This article, currently a GA, has been copy-edited and peer reviewed several times. The consensus is that it is ready for FA status. I think it meets the criteria and will let it speak for itself. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Awhile ago, I was about to delist this from GA status. I've followed what's been going on since Hrothgar showed up and I can say now that I consider it FA quality. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a copyeditor, I could find nothing worth changing before FAC. I knew that reviewers here would pick up the rest of the minor issues. --Meldshal42(talk to me) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this improper dash needs to be replaced:The popularity of Geoffrey's Historia and its other derivative works (such as Wace's Roman de Brut) is generally agreed to be an important factor in explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works in 12th and 13th-<here>century continental Europe, particularly in France.Like nouser said, this happens a couple of times in the article. --Meldshal42(talk to me) 13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is that the hyphens have been the subject of back-and-forth edits for a month or two. Originally, this was "12th- and 13th-century continental Europe", which was entirely correct. But not everyone seems to understand that compound modifiers must have hyphens and that in the construction at issue the hyphen after 12th must not be removed. To save any more bother I have rewritten this as "an important factor in explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works in continental Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries, particularly in France". qp10qp (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - wow, the prose is amazing. One thing: you have both the formats nth century and nth-century in the article; that should probably be more consistent. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article should be inconsistent, as not all instances of "nth century" are compound adjectives requiring hyphenation. I checked all instances of "century" in the article and fixed some errors. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphens were removed a couple of times, for some reason; I put them back the first time but must have forgotten the second time. Awadewit has restored the correct forms. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I was confused there for a second. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is one of the best articles Wikipedia has ever produced.--Cúchullaint/c 16:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the images, except for the lead image, are set to size "thumb" already. I have moved the Merlin image up. See what you think. I am unsure if the move is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had just reduced all images to default thumbs. :) qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I usually have a great deal of difficulty wading my way through large articles like this, but I can freely say that I had no such difficulty this time. Excellent prose, well-referenced. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Disclaimer: I copyedited the last two subsections of this article.) This article is well-researched, well-written, and well-illustrated. It clearly and concisely explains a large swath of art and history, balancing all of the different elements of "stuff related to King Arthur" extremely well. I, too, think this is one of the best articles Wikipedia has produced. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supprt This is cited excellently, and the prose is very easy to read. A well-researched article like this deserves the star. --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments working my way through it. Looks good so far. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur is tainted with the suggestion of forgery - this is tantalising. should there be a link here
I've linked the reference to the "Glastonbury cross" — in the footnote that is attached to the above text — to the brief description of the inscribed cross and the circumstances of its discovery on the Glastonbury Abbey page; does this work for you or do we need a link in the main text? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a huge issue but works better for me in main text as I am not one for linking to wikipedia material from footnotes unless an author. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The intro is quite long. In particular, the third paragraph seems overly detailed for a lead section. Perhaps it would be possible to edit down the third paragraph or combine the third and fourth paragraphs into one shorter paragraph about the development of the legend of King Arthur. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are going to lose a fair number of readers before they even finish the intro. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Am assuming that Cuchullain's fixes to the lead addressed above; if not let me know, thanks :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted a revision of the 3rd and 4th paragraphs myself. Let me know what you think. Kaldari (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also I'm not sure if I can support this article not mentioning Monty Python and the Holy Grail whatsoever. For us Yanks, it is generally our first (and often only) exposure to the legend of King Arthur, as sad as that may be. I realize this may smack of recentism, but it does seem like a notable enough cultural influence to at least mention somewhere in the article. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition may be a bit trivial. Clíodhna (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean adding mention of the movie would be a trivial task, or do you mean the movie is too trivial to add it to the article? Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second meaning, Kaldari. I do think the third paragraph could be shortened. I would take out specific mention of Malory, Tennyson and Twain, and replace with more general and brief statements. Clíodhna (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, now that you mention it, the Holy Grail is pretty noteworthy. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it this way, its one of my favourite films no doubt, but this a very very strong and scholarly article, and because I'm anti 'in popular culture' on wikipedia in general, I wouldn't be comfortable making an exception based on my own personal taste. That said; eh, whatever - no big deal. Happy to let the writers of the article decide. Clíodhna (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. What I mean is that its not a very valid oppose. Either way. Clíodhna (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a weak oppose, any only because I had two minor criticisms. I'll be happy to change it to a support if at least the lead is edited down a bit. Kaldari (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'edited down a bit'; In the absence of suggestion I can only assume you mean simplified. Fine, but 'comment' would have been a better option to take so. If I had suffrage I would discount your comment on this. Clíodhna (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean any offence. I was just trying to offer some suggestions to improve the article. I'm sorry if my objections seemed trivial, but I think readability is extremely important, especially for the lead section. It looks like Cuchullian has fixed the lead now. As soon as I'm not editing from a cell phone, I will change my vote to support. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kaldari's points might be minor, but they directly relate to 1(b) and 2(a) of the FA criteria. If he feels the article is not comprehensive (no mention of Monty Python, shrubbery, Knights Who Say Ni, etc.) or that the lead is not "concise" (too long), he has a valid objection to this FAC. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama) 15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up, Nishkid64. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed :) Reading the comments above, it would seem like the lead problem is fixed, so thanks to Cuchullain. On the other, I have no objection to including the Python movie if folks think it is necessary and sufficiently noteworthy, and so I have now added it. If I can just clarify on what is/isn't in the article, I obviously had to exclude large numbers of important works when writing the article. I made descisions based largely on (1) whether the work included innovations in the portrayal of Arthur/his story that were picked up by subsequent authors and (2) whether they were good illustrations of trends in the portrayal of Arthur & his story and/or if they showed the continuing vitality of earlier interpretations of Arthur (e.g. the continuing influence of the romance tradition). Boorman and the other movies seemed good examples of the latter, hence why they were chosen; Python wasn't used simply because others were :) Hope this helps, cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: The references include the (reputable!) canonical and current sources, and the coverage is even-handed and thorough. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Okay, there are some sources in the references that are not used in the footnotes. Alexandre is one.
Weighing in on the Monty Python bit, if you mention the serious retellings (although including Excalibur in that is quite a laugh) you should probably mention the other side, which is the comedic treatments also.
Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool.Ealdgyth - Talk 13:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article lead mentions both the "Sword in the Stone" and "Excalibur", neither of which are ever mentioned in the article body. Where did these parts of the legend originate? If we're not going to mention them in the article, they should probably be removed from the lead. Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like "Excalibur" comes from "Caliburn" which is Arthur's sword in Geoffrey's Historia. Could someone add this into the article body where it is appropriate? Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were mentioned in the article, but then peer-review indicated that the article was too long and so they were removed to the excalibur page. I can re-add the material on the development and changes to Arthur's weaponry but it will add considerably to the article... Any thoughts? My feeling, for what it is worth, is that the article needs to focus tightly on changes to Arthur and the development of his core story over time, rather than getting into the changes to his weapons etc, otherwise it will become too large again e.g. adding in excalibur < caliburnus would then mean discussion of caledfwlch and its relationship to caliburnus is required, and then probably also discussion of how excalibur and the sword in the stone are inter-related etc. But I'm happy to add it back if the consensus is against me :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't we just mention that Excalibur originated in Geoffrey's Historia, where it is refered to as "Caliburn"? Surely there must be some happy medium between discussing the minutia of his weaponry and not mentioning it at all. Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, how about that? Short but points to the potential sequence Caledfwlch > Caliburnus > Excalibur, with a wikilink to the main page on that sword and the ref to Bromwich and Evans for further discussion if anyone wants to follow-up. Fixed? :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I think it's fine the way it is.--Cúchullaint/c 18:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is important to at least mention it once in the body. Hrothgar's edit is fine IMO. Kaldari (talk) 18:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, it's fine the way it his after Hrothgar changed it.--Cúchullaint/c 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support of course, although I am wondering do we really need this long "See also" section?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention here, I trimmed it slightly so only most relevant there (I hope). Better? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support: my absolute favorite class in undergrad was a King Arthur lit. course that I took while studying in England, so while I don't count myself an expert on the subject, I know a thing or two. :) I found this article to be magnificently written and engaging. Truth be told, I thought it would be huge, but I'm glad that the writers didn't go overboard and include wads of information to distract me from my daily tasks. I was disappointed, however, that more attention was not paid to Malory; Le Morte d'Arthur isn't even mentioned in the lead, but that is the work that introduced Arthur to Tennyson and later writers, including White and even the Monty Python lads. I don't think it should be so diminished. Although most of his material was taken from past tales, he did invent and reinterpret things that are still considered canon to this day. I was also surprised to see the Nine Worthies reduced to a mere "See also" mention; I would say it's noteworthy enough to be described in the article somewhere. Obviously these points do not keep me from supporting an interesting article on such an important figure in literature and the English speaking culture as a whole, but maybe I want moar! Great job, contributors. María(habla conmigo) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol! And thanks :) On Malory, I can see where you're coming from re: the lead. He is v. important and mentioned specifically in the Further Reading, so I can see a rationale for adding him back to the intro, but there is a worry over its length and avoiding the lead becoming a list of key authors. Perhaps "culminating in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur" added to the section about the legend thriving in the Middle Ages? What do those who have been working on the lead think?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the editors who has commented on this issue in the pase, I would be in favour of mentioning Malory in the lead. The six or seven words you suggest sound good, but the exact wording may need to be tweaked and sourced. Geometry guy 21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Malory needs to be mentioned in the lead, any more than the Vulgate Cycle and the Prose Tristan do. I think it's definitely best not to name too many different works in the lead. In this case, Malory's influence was mostly on later, English language writers long after his death, it was not translated extensively in the way other versions were during the medieval period.--Cúchullaint/c 22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support An admirable (mind-boggling, really) amount of research has gone into this. One tiny suggestion (such as it is): The musical Camelot is mentioned (I heart Julie Andrews), but might it be worth mentioning that the presidency of John F. Kennedy was intertwined with the musical? Both started in 1960, and the title song for the musical was one of Kennedy's favorites, and arguably a reason that many Americans were introduced to some Arthurian literature. Arthurian legend has been used as an allegory for a president who was immensely popular, and whose death killed the innocence of the early 1960s in the US. Such as this, and this, and this. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a section on this but it was moved to King Arthur's messianic return due to length, and such a move does help bolster the focus on Arthur debated below. What I find fascinating is that JFK very rapidly develops an Arthurian 'return' motif... cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Oppose (Update in addition to the below) - Why is there no mention of Charlemagne in the piece? He definitely formed the basis for what a "knight" was and was very influential. There should be multiple paragraphs filling this, because I have seen this concept in most text books, articles, and even the history channel. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Previous Oppose - I only wish to state a few things: 1) The picture of Sigurd is unjustified based on the body of text and lacks citations to justify it (two different MoS problems). 2) "Historical truths" as a topic title has no MoS basis and is PoV. 3) There is no background section, which is troubling. 4) The text "In one stanza, the bravery of a warrior who slew 300 enemies is praised, but it is then noted that despite this "he was no Arthur", that is to say his feats cannot compare to the valour of Arthur." is referring to a Welsh source. Arthur is not a welsh name, and the citation is not enough to justify this connection/relationship, which also invalidates the supporting picture claiming (without a citation) it as an early instance of Arthur. Furthermore, it would not prove it was the same Arthur. This problem continues by claiming other Welsh text, without evidence that it is the same Arthur. (I've studied the works, the names are quite different and only a few scholars try to claim the two as one beyond all doubt). 6) The picture of Tristan and Isolde is of Tristan and Isolde, not King Arthur, and "Arthurian" is not enough to justify its presence. 7) Morte D'Arthur, a very large and significant book, gets almost no mention. 8) The "Modern legend" section includes unnotable or off topic trivial information. Arthurian youth groups and the rest are not King Arthur, but on the realm legend. You cannot mix the two. 9) Your reference section includes far more references than the notes, which causes an imbalance (to put it mildly).Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While none of of the images need to "justify [their] presence" (they are all in the public domain and most are listed at the commons), the Sigurd image is somewhat random, I agree. Something needs to be added to the prose that connects these two myths, with a source, of course. I believe, however, that the Tristan and Isolde image is applicable and the caption more than adequately explains Arthur's marginalization by way of side stories, which includes T&I. María(habla conmigo) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MoS requires all images to have a reason to be included, even if they are free. The page is on King Arthur, so Tristan and Isolde can never be justified, especially when they don't deal with Arthur, or depict them dealing with Arthur in the painting. Ottava Rima (talk)
The image of T&I is justified because it is in a section describing how Arthur became overshadowed by other characters (such as T&I) in a certain time period. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an overshadow section is justified. It is rather POV, seems to encourage off topic ideas, and if King Arthur is "real" then it wouldn't fit standard bio, and if he is a fictional character, well, I've never seen any precedence for such commentary (is there a section where "Bilbo" is overshadowed by "Frodo" by chance?) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe that is a fair comparison, but perhaps you should read the section again? ("Romance traditions") It is very focused on Arthur. It is not an "overshadow section". Wrad (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the second paragraph ventures a bit too far into the "Arthurian legend" world and away from Arthur the character, though. Other paragraphs seem fine, unless people feel that outlining how the characters around Arthur were created is important for this article, otherwise we can move it to Matter of Britain. Wrad (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see you point on that paragraph, although the development of Arthur as an incestuous father and cuckolded husband seem fairly important to me, as is the changing medium in which his stories are transmitted and the transmission of the 'do-nothing' king back into Welsh literary versions of Arthur (though this latter is probably the easiest bit to lose). On the notion that "outlining how the characters around Arthur were created is[n't??] important for this article", I would whole-heartedly disagree -- the whole point of Arthur is the stories of him and through all of these, from Pa gur? forward, he is defined by those around him and his relationship to them. cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. Wrad (talk) 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, trying a re-write to make focus on Arthur in 2nd para absolutely clear...Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Much better. Wrad (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks :) does any other section need a quick going over when I get back?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the first paragraph of the "Modern legend" section and the last two of the Tennyson section. Wrad (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, try that... please alter as needed! Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, try that -- better? It probably needs a quick copy-edit check as I have to rush off and do soemthing other than wiki now, lol! Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrad and Maria's point seems perfectly correct to me. It is not POV, it happened and is on-topic for the development of Arthur's character into the 'do-nothing' king. It is also accepted by all scholarly commentators I am aware of. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that calling someone a "do-nothing" king is inherently POV. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term isn't invented by the article writers: it's in the sources. It's an old term, used, for example, of the Merovingian kings, who became ceremonial figures while those around them went off to battle. qp10qp (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A historical origin of a term does not remove the possible POV nature behind it, just as racial slurs still have a connotation that is not acceptable. I feel that the page does not do enough to show opinion as opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry, this is just silly! There is no comparison whatsoever with racisim and I wonder whether the old usenet 'Hitler' doctrine is relevant here (when one side compares, completely ludicrously, what the other has written to Nazism - or racism, in this case -, it is clear that the person doing this has no interest in a sensible discussion or changing their mind). What possible PoV could I possibly be aiming at? Arthur as the roi fainéant, the "do-nothing king", in medieval romance is a well established concept in the scholarly literature, if you'd just care to read it; it's not my fault if you go out of your way to misunderstand such common concepts. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it by your use of "sensible" that you will not regard an actual point and instead wish to attack. A change in view of any character must be expressed in a way that emphasizes that its an opinion. A view of a trait is not a fact, and cannot be described as such. I find your many as inappropriate, and I believe that you are unwilling to listen to a major MoS problem that makes it impossible for the page to be an FA in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting ridiculous. Hroth is backing up everything he says with sources. He's 100% right and your point is moot. Let's move on to other things, please. Wrad (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can personally attack me all you want, but it does not negate the fact that the above is opinion and below (the "th" sound) comes from Greek (i.e. works like Theogeny have a "th" for a reason) and that it cannot be claimed as coming from Welsh. If there was such a definite Welsh origin, there would not be so many critical works claiming others as Arthur. Stop acting as if absurdity is fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the sound exists in Greek proves nothing against it being Welsh. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sound was written in Greek before there was Welsh writing. The letter combination comes from Greek, and was written by a Monk who would probably know of the Greek language/Greek language's influence on Latin, which introduced the "th". Note, the Theogony predates when the "Welsh" would have been in the island. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The heading "Historical truth" was mine: I changed it from "historicity" for reader friendliness: if we change it back, would it cover that objection? qp10qp (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it is a POV section based on the "main" link. Having anything about "historical" is siding with a POV argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the Historical truth heading. I'd be fine with "Debated Historicity" or something. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Historicity was the original heading and I see no problem reverting to that. Whilst I can see the point on 'Historical truth' I most definitely cannot on 'historicity', especially if it is made 'Debated Historicity' Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigurd/Siegfried has been connected with Arthur by scholars. Certainly Richard Barber does. But, since there is no shortage of images for this article, it will save argument to move the picture out. Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need for a background section as the entire article describes the background of the King Arthur story. Wrad (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Background sections normally have the "historicity" (or whatever you want to call it) information with some of the origin information combined. It also gives a chance to provide overview details. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like our Historical truth section as it currently stands to me... We already have an overview with the lead section, anyway. Wrad (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I have no opinion on the Sigurd image, so am not bothered if it goes particularly as the legitimiate comparison between Arthur and Sigurd is no longer in the text (it was when the image was added)
(2) See comment above; changing to 'debated historicity'
(3) I disagree, see above
(4 ?and 5?) I'm afraid you are misinformed here. Arthur is indeed a Welsh name and all reputable scholars agree on this. There are, of course, bizarre theories such as "Athrwys is Welsh for Arthur" (Wilson et al, I seem to recall), but they are neither serious nor scholarly; alternatively you may be referring to the root form of the name, which is quite likely either Latin Artorius or Arcturus, but even if you are then the name Arthur is still a Welsh name, displaying for example the following British/Welsh mutations which distance it from its roots: long -ō- to -ū-, then -ū- to -ü- (with an intermediate stage) plus the Late British loss of final syllables, if from Artorius (no long -ō- to -ū- if Arcturus but still the other two). As to the notion that the Welsh poetic references to Arthur do not all refer to 'our' Arthur, there have been occasional suggestions that one or two may not refer to him (Barber on Y Gododdin, suggesting that a reference to the Dalriadan L6thcentury Arthur was intended) but these have been quickly and widely dismissed by other Celticists in reviews and subsequent books and articles and no serious researcher that I am aware of would accept your suggestion. In sum, we could take account and disprove with copious references every minor theory and pet-obsession of Arthurian enthusiasts, but if we are to do that then we will end up with a verrrrrrry long article indeed. The article as it stands represents pretty well the current scholarly consensus and debate, as far as I am aware of it; I did have a few mentions of such theories in the first draft but they have been rightly removed during copy-editing. For up-to-date views on the Welsh material try, for example, The Arthur of the Welsh edd. Bromwich et al, or Koch's recent (1996) survey, both cited on the page.
Oh, and the -th- in Arthur is also a Welsh development. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you able to provide a source that shows that "th" comes from Welsh origins? Thats a bold linguistic claim. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. See the refs I'll be citing below. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then please explain why "th" was a sound in Greek? Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with it. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it appears in another language centuries before in writing demonstrates that the sources are either incorrect or improperly used to justify a claim. As Garboty claims, you just can't know where Geoffrey based his source of the Arthur myth, and that he only used other sources (like Nennius) to base non-Arthur stories. Also, "Arthur" would be a common enough name like Alexander that there is no way to claim that the one is the same as another. Its controversial regardless, but what is the point of it? Is it a page on the character, or is it a page on the real life person? You cannot have both, otherwise you enter into the realm of in-universe by treating a fantasy character as real. It is odd that the page would be part of the "biography" and the "mythology" wikiprojects, even though they contradict each other. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(6) See comment above.
(7) Yes, it's important and that importance is reflected in the references to it made in the article. Malory reflects the culmination of the medieval tradition and is commented on accordingly; it is also used as the yardstick to judge the popularity of the Arthurian legend in post-medieval England and as Tennyson's inspiration and source (not his only one, mind). See further Cuchullain's comments above. It is surely only right that large sections of the article look at pre-Malory developments in detail, as these were the changes to Arthur and his legend that produced much (not all) of Malory's narrative.
(8) Such groups are important as they are indicative of the continued influence of the romance tradition of Arthur: the article is concerned all the way through with how portrayals of him and his associated legend both developed and remained the same over time. This is clearly why the youth groups are mentioned and is legitimate.
(9) Huh? As you can see from reading the above FAC commentary, only works referenced in the notes are in the references section.
4)/5) "Arthur" is not a welsh name, and it would have to be anglicized in some way. I've read welsh. I know that such letter combinations are basically impossible. You have to make the argument on the origin of the name, and then critically justify it. Linguistically, you cannot make such claims without solid evidence. 8) I don't believe that is proved in the body of the work, and if so, it doesn't belong in a pseudo biography on the character of Arthur 9) It appears that I overlooked some of the "nested" references in which you combined multiple refs into one entry. If there are such redundancies, why have both? Why not cut one and allow the newest one to stand? Ottava Rima (talk)
4/5) Sounds like you're objecting based on your own Original research. Hroth has already provided plenty of "solid evidence" in the form of citations and clear reasoning. Please show us some evidence that your opinion has similar citations behind it. 8) Shouldn't the article reflect the influence of the character on society? 9)The more refs, the better, in my mind. I don't have a problem with this, as long as the body of the article isn't littered with little numbers, and I don't see that problem here. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting refs??? How bizarre - you do know that academic and scholarly work often cites more than one work in each footnote? I fail to see any merit whatsoever in such a suggestion. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OR is putting forth something not based on sources. I have yet to see a source that two different spells are really the same person. You can supply a source that claims such and such is true, but that is an opinion, and it is not held as such in the body of the text. That would be expressing a point of view as fact. And influence of a character on society? This is a person, or is it a character? Who is reflecting what? You just pointed out the inherent problem of setting up a "biography" that merges a fictional character and a possibly real life figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are misconstruing what I said. It is a puzzle but it can be done and is being done. Hroth has provided you with sources. please stop picking fights when people are trying to address your concerns. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hroth hasn't provided any sources. You seem unable to understand the distinction between "real" and "fictional" and why they need to be separated distinctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He just provided a ton of them, see "Final Reply from Hrothgar". None of the sources he provides are fictional, either. Please don't belittle my intelligence. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final Reply from Hrothgar Ok, I'll have one more shot at this then I really can't be bothered, as it's clear you're not familiar with the most basic scholarly literature on this topic and others and seem to simply enjoy a good argument. I have plenty of non-wiki work to do and this is all taking an unreasonable amount of time. I trust someone will alert me if you actually come up with a sensible objection based on knowledge. I have no problem with people commenting on how the article is written etc even if they know nothing in detail about Arthur -- note, I've re-written whole sections of the article tonight to tighten the focus on the character of Arthur and its development and deployment over time, as was requested/implied by you. Similarly, I have no problem with knowledgeable people commenting on the detail of topics they know about and suggesting that we need to include more on topic a to balance the article, or we are mistaken about topic b, as can be seen from reading article c etc etc. What I do have a problem with is wasting my time correcting basic misapprehensions that result from a desire to argue and a lack of knowledge.
Right, first off I really have no interest in your personal opinions and guesses on etymology, they are irrelevant. Arthur is a Welsh name; no serious modern researcher would suggest otherwise -- all its earliest appearances are in Welsh or Breton documents and it can be quite satisfactorily explained as a Welsh name using basic British/Welsh philology. You are, quite simply, wrong. It may have started out as a Latin name, but in the form Arthur and latinizations of this it is Welsh. There are already references in the article that will point you to discussions of all of the above and to explanations of how Arthur would emerge as a Welsh name. I suggest you follow them; I will not post details of how the changes run on the wiki article because that would be original research, and pointlessly detailed: the references either cover it fully or point you to where you need to go to learn more. If you personally want to learn about British/Welsh linguistics and the sound changes that would transform, for example, Latin Artorius/Arcturus into Old Welsh Arthur (which I have, in fact, kindly supplied you with above), rather than just speculate wildly, please consult some or all of the following, several of which actually discuss the name Arthur: K.H. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953); P. Sims-Williams, The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c.400-1200 (Oxford: Philological Society, 2003); P. Sims-Williams, "Dating the Transition to Neo-Brittonic: Phonology and History, 400-600" in A. Bammesberger and A. Wollmann (edd.) Britain 400-600: Language and History (Heidelberg), pp.217-61; P.Schrijver, Studies in British Historical Phonology (Amsterdam, 1995). These discuss all the above sound changes, including where the -th- comes from. Enjoy.
Ok, I'm out of this particular set of replies; Wrad and Qp seem to be dealing admirably with the bizarre notion that we should try and separate out the legendary from the historical in this article. If one reads the article it should be obvious that the two inter-twine throughout the whole history of Arthur's development and cannot and ought not to be separated if we are analysing the character as a whole. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone should tell Thomas Garbaty that he is wrong, because Hrothgar says that conjecture now equals fact. Garbaty stated blatantly many times that "Arthur" and the name "Arthur" comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth and no other. The fact that the above user claimed such absurdities as the "th" sound coming from Welsh (its Greek, and if anything, came to the Welsh via monks who knew Latin and Greek). I think common sense with actual dates of items, and one of the most widely known and widely published Medieval scholars, should put this to rest. The above user is mixing fantasy and reality, opinion and truth, and this article cannot be an FA until these are fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop belittling people Otto. You have yet to provide a single source on this page for you claims and Hrothgar has provided a ton and bent over backwards. It's time to drop it. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please explain how Thomas Garbaty is not a source? Or the fact that a document from 700 BC that contains "th" in it long before Welsh and known to monks would not be the origins of a "th" used by the first scholarly chosen source of Arthur? 2. Please explain where I was belittling others, when you and others have personally attacked me for pointing out large problems with a page. Remember, you do not own the page. They do not reflect you or anyone else. This is Wikipedia. This isn't about prizes, its about providing legitimate and actual information. Please take some care to reflect on this before continuing to attack me for pointing out legitimate problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide the titles of the two works you are referring to, along with page numbers, as Hrothgar has. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ottava Rima by qp10qp. I'd just like to reply to this comment of Ottava's: The picture of Tristan and Isolde is of Tristan and Isolde, not King Arthur, and "Arthurian" is not enough to justify its presence. Tristan and Isolde developed as part of the evolution of the Arthurian story, though not necessarily through the Malory version. Gottfried von Strassburg is at the root of Wagner's version, and links trace back from Gottfried to the Celtic tales of Arthur. All the offshoot stories count as "Arthurian", and they are treated in books about Arthur; this article is conventional in doing the same. Having said that, perhaps the caption is a bit gauche. qp10qp (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthurian, not Arthur. There is a key difference. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The literature that developed around the legendary figure of King Arthur is called "Arthurian". qp10qp (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arthurian is not Arthur, just as Augustan is not Augustus. A movement named after a person is not the same as a person, and this should be acknowledged through the whole piece. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Why should we constantly reiterate something that is so obvious? Everyone knows that Arthurian and Arthur are two different things, just as they know that Arthurian legend and literature are important influences of Arthur himself that deserve to be mentioned in the article. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If its so obvious, why are "arthurian" info in Arthur's page? It appears to not be so obvious to those who added off topic information into a pseudo biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already explained this in my previous post, my friend. We explain Arthur's influences in his "bio" just as much as we explain Shakespeare's in his bio. Wrad (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare's influences are real. Arthur's are not. To put in fictional "influences" is to treat the subject in-universe, which goes against MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree strongly with that. We discuss the influences of fictional subjects on wikipedia just as much as we do "real" subjects, just as actual experts do. Such discussion is not judged to be "in universe" in any discussion I have seen. Wrad (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ottava Rima by qp10qp. When you say there are "far more" sources in the references than in the notes, I'm sure this can't be true, having been through them a couple of times myself. On the other hand, I daresay there might be one or two extra ones, owing to various cuts and changes in the text. However, as far as I know, there's no rule against this. It would help if Ottava Rima would list any superfluous sources he/she has found in the references. qp10qp (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure I checked them all in response to Ealdgyth's comment, above... :-/ Maybe I missed one or two...? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked since then. I was just hedging my bets. :) qp10qp (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I put above, the nesting of multiple references kept me from finding entries like Barber (2004). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why this is a problem. Multiple entries are used in many FAs. Just press Ctrl + F to search for things like this. Wrad (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would certainly be useful to be able to click from the references to the cites, but the techies haven't worked out a way of doing that yet. qp10qp (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please explain why Arthur (the possible real life person) is with Arthur (the myth) and Arthur (the character)? What is this page supposed to be? A general summary of all the Arthurs like some kind of impressive disambiguation page? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you honestly see any way we could separate them? I don't. I think we would lose a lot if we did that. When scholars discuss "King Arthur", these are the things they discuss, and we should reflect that. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This overlapping necessarily goes with the subject. There are many books and articles on the subject of King Arthur that, as this article does, look at the historical documents, the legend, and the literature. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Necessary? I don't really think so, especially when there is a page dedicated to "historical" claims. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a sub-page of the article. You wouldn't say that the United States article shouldn't have a History section simply because there is a History of the United States article, would you? That would be absurd. Wrad (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have reached deadlock with Ottava Rima on several points. I think it is best we just let his/her oppose stand and leave it to Sandy or Raul in closing this FAC to decide whether the objections have been addressed. qp10qp (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with qp10qp. I think the points raised by Ottava Rima have been addressed to the extent that they are going to be. If Ottava is still opposed I don't think further discussion here is likely to be fruitful. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only actionable part of my oppose left is how the "historical" information meets the character of Arthur information. I put forth a possible suggestion for dealing with such a thing on Qp10qp's talk page. It just strikes me as odd to treat the individual as both a biography, a myth, and a literary character at the same time in the manner that it currently does. The rest (modern youth groups, "arthurian" info that isn't directly Arthur) are more minor points. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it's clearly best to take no action on that at this point - I don't speak only for myself when I say that acting on it would not improve the article. You are of course entitled to your opinion.--Cúchullaint/c 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SupportChurlish Oppose on the following:- Changed as all done - great article.Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE It is unfortunate the 5th word of the article is "fabled" which is imprecise, Time-Lifeish & generally gets us off to a bad start.
The pictures are generally below the standard of the prose, and too few, for which there is no excuse with this subject. The first one should link to the recent Hofkirche, Innsbruck, where there is also a colour version that may be preferable. The Tristan & Isolde picture is horrible and insipid - the medieval one or the Waterhouse would be greatly preferable. One of the stirring "Boys.." series on commons should go in the modern section.
They seem fine to me but am happy to leave this for others who know more of such topics and how to use images in wiki to debate, decide and do :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the pics now that you put below, they are nice :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some. There are pros & cons with the colour version of the lead pic - what do people think? Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to the old lead pic, myself, but I like the other pictures. Wrad (talk) 17:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the color photo to the b&w if we're going to lead with the statue. All in all, a good selection of images over time. - PKM (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK Personally I would like to see the Alans in, but ....
There would also be a case for more on classical influences (such as Alexander on the Galfridian Arthur), but we have to draw the line somewhere. Given that the Sarmatian theory is very much a minority idea and has had dubiosu reviews (e.g. Lacy in Arthuriana), I can see more of a role for discussion of the Sarmatian theory in an article on Arthurian romance, especially as the parallels are more convincing than the proposed transmission process for many researchers. cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% on this point.--Cúchullaint/c 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Is it true that:" This interest in the 'Arthur of romance' continued through the 19th century and into the 20th, and influenced poets such as William Morris and Pre-Raphaelite artists including Edward Burne-Jones." - They were extremely keen on Arthurian subjects, but that is not the same thing.
Changed to "'Arthur of romance' and his associated stories": it is true, as you say, that they spent a lot of time on the surrounding legends rather than specifically the king himself, but then this minor role within his own legend is part of the character of the 'Arthur of romance' as defined earlier in the article, and he is still clearly important e.g. the cuckolded 'Arthur of romance' is a main character, even though dead, in Morris' "King Arthur's tomb", for example, and he is central in Burne-Jones' "Arthur in Avalon". (I seem to recall reading somehwere that Burne-Jones considered himself to be an Arthur-figure...) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting newspaper article that looks at Burne-Jones' "Arthur in Avalon" and refers briefly to his self-identification with the king; I don't have time atm to look for something more scholarly, maybe later :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Given the time-span etc, all captions should indicate the date of the image.
Don't forget the depiction of Arthur by the Pearl poet (for SGGK). Thats a rather famous one that is left out. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (from original manuscript, artist unknown) Here's the image from SGGK. Arthur is top center. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the one! I knew someone could find it. :D Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images: I've just uploaded this one; personally I think it's a better lead image. Caption: King Arthur as one of the Nine Worthies, detail from the "Christian Heroes Tapestry" dated c. 1385. Footnote: "Arthur among the Nine Worthies is always identified by three crowns, which signify regality, on his standard, his shield, or his robe." -- Geoffrey Ashe, The Quest for Arthur's Britain (1969). Caveat: Image and caption are from one of my own websites. - PKM (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DONE I think Wagner's Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal deserve a namecheck at least. The article is rather short on works not in English, French or Welsh. Johnbod (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I actually just removed that in response to Ottava's comments a few days ago, due to the fact that Wagner is inspired by the legends but Arthur doesn't feature really... I can (and am happy to) put it back, but do admit that if we are to keep the focus tightly on the development of Arthur as a character, then there is an issue. As to non-English/French/Welsh works, I see your point; Lanzelet is mentioned but most of the major innovations (the thing I was really looking for, as discussed somehwere above) in Arthur's nature seem to me to come from these traditions, but if if there is something of this kind I have missed please do say and we'll incorporate :) cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been sprucing up the list - perhaps if put back as: "Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal are the most distinguished of several other operas on Arthurian subjects written before the First World War.[1]" - or something, it will be more acceptable, since the other ones are more directly on-topic. Anyway, given all the other stuff, I think Wagner deserves mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try that :) Ok? Any comments on whether this is ok given concerns about keeping focus on Arthur? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If these operas don't really tell us anything new about Arthur I don't think we should include them. I'm fine with French, English, and Welsh being the main thrust of this article unless it can be shown that other literatures have significantly contributed to his character, and I don't see that with Wagner. Now, if Wagner was missing from Matter of Britain, that would be a different story... Wrad (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a matter of concern; in particular, if we keep that new bit on Wagner in despite lack of direct relevance to Arthur's development/treatment, it may well compromise other decisions on inclusion/non-inclusion on the basis of lack of innovation etc etc. Hmmmm.... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try that - any better? This way he is an example of the continuing marginalization of Arthur in his own legend, so reference to him seems legit; revert if don't like :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will anyone mind if I move all of the actual images to the talk page here for further discussion? Load time on the FAC page and in the FAC archives can become an issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an issue then by all means go ahead.--Cúchullaint/c 20:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do. Dialup isn't fun. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notes: I moved the image galleries to the talk page, but I don't see any article changes; status on Johnbod's Oppose? Has an image person been asked to evaluate (after final images are in) ? (User:Kelly or User:Elcobbola) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit-conflicted but I'll post anyway :) ) Both fixes done (dashes and c.) by me and Qp :) I see you've left a message for picture review so I'll leave that alone. Am assuming the initial objections are all met as Johnbod has said done/ok to all but the pics, which he then did himself (thanks for that, btw!) -- this true Johnbod?? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
Did Thomas Green really argue that Arthur fought werewolves? This is something I have neither seen for myself or read about in the secondary literature (There is an episode in Historia Regum Britanniae where Arthur defeats & slays a giant by wrestling him, so Thomas' argument is plausable -- but the werewolf bit harms his argument.) If he did, I suggest his words be quoted; if not, it might be best to drop this item.
In the Old Welsh poem Pa gur?, Arthur and his men fight cinbin, "dog-heads", and — probably part of the same battle, as Sims-Williams 1991, p.42 points out too — Gwrgi Garwlwyd ["Man-Dog Rough-Grey"], who in the Triads is said to have killed one of the Cymry each day with two on Saturday (see Concepts of Arthur, pp.119-121). So, Arthur does indeed fight dog-men, "or werewolves if we prefer" (Concepts, p.84 - note, werewolves and dog-men are a frequent occurance in Irish material too; Kim McCone has an interesting article on some aspects of werewolves in insular 'Celtic' culture: "Werewolves, Cyclopes, Diberga, and Fianna: Juvenile Delinquency in Early Ireland" in Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 12 (1986), pp.1-22). I don't think it needs a separate reference beyond the one at the end of the sentence, esp. as the conflict is discussed by other commentators too, including Sims-Williams and Padel (2000). Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not to debate whether or not Arthur fought werewolves, but to point out that to write so is a surprise to those who aren't as well versed in the Arthurian mythos. (I've had to struggle against some peculiar material being added to this article in the past.) If Green uses the word "werewolves", then we should quote him; otherwise the risk is that several months down the road, when everyone who has worked hard on this article has moved to other articles, someone new will see this passage, decide it is erroneous, & remove it. Putting this statement in quotations, IMHO, will prevent this from becoming a permanent change in the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see what you mean. Ok, changed to dog-heads - better? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Footnote 31 in the paragraph on Y Gododdin would be better served if it was made to K.H. Jackson's critical translation of this poem (The Gododdin: The Oldest Scottish poem [Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1969] ISBN0-85224-049-X) instead of Alcock's work. Alcock (as he admits himself) is an archeologist; Jackson was a Celticist, & an authority in this field.
Alcock isn't actually referenced in fn.31 and I think the references in that footnote are sufficient; on the date of Y Gododdin and its Arthurian reference, Jackson's work is now superceded by the works in that footnote. Alcock is, however, mentioned in footnote 3 with reference to Y Gododdin. I don't know where this reference came from; I'm changing it to the Charles-Edwards ref and Sims-Williams 1991 (which discusses virtually all the early poetry but Y Gododdin. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought it was fn.31! :-) -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, Alcock's book is useful in the section "Name", because he provides a list of historical persons with the name of Arthur. As Alcock notes, "The name Arthur was unknown in native circles in Britain before the time of the Arthur who is our concern. But in the generations around 600, at least four royal families called one of their sons Arthur." (p. 73)
I'm generally opposed to using Alcock anywhere much, as it is so far out of date and discredited in many areas. On these Arthurs, I'm not sure what the benefits of mentioning them are, insofar as they have no discernable impact on the character of 'our' Arthur; none of them can be considered the 'original' Arthur, as Brynley Roberts, Jackson and Bromwich all long-ago pointed out; and their significance with regards to Arthur's historicity is wholly unclear and uncertain (compare Padel 1994 and Green 2007, who see them as potentially evidence of Arthur's folkloric origins, with the old view put forward by Alcock, for example). The only obvious reason would be to point out that these were amongst the only occurances of the name Arthur used as a real personal name in a British context in the Middle Ages (see especially Bartrum's article on the name Arthur in the National Library of Wales Journal 1965, pp.243-5), but I'm not sure this article -- so much as the one on Arthur as a name -- would gain anything from this and we might then get embroiled in why this situation happened, and this article isn't really the place for this either, I think... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One problem I have with this article is that it was difficult for me to find a summary of the "Arthurian mythos"; I had to re-read the article a couple of times to find it at the beginning of the section "Geoffrey of Monmouth". There needs to be a help to the reader to quickly & easily find it, maybe a note in the lead of the article.
We did discuss this on the talk page, I think, and I seem to recall that it was thought that there wasn't any point doing this as it changes so much over time and even from text-to-text. Which version do we choose? Because Geoffrey's is very different from the Welsh Arthur, whilst the Romance/post-Chretien is different again, as is the Vulgate one etc etc. The article as it stands is designed to work with this reality by looking at how the character of Arthur and his legend altered and developed over time and not tying us to anyone 'version' in a summary, which would be somewhat redundant. Any other comments on this topic?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's about how I saw the discussion, too. With stories like this that have been around for so long, it is impossible to summarize the story the same way we do other stories because the myth is so fluid and changing. The article as a whole summarizes how Arthur's story and character has changed over time, and I don't really think there's a better way to do it. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My point is not that there is one version of the story (if you look far enough back in the article's edit history, you will see where I put this article into its present structure), but that less informed readers will come to this article & expect to find a single story. My comment was to suggest that this fluid nature be made more explicit. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok :) Right, try these changes to the lead and see if they address the issues. Any comments from anyone appreciated as to whether this works and feel free to make changes, I have to go now so a bit rushed :) Thanks, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. -- llywrch (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that works. It signposts the readers that there is no single storyline, but many variants, though it emphasizes the significance of the Malory version. qp10qp (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly wish I had the time to have helped with this article. I have wanted to make this a FA for far longer than I suspect many of you have contributed to Wikipedia, & can only be envious of the fact it has gotten there with little help from me. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the name question, Higham 2002 also covers this in depth, with several specific named individuals as examples (p. 76-77). - PKM (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On werewolves, Green, discussing the battles in Chapter 56 of the Historia [2], says: "The other battles are largely unidentifiable, though the tenth, the ‘battle on the bank of a river which is called Tribruit’, is recorded elsewhere in very early sources as a traditional battle against werewolves, thus casting further doubt on the Historia’s value." - PKM (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on images:
Image:Athrwys.jpg has a source, but no information on creator or date/place of creation.
Wrad, it looks from the file information as if you uploaded that first one. Are you able to add the supplementary information? qp10qp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the Commons image of Gawain with one I have just uploaded to Wikipedia, along with the necessary sourcing gubbins, etc. Hrothgar, I have been a bit vague about the dating and author on the image page. I understand that the manuscript that survives is a copy: is it the copy or the poem, or both, that dates from the late fourteenth century? I have put the author down, for the moment, as the Pearl Poet, but, on second thoughts, if it's a copy, then I suppose that the illustration is unlikely to have been done by the poet himself.qp10qp (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Both, off the top of my head, but I think your reasoning is probably correct - the image is lkely to be the copyist's work, not the poet's (although that is not to say that it couldn't have been copied too...) I can check up more if necessary... cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a link (Stanbury) to Pearl Poet from which it is fairly clear that the Cotton MS is of 1400 at the latest & insofar as EngLit types take any interest in the illustrations at all, they don't tend to regard them as by or after the poet. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both. I've adjusted the wording. qp10qp (talk) 12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, the drawing is bad enough to have been done by a poet. Not quite as bad as David Jones, though. qp10qp (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "year published"? It's on-line from the BnF (French National Library - "libre de droit" = "free of rights"), as you will see by following the link. It's from a C15 manuscript that has never been published as such. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that - you're right. --NE2 13:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The University of British Columbia page that culhwch.jpg comes from says "The scene is Culhwch's arrival at his cousin Arthur's court, pictured below in an illustration to Sidney Lanier's 1881 adaptation in The Boy's Mabinogion", so am adding it into the summary of Culhwch.jpg as that - see image for full ref - and then people can play with it if it isn't in the right format etc etc (I'm a text person, not a pic one :) ) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ok, have swapped the Athrwys pic out of the article, as the source website has a copyright notice for the phote on mouse-over... Put the AC image from later in the article in its spot and put in a pic of mordred at Camlann where the AC was, which seems to have all relevant details (I hope)... How's that look guys?? ok?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me; thank you. --NE2 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me too. - PKM (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
.jpg){kind=link}
