I am including them, eg. inscribed stones etc. The problem with sources is how they are taken. When I add a source I am pointing the person to where they can find the information. With these sources however they are very often not found online so easily so we often have to rely to sources quoted in other sources!!!! Anyway, I see you must be a Welsh speaker, would you have a look over the article and check that the Welsh spellings or standard English versions of those spellings are correct? I am a Cornishman so I don't have a problem with Gustennin, but the red links do! :) Sewena! Brythonek (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brythonek, I've just had a look at some sections of the Dumnonii article and amended or given some Welsh spellings, as requested. I have to say that some of the names are well-nigh unrecognisable so I left them as they were. You've done a great deal of work on the article and been careful with your material, on the whole. However, it must be said that several sections threaten to undermine the credibility of the rest, in particular those on the Roman and sub-Roman period. It's perhaps not a coincidence that almost all of the refs for the dubious claims made in those sections come from britannia.com. All this unsubstantiated talk about "the High Kingship" etc is really way out on the fringe. I didn't edit any of it or tag it, although tempted, but be aware that some editors here would have a field day! I'd seriously suggest you forget about anything found on britannia.com unless it can be found in a reliable academic source (in which case there would be no need to quote britannia.c). Hwyl / Sewena! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antiquated map

Do we really need this inaccurate and misleading map? I'd almost forgotten about it till reminded by Notuncurious tonight. Currently links to : Gododdin, Kingdom of Strathclyde, Bernicia, Hen Ogledd (some discussion on the Talk page, if I remember rightly) and Scotland during the Roman Empire. All key articles: this antiquated and incorrect sketch map does them no justice. I've already removed it from "Calchfynydd". I'd certainly have no objections to seeing it disappear from the other articles either, but thought some consensus would be good first. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is quite old (Victorian I think) and as it is centred on the area in question I think it is a good illustration. It is an interpretation of the situation on the ground, the absolute facts of which will never be known, hence the term the Dark Ages. Its my feeling that as an illustration, until there is a better one, it is reasonable and should be maintained. Which particular features of the map are incorrect? Cheers James Frankcom (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interpretation, yes, but a very dated and inaccurate one which does not fit in with what we know today. To take just three examples: 1. "Cymry" is plastered over most of the south of Scotland; 2. Rheged is placed in the Trossachs; Calchfynydd, the precise definition and location of which is unknown and disputed, is boldly located as a "town". It is not "reasonable" at all, James, even in the absence of a reliable map to take its place. It's like using a map of medieval Wales which places the Kingdom of Gwynedd in Brycheiniog! Regards, Enaidmawr (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Britons

May I draw your attention to the article King of the Britons and the discussion started on its talk page? This stems partly from my recent move to edit out and prepare for deletion what I regard as a very misleading and inappropriate template - Template:Kings of the Britons - which had been added to the articles on Owain Glyndŵr, the two Llywelyns and other medieval Welsh kings and princes, as well as the giant Idris Gawr (!) and various early and sub-Roman leaders. The title "King of the Britons" had also been added to the info boxes and lead text. Your comments and, hopefully, support would be welcome. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman departure from Britain

No references at all, needs a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input

There's an old proposal (October 2008) to merge the articles on Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia. There's not been much input so if anyone interested of with knowledge of the period could chip in at Talk:Dumnonia#Merger proposal - Kingdom of Dumnonia that'd be great. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are wider issues here as well, relating to the edits from doubtful sources referred to in a thread above, which were mainly added to Dumnonii by User:Brythonek; as well as the need/desirability of adding Kings of Dumnonia into the merger debate with both Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia. Help!!! Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page template

Should we have one? Dougweller (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listing unreliable sources

It's fairly obvious, from discussion on this and other pages, that there is a lot of readily accessible "information" around about this period which is, at best, highly speculative and not supported by the majority of serious researchers. Now, I'm personally all for mentioning novel theories and claims so long as their status is made clear and they are not given undue weight. But I do think there would be benefit in setting out and agreeing a list of the most obvious sites which are regarded by most informed experts as wholly or largely unreliable. Do others think this would be a good idea? And, perhaps, should it start with this, this, and this? Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a good idea, a list would help editors new to the subject area. I'd recommend adding Geoffrey of Monmouth to that list, or at least that when his history is mentioned it is explained in context. Nev1 (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it would be a handy reference point. Norma Goodrich? Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a terrific idea. Also, add John Morris, Jean Markale and historyfiles.co.uk to the list.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If done, it needs to have both the spirit and the letter of good faith ... "setting up a list" sounds like a self-appointed cabal claiming ownership of an area of history, with the intent of excluding sources that conflict with their own pre-conceived ideas. There is a real danger that it will become exactly that, sooner or later.

Tagging references on an individual basis, accumulating verifiable evidence of objectionability, sounds valid. EBK, the history files, britannia.com, and Hughes' book are certainly deserving, along with many others. For maps, insist on demonstrably reliable sources, or explicitly label the maps as original research or speculation both on the image and in the article caption. That avoids censorship and allows text and maps from unreliable sources to be used, but warns the reader appropriately. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps setting up a list of objectionable qualities and traits would be productive ... eg, "self-published", "personal website", "makes assertions without citing sources, with the following examples", etc. No one trait would necessarily disqualify a source, but proper attribution of a number of objectionable traits might be effective. And it is an act of positive support for wikipedia principles and historical accuracy, usable anywhere. That avoids the (not unjustified) accusation that certain sources are disallowed a priori while others are acceptable. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A similar idea has been proposed for Welsh history sources at Wikipedia talk:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board. I agree we don't want to give the impression of being a 'cabal' dictating to others but don't see any problem if assertions are backed up with evidence, as noted. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that the use of sites like EBK and HistoryFiles detracts from Wikipedia's own credibility as a source of information (albeit secondary in itself, dependant as it is on reliable sources). Enaidmawr (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Don't forget the discussion above ('Multiple use of unreliable sources and other concerns'). I'm sure this has been discussed elsewhere as well but can't remember where at the moment. Have to check. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Wikiproject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms

Hey all we just created a full-fledged WikiProject to Support this period along with English history up to 1066. Please join if you are interested. We could definitely use all of your experience. Sadads (talk) 02:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]