Talk:King Arthur/Archive 4

Lead

At the very top of the lead, there's a floating citation - a reference, to the book The Historic King Arthur, that does not follow any text. It's disappointing to see this in a featured article. Citations should follow text; they're useless if they are left floating in this fashion. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It was there for 68 minutes before you noticed it... and for 19 minutes after you noticed but did nothing about it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No point in being rude. I simply wasn't sure of the correct response. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It was added by an IP who, I suspect, simply didn't know how to add a cite, as he subsequently added it again to support his addition of Lucius Artorius Castus -- but IIRC (the book is at home), Reno never mentions Lucius anyway; the only source I know for that highly dubious theory is Antoine Fuqua's film King Arthur -- hardly a scholarly citation. Had another editor not removed it, I would have. (If anyone is curious, Lucius lived 300 years before Arthur lived - if Arthur did live - and he was the commander of a Roman garrison of horse cavalrymen whose only claim to fame was putting down an uprising in what is now northern France. Making him the historical basis for Arthur is WP:FRINGE, at best.) DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

To be pedantic, Lucius Artorius Castus was briefly the camp prefect (praefectus castrorum) of the Sixth Legion (Legio VI Victrix), whose headquarters in this time period were in York (and this is where Artorius would have served his time). This was an administrative post given to older men (at least in their 40s; most were much older than that) who had successful careers as soldiers (generally drawn from the exclusive ranks of the primipilari, who were head centurions of legions). As camp prefect he was third in command and would only have assumed command of troops in battle in emergency situations - if the Legatus and Tribunus who were above him were either away on mission, or incapacitated/dead. His normal duties would have included the maintenance of the headquarters, ordering of supplies, overseeing the building of local walls and roads, etc. Sometime after this he was called upon to conduct troops to the battlefield (as dux legionum - a temporary title in this time period for men who conducted troops from one region to another) against a nation of people whose name is mutilated on the main Lucius Artorius Castus inscription (which is our only source of information for this mission); the name has traditionally been reconstructed as "Armoricans" (i.e., the tribes who lived in coastal Gaul), but more recent analysis of the inscription suggests that we should read "Armenians". If this is correct, Artorius likely conducted troops from Britain to Armenia to fight in Lucius Verus' Armenian and Parthian war of the early 160s AD. The governor of Britain at this time, Marcus Statius Priscus, was also sent east to act as general of this war. Cagwinn (talk) 00:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Armorica was that region in what is now northern France that I alluded to above. Meanwhile, back at the point: whether it was Armorica or Armenia, designating Lucius as the model for the Arthurian legends is a leap of mind-boggling (il)logical scope. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

And now that I think about it, relocating troops from Britain to Armenia -- 2500 miles as the crow flies, and they didn't have the use of flying crows -- seems a rather inefficient utilization of personnel. But I digress, as usual. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The connection between Lucius Artorius Castus isn't given much credence, but it has been around a long time, is widely if skeptically covered in reliable sources, and is worthy of receiving encyclopedic coverage. It's a separate question as to whether it should be covered here at the main King Arthur article, or elsewhere. I would say it doesn't belong here, certainly no more than other, more influential theories that we give little to no coverage to. It should be covered at another article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

It was very common in the Roman era for troops to be moved all over the empire - pulling troops from Britain to fight a war in Armenia is hardly out of the ordinary. Armorica is coastal Gaul (*ari-mor-ica literally means "sea-coastal" in Gaulish). There are no recorded wars against the Armorici (a loose coalition of coastal tribes in pre-conquest Gaul) in the late 2nd/early 3rd century AD; they were already part of the Roman empire and pacified. Armenia, on the other hand, was the scene of several wars in the 2nd and 3rd century - the result of a game of tug-of-war between the Roman and Parthian empires.Cagwinn (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm aware that the Romans moved troops around a lot, but surely there were closer outposts -- Rome, for example -- to call upon. Or not. Regarding coverage, Lucius's possible connection to Arthur is mentioned (though inadequately sourced) in the Lucius Artorius Castus article, and that's probably the appropriate place for it, yes? DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, in 162 AD the governor of Britain, Marcus Statius Priscus (who had only been in office a short while), was summoned to Cappadocia by co-emperor Lucius Verus in order to lead the Roman forces against the Armenians and their Parthian allies (the Armenian government at this time were actually puppets of the Parthians). It is quite possible that Lucius Artorius Castus accompanied the governor with detachments from the three British legions and, after the successful completion of the war, was awarded with the procuratorship of the newly minted (and short-lived) province of Liburnia. Cagwinn (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest including a paragraph or two somewhere about historical figures who may have influenced the Arthur legend, including Castus, Riothamus, and whoever else - but I don't think he belongs in a section on whether or not Arthur was himself a historical figure, or in the lead. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I've added my two cents in a section below. Please check it out QuestionWhy (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we go the extra Miles and make sure the old kings are but a shadowy past?

Ascertain their identity and then terminate their contract albeit decisively. Lord Aaron. Koychui (talk) 00:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Lucius Artorius Castus Debate

A couple things I would like to address here. Yes, I am the one who added the theory and has been reverting it, because I do strongly believe it should be included. Yes, Doctor Joe, you were right in accusing me of being a new member who "does not know how to properly cite." I am new to Wikpedia and I'd be gracious for any help. That being said, however, upon joining the Wikipedia community, I did not realize how harsh I'd be treated. I'm terribly sorry for trying to add new knowledge to an public project I suppose. But, if most higher ranking members are going to revert any edits done by us peons, what's the point of even making Wikipedia public? But I digress. I don't mean to insult an admin, I have a lot of respect for the things you do. Just know that newer members may have good ideas, too. So far, I've found that everything I try to change is considered garbage because it's done by a newer member. This is Wikipedia-an open, public, encyclopedia, free for anyone to contribute to. Not a hierarchy ruled by a small group of people. I'm doing my best to learn and better Wikipedia. Please don't rule out everything I say simply because I'm the rookie.

Onto the actually theory. It was first brought to my attention in an honors level English course, so apparently it does have some historical backing. Upon further research, I've found several articles by historians debating the theory and even found the theory mentioned in the Lucius Artorius Castus Wikipedia article itself. I did have trouble finding what book the theory originated from, and eventually found "The Historic King Arthur" in the form of an e-book and did my best to properly cite it. The Kemp Malone fact comes from the Castus Wikipedia article. I advise you to check it out yourself. Also, to counter your point of not having enough historical backing, none of these theories do. If they did, we would know who Arthur really was. In fact, all the Arthur theories have a disclaimer that says some of the history doesn't match up, including the one at the very top of the article. I don't believe that argument is justifiable, seeing as none of the theories have perfect historical evidence. So, although you may disagree, the Castus theory obviously does have some validity to it. Therefore, I do think it should be included in this article, at the very least for the sake of consistency between the Artorius article and the King Arthur article. I mean, after all, the point of this article is to provide thorough information about King Arthur and his possible historical basis, isn't it? Shouldn't any somewhat valid theory that IS debated by historians be included?

Now, as for placement: I'm open to suggestions. I inserted the theory surrounded by other theories simply because that made sense to me. If someone else thinks it should be included later in the article or perhaps given it's own subheading, I'd be all for it. I do acknowledge that this theory is not as widely accepted as other theories, and therefore maybe shouldn't be so close to the introduction of the article. I'm not trying to cause any hard feelings here at all. I just think that an article about King Arthur should be thorough and include all, somewhat accepted (in the sense of debated theories) information. Thank you.QuestionWhy (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

No doubt that the hypothesis deserves a mention here - but I wouldn't describe it as a "valid" one, despite its popularity with non-specialists. We have to be careful not to give undue weight to fringe hypotheses such as this. Cagwinn (talk)

QuestionWhy, I'm sorry you've felt mistreated here. Some of this is just the way Wikipedia works - there are rules against edit warring. Making bold changes is encouraged, but other editors who disagree with what you've added may revert it. If you do get a revert, the best next step is to go to the talk page to discuss the matter (continued reverting can lead to blocks, and nobody wants that). Now that we're here on the talk page, I hope that we can proceed in a more productive manner.

I don't personally think the Lucius Artorius Castus theory is significant enough to the King Arthur legend to include here at the main article. We get into the historicity debate for 6 paragraphs, and I don't think Castus is significant enough to demand weight here, though of course the theory should be discussed at Lucius Artorius Castus and Historical basis of King Arthur. There isn't much to support the theory, many works on Arthur don't mention it (even to dismiss it), and it hasn't gotten as much popular traction as even some of the less plausible theories. If others disagree, however, I'm sure we can come up with a way to include it, and perhaps other similar theories about influences on Arthur. However, if we do, it ought to be based on sources that are up to date and reliable. There are plenty of those and I'm sure we can find suitable ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I must agree with Cúchullain that including him in this particular article violates WP:UNDUE. Unfortunately, the implication in the 2004 King Arthur movie (which I linked above) that there was scholarly support for a link between Lucius and Arthur has drawn more attention to this fringe theory than the gossamer-thin facts of the case seem to merit. To QuestionWhy, my apologies if I offended you, but please note that I did not "accuse" you of anything. Many of my early, overly-enthusiastic edits here were reverted before I became familiar with standard WP procedure, and I learned very quickly not to take it personally, and to check my ego at the sign-in box. That said, don't be afraid to make mistakes. You're not a real Wikipedian until you've made—and learned from—at least 50 of them. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Cúchullain Fair enough. I still think the theory should be mentioned as it is mentioned in the Castus and Basis of Arthur articles, but I appreciate the class. I'll stand down. Is there any possibility of at least mentioning Castus later in the article, for the sake of consistency and making it easy for readers to find? Possibly add an entire new section briefly mentioning all the "less plausible" theories you mentioned? I don't think more information will be negative in any way, and I believe the King Arthur article is probably more popular than the Basis of Arthur article where Castus is mentioned. I'll leave it to higher-ranking members to decide. ThanksQuestionWhy (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

QuestionWhy, if you want to cite a specific source, you can use Template:Citation. It helps you cite the author of the source, its title, the publisher, the place of publication, the year of publication, etc. I appreciate your willingness to actually find sources for your additions. Several rookies just add texts with no sources of any kind. Dimadick (talk) 07:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Citation is designed for use with harv references and can give error messages if used without them. I think it is better to use specific templates such as cite web, cite book and cite journal, which are desgned for the type of source you are adding. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

British or English?

Apologies if i'm missing something here, but Great Britain (the island) = England, Wales and Scotland, The United Kingdom was founded in 1707 and includes Northern Ireland, Before this England has a history of fighting Wales and Scotland, So how can a man living in the sixth century be British? - Sureley this is English History

Yes, you are missing something! maybe start at Britons (historical). Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know exactly how related to Cornwall Arthur is, but he could be Cornish (Kingdom of Cornwall) - long before England came about. --Joowwww (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

britain meant just the geographical location and the somewhat homogeneous people that lived there, not a political entity. there was no england until well after the angles, saxons etc arrived, where do you think angle-land got it's name? so to say a pre saxon king is english is absurd--Mongreilf (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For this reason I have changed "King Arthur is a legendary British leader who..." to "King Arthur was a legendary Briton leader who" --194.106.137.50 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

British is the adjective for Briton. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't wrong to say Briton Leader and to say so would avoid any confusion with modern day Britishness. --194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be wrong, as "Briton" is not an adjective. "British", piped to "Britons (historical)", is absolutely right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps we could just say Arthur was "King of the Britons"?--194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

..."legendary leader or king of the Britons.." would be OK (in my view "King" with capital K would be less correct, as it suggests that he actually was, which is not authenticated), but I don't see a problem with keeping the existing wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"British" is fine because there would have been many British kings or leaders, not one. British peoples were found from Cornwall up to Scotland and were not, historically at least, united. "King of the Britons" sounds as if there was just one king of all the tribes/territories, which there never was.qp10qp (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Let's leave it as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, it is quite difficult to word it nice and neatly. I suppose people can always click on British to see the differences between ancient British and modern British.--194.106.137.50 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

he was fighting aganst the anglo-saxons so he's def. not english —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.89.205 (talk) 09:57, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

He was a Brythonic leader, therefor; the modern Welsh, Cornish, Bretons would be the closest link, and definitely not English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 23:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Arthur a Scottish warlord?

In an article in Northern History in September 2015, which I added to further reading in this article, Andrew Breeze argued that Arthur was a warlord in the Strathclyde area. His theory seems to have been generally ignored, and dismissed when it is discussed, but in a discussion on the blog of Tim Clarkson, a leading historian of Dark Age Scotland, he says in August 2016 at [1], that "I’m starting to think he may be on the right track in placing the Arthurian legend’s origins in Strathclyde". In September 2016 Breeze published a new article tying Arthur to the volcanic winter of 536-7, caused by a volcano somewhere in the Americas which led to widespread crop failures and famines, and describing Arthur as a Strathclyde cattle rustler who seized meat to save his people from starvation. The theory sounds a bit wild, but both articles were published in Northern History, a respected peer reviewed journal, and Breeze is described by Clarkson as "a renowned philologist who knows a thing or two about Dark Age history". Clarkson says that he has included many of Breeze's locations in a map of Arthur's battles in his new book, Scotland's Merlin, but it is not clear whether he discusses Breeze's claims in the book. I think it is too early to change the Arthur article, but it would be worth adding Breeze's new article to further reading. Any views on this? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably fine to include in the further reading, but yeah, it's far too early to change the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Breeze is a borderline fringe scholar and his linguistic arguments in this paper (as in most of his papers, to be frank), are not particularly strong. Cagwinn (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Except the Harleian genealogies show that one of Dumnagual Hen's (the King of Strathclyde) descendants was called Arthwys, which is quite close to Arthur (which has led people to believe Arthwys of Ebrauc may be Arthur, though the names are definitely different). UtherPendrogn (talk) 18:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ancient Scotland was half Brythonic, part of Briton, He was not English and he was not Scottish, he was a Brythonic speaker, today's equivalent is Welsh, Cornish, Breton, different to the Goedelig speaking Scottish/Irish/Mann — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 23:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140821232929/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/hati.htm to http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/hati.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent edits (2)

I have reverted recent edits as the sourcing is unsatisfactory, especially as the article is an FA. The refs are not correctly formatted, no page numbers are given so they cannot be checked, and they appear to be mainly works over 100 years old or popular or self-published works, not modern scholarship. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

So you're not saying they are incorrect, you're just saying I did not pinpoint exactly where these names came from, does it really matter how old the books are? the whole article is based on the Mabinogi story which is far more ancient so I don't see an issue with using old books, those names were names given to Welsh princes from 5 century to around 13th century, so they are backed by proof.. which are in those books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 15:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your edits are ungrammatical, inadequately sourced and referenced, and no obvious connection is made with the article subject. If you want to add material to the article it is your responsibility - no-one else's - to ensure that they meet the quality standards, both of content and sourcing, that are required. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

15th Century royal claim & the battle of the dragons

It would be great if the article could be updated to include Owain Glyndŵr & Henry Tudor's royal claims to the Pendragon heir, Glyndŵr's Privy seal/coat of arms includes a two legged gold dragon whilst Henry Tudor's includes the four legged red dragon welsh dragon, they both appealed to the Welsh people and they found Glyndŵr to be a popular leader, the Tudors were also obviously trying to win over the Welsh people, so Henry competed soon after, due to Henry's successes, the Red dragon stuck with the identity of Wales, if he was unsuccessful and Glyndŵr was successful, the Welsh flag would be much different and that flag would have been in the Union Jack's place.. although, with Henry VIII holding power after the death of his eldest brother Arthur, Prince of Wales (the last English/Welsh royal to be given a Welsh forename), Wales was annexed within England and the Welsh language was condemned.. and the Welsh dragon was dropped from the English coat of arms and from the British flag (as Wales was seen as part of England and therefore did not have a Welsh voice.. until the 1950's onward, although the flag nor royal coat of arms were never updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 00:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The above was added to the article, however, with references provided, some feel acceptable to remove without fixing or revising the section even though the Welsh flag is evidence on its own, it would be great if more information on King arthur was provided instead of less, you can't change history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Daicaregos, Martinevans123, Redrose64, and Ham II: could you help? I tried to add the part about the Welsh flags but my edits were removed but not revised by other editors, the other editors do not want to add to the article. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 10:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Part of the problem was that you put your edits at the top of this page rather than the bottom - so experienced editors here did not see them - and you did not sign them by using four of these: ~ As I replied below, it is your responsibility - no-one else's - to make sure that any edits to the article are of an appropriate high standard. As you didn't do that, they were reverted. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

define 'unclear relationship to article subject.', it is pretty clear with what I tried to add that the Welsh flags are directly influenced by King Arthur's dragon, which is why I added it in the first place. but it's ok, I'll just leave this segment in the talk page so that someone else can pick it up.. if they feel like it, I tried to help by adding more info on King Arthur, if that was not good enough, then it is out of my capabilities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyncymru (talk • contribs) 14:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that I hadn't read your comment because you put it in the wrong place (now corrected), statements that start "it is pretty clear that..." are not a basis for discussion unless you can back them up with reliable published sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on King Arthur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080512153652/http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/8035.asp to http://www.blaenau-gwent.gov.uk/8035.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

John Cowper Powys

Hi Dudley Mile, perhaps the notable fact about John Cowper Powys's Porius: A Romance of the Dark Ages is that the Emperor Arthur, is only a minor figure. That is that Powys downplays the idea of the heroic leader and gives Merlin, who prophecies a Golden Age of peace and freedom in the distant future, a central role. Perhaps that is what needs to be said. Thanks for making me think further about this. Anyhow, I'll accept your decision. Also, both the legend of Arthur and the Holy Grail are important in Powys's A Glastonbury Romance. Rwood128 (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The basic rule is that works of fiction about a historical character are only notable if they are discussed in a reliable secondary source (not the work itself). That did not apply to your edit, although I see that it did to another book by Powys. However, there are similar problems with much of the modern legend section, and editing and debating with other editors would be far too much work outside my areas of interest, so I will not pursue it further. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

"perhaps the notable fact about John Cowper Powys's Porius: A Romance of the Dark Ages is that the Emperor Arthur, is only a minor figure." Is this actually notable? I am not an expert on Arthurian literature, though over a few decades I have read several novels and comic books, seen several films and television series, and heard several songs, all based on Arthurian legend. In most of those works, Arthur is either a supporting character, or a minor player. The protagonists (or other major characters) are usually Guinevere, Lancelot, Merlin, Mordred, Morgan le Fay, and (less often) someone else from the Round Table.

As noted in our article, there is a tendency since the High Middle Ages to reduce the role of Arthur in Arthurian literature:

• "Chrétien wrote five Arthurian romances between c. 1170 and 1190. Erec and Enide and Cligès are tales of courtly love with Arthur's court as their backdrop, demonstrating the shift away from the heroic world of the Welsh and Galfridian Arthur, while Yvain, the Knight of the Lion, features Yvain and Gawain in a supernatural adventure, with Arthur very much on the sidelines and weakened."
• "This series of texts was quickly followed by the Post-Vulgate Cycle (c. 1230–40), of which the Suite du Merlin is a part, which greatly reduced the importance of Lancelot's affair with Guinevere but continued to sideline Arthur, and to focus more on the Grail quest. As such, Arthur became even more of a relatively minor character in these French prose romances; in the Vulgate itself he only figures significantly in the Estoire de Merlin and the Mort Artu."
• "In the early 19th century, medievalism, Romanticism, and the Gothic Revival reawakened interest in Arthur and the medieval romances. A new code of ethics for 19th-century gentlemen was shaped around the chivalric ideals embodied in the "Arthur of romance". This renewed interest first made itself felt in 1816, when Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur was reprinted for the first time since 1634." ... Arthur himself played a minor role in some of these works, following in the medieval romance tradition." Dimadick (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for this feedback. I realise that the following, "Myrddin replaces Arthur as the future messianic saviour," lacks a citation, and perhaps can be described as original research. I'll revise. Rwood128 (talk) 11:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

"Impossible" etymology

Re the arth + (g)wr etymology, I've checked the source, and Higham does not describe it as "impossible" on the cited page. Instead he says that "Problems with this origin develop in Middle Welsh, when the opportunity arises to distinguish between |u| and |-u|" (the Welsh "w"). If that etymology was correct, the name should have become "Arthwr" instead of "Arthur", though the former never occurs. However, he does not say that it is "not possible". The present wording better reflects the source while still making it clear that "there are phonological difficulties with this theory".--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You are simply not understanding the linguistics behind this; it is not problematic, is an impossible etymology, and no (literally zero) modern experts on Celtic linguistics will tell you that Arthur can be derived from Arth + (g)wr. Higham is not a Celtic linguist and he is relying here on Peter Schrijver, who would absolutely, 100% support my contention that this is impossible (since I am drawing my conclusions from his own work on Brittonic historical phonology!). I have been studying this stuff for decades now and am even cited in Zimmer's article with the *Artorigiios etymology (though he misunderstood what I communicated to Xavier Delamarre, his source on my original proposal). Cagwinn (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Also note that if Arthur was from "bear man", the name would have been spelled Art(h)gur in the Historia Brittonum, as was the orthographic standard at the time; no manuscript of the HB carries this spelling and the name is consistently rhymed with words in -ur and not -wr in medieval Welsh poetry - including the Gododdin, which may date to the late 6th century - conclusively proving that we do not have here "Arth + (g)wr", i.e. "bear man". Cagwinn (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Cagwinn. You are not understanding the need to follow what the sources say. If you have another source that says this is impossible, add it as well. But your edit attributes something to the source that Higham does not say, which is a much, much bigger problem than the present wording. Stop reverting, and add a source if you have one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Higham, p. 74: "One must conclude, therefore, that the name was read and pronounced in Middle Welsh as ‘Arthur’ and not as ‘Arthwr’ because it was already an existing name which people knew how to pronounce (Professor Peter Schrijver, personal communication)." (emphasis mine). Higham agrees, citing Schrijver, one of the premiere experts on Brittonic phonology - it is an impossible etymology. Sorry, but I am not letting this one go. Cagwinn (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And again, he doesn't say it's "not possible," and the status quo wording follows what he does say better than your version. If Schrijver or someone else says it's "not possible", add them. Otherwise, the text will be restored.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes he does, even if he doesn't literally say the word "impossible". See also Stefan Zimmer, The Name of Arthur (2010), especially pp. 134-135; the name Arthur must come from a source (Brittonic or Latin; Zimmer prefers a mixed Brittonic-Latin Deckname) that had a long vowel in the pen-ultimate syllable; gwr (Brittonic *uiros) has a short vowel. You have to have a solid understanding of Celtic historical phonology to get these little intricacies, which is why most non-specialists get the etymology of Arthur wrong. Why are you even fighting me on this??? Do you want Wikipedia to have bad, misleading information?? I don't get it! Cagwinn (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

As I said, I want Wikipedia to follow the sources it cites, and your change, which is based on your own interpretation of the evidence rather than the source, is not an improvement.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:20, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"The name Arthur is unquestionably derived from Artorius" - Kenneth Jackson, , "The Arthur of History,", in: Loomis, R.S., Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages (1959), p. 2. Jackson is the father of Brittonic historical phonology; if "Arth + gwr" was even remotely possible, he would not have made this decisive statement regarding the etymology. Cagwinn (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Does he mention the arth + gwr etymology? Look, all you need to do is either: (1) Add as source that says the arth + gwr etymology is impossible, or (2) move on.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:24, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't have to mention the "arth + gwr" etymology to discount it with this statement; all the linguistic proof against such an etymology is laid out in the book Language and History in Early Britain, Oxford, 1953. Another expert, and a man would absolutely support the "arth + (g)wr / *arto-wiros" etymology, if it was even remotely possible: John Koch, Celtic Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2006, p. 121: "In both Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae the commander’s name is Old Welsh Arthur, just as it is (proved by rhyme) in the Gododdin. It is generally agreed that the name derives from the rather uncommon Latin name Artorius (cf. Bromwich et al., Arthur of the Welsh 5)." Actually, that makes two experts, since he also cites Rachel Bromwich, who agrees with Jackson's analysis of the name and says "Artorius would undoubtedly have developed regularly into Art(h)ur in Welsh" (Rachel Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein, University of Wales Press, 2014, p. 490). (sorry, I accidentally posted the wrong Jackson reference earlier - his quote on Artorius is from Loomis' ALMA, which I have now corrected). Cagwinn (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not disputing that "Artorius" is the most likely etymology. I'm disputing whether the cited text (or any of the ones you've mentioned here) can be used to say the "arth+gwr" etymology is "not possible", rather than just not bloody likely.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, you are making a rather difficult request here - I can only remove the factually incorrect etymology if I find a source that explicitly debunks it?? Even if they discuss the name Arthur and how it must come from Artorius, even if they lay out the phonological reasons why this must be so, I can't use that source to remove the nonsense "arth + (g)wr etymology? That's crazy, my man! Anyway, one more bit of evidence against "arth + (g)wr: the name Arthur is found in Brittany in the 9th century Cartulary of Redon. The man who bore the name was surely born before the Historia Brittonum could have reached Brittany. If the name was borrowed from the Welsh and if it was derived from "arth + (g)wr" (*arth g[u]ur in the 9th century), his name would have been spelled *Arthuur, like every other Old Breton name that has "man" as its second element. The name isn't spelled *Arthuur, though, it is spelled Arthur, so that knocks out that etymology as a source for the name. Cagwinn (talk) 20:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not a difficult request. Wikipedia follows the sources. The section already discusses the "Artorius" etymology. In fact, that's the section you should be worrying about because it doesn't state that that's the consensus etymology, though we have sources that it's "generally agreed".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL, yes it is - and I don't understand why you can't see this! Someone has put into this article an old etymology for the name Arthur (i.e., arth + [g]wr) that goes back to at least the 19th century (when historical linguistics was in its infancy), if not centuries older, and it has been repeated so often by non-specialists over the past 100+ years, that it has become received wisdom; but it is a bogus etymology. Since the pioneering work of Kenneth Jackson on Brittonic historical phonology in the 1950s, further refined by Peter Schrijver in the 1990s through the present (not to mention the work of scholars such as Patrick Sims-Williams and Wendy Davies on early Old Welsh/Cornish/Breton orthography), we now know that it is an impossible etymology. You will now find most specialists in Celtic linguistics agreeing that the name is a loan from Latin Artorius (with some, such as Stefan Zimmer, suggesting it is a Celtic name that was Latinized as Artorius via the Deckname phenomenon); what these specialists don't tend to do is dwell on - or even mention - long outdated etymologies that are mostly found in the work of non-specialists (i.e., the majority of books written today on the historical Arthur); so, it will be common to find the Arthur < Artorius etymology mentioned in their work, but you will rarely (if ever) find them debunking the Arthur < arth (g)wr etymology since, to their minds, it is a ridiculous etymology that can no longer be supported. Believe me, if it was even remotely possible for the name to come from arth + (g)wr, all of the scholars I have mentioned above would have proposed it as an alternative (Zimmer has perhaps the most in-depth discussion of the etymology of the name Arthur in his book "Die keltischen Wurzeln der Artussage", Winter, 2006, p. 31ff, as well as in the 2010 English language article that I cited above, but you don't see him bothering with "arth [g]wr"; for him it is either from Artorius [which he suggest might have a Celtic or Dalmatian origin] or a Latinized *Artorigios). So, how an I supposed to get this bogus etymology removed? Higham, relaying personal communication from Schrijver, is as close as it comes - but because he doesn't say the word "impossible", I can' remove this? Do you not see how ridiculous this is? Cagwinn (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Since I mentioned Old Breton Arthur - the exact cognate of Welsh Arthur and surviving into Modern Breton Arzhur (once again, proving with the final vowel that it is not from *Arto-wiros) here is the etymology provided by Gwenael Le Duc, Antone Minard, John Koch, in: Koch, J., Celtic Culture, ABC-CLIO, 2006, p. 260: "As seen from the charters, personal names then in use in Brittany included some Biblical names, for example, Abraham, Daniel/Deniel, Dauid, Iacu/Iacob, Iohan, Ioseph, Isaac, Solom/Solomon; some Frankish (Germanic) names, for example, Adalfred/Ethelfrit, Bernahart, Uuilhelmo; some of Latin origin, for example, Arthur < Artorius, Custentin < Constantinus, Notolic < Natalicius, Uuithur < Victor-;..."

It should be noted that Old Breton Uuithur is the exact cognate of Middle Welsh Gwythur and both names, as stated by these three reputable Celtic scholars, come from Latin Uictor (via an oblique Uictōr-[em/is/ī, etc.] or perhaps the gentilic Uictorius or even the rare, later derivative of Uictor, Uictūrus), and not any Celtic compound terminating in *uiros/gwr "man"; it has the exact same suffix as Arthur. Cagwinn (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

After several weeks I've returned to this to find that no progress has been made. I've now added a note explaining that "Artorius" is the consensus etymology. I've also reworded the "not possible" line to say that it's "not accepted by modern scholars," which the source still doesn't say, but it's an improvement over declaring something "impossible". I've also done some rewriting and fixed some writing errors in the previous version.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:52, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

OMG, this is so frustrating!! It IS impossible! This is a fact, not an opinion. Any expert on Brittonic historical phonology today will tell you so. I am sorry that you don't understand the science of historical linguistics, but it is quite literally impossible for the Old Welsh name Arthur to be a compound of arth + (g)wr. Cagwinn (talk) 20:18, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, working with you can be frustrating, when you fixate on minor issues like this at the expense of fixing bigger problems like the ones I've just corrected. I can't conceive of a problem in the wording that's there now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

The wording there now is acceptable, but it is ridiculous to suggest over here that there is a problem with calling the etymology "impossible", when that is exactly what it is - impossible (and essentially that is what your re-wording says, so I don't even understand why you still arguing about this). Cagwinn (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Not my intention to argue, it's my intention to point out the changes I made to improve the section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 edits

I reverted a mass of unexplained changes by Dilidor. I hate to be heavy handed, but this is a featured article, and most of the changes were not improvements. Most were simply unnecessary, but some removed valid material, changed the sense of cited material to the point of being incorrect, or introduced unclear grammar. Something similar happened three years ago when Dilidor made a similar mass of changes. Dilidor, in the future, please bring up major changes to the article here on the talk page first.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

As Dillidor has repeatedly told us, they're a professional editor and we are not. They're certainly immune to any criticism from others. However I've seen a bunch of similar edits from them across a range of articles, and I've yet to see any that were a real improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Andy Dingley: I don't know about that, but IMO the mass of edits here were by and large not an improvement. I've restored some of Dilidor's edits. These are largely minor copyediting and removing overlinking; unfortunately they were hard to parse out among all the major wording changes.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I still insist the actual article (not just the lead summary) should mention and briefly explain the deal with the Knights of the Round Table etc. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your comments from above. If you could explain specifically what you think should be added, we can discuss it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:33, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The article's lead summary mentions "various Knights of the Round Table" but there is nothing about this concept in the actual article that the lead is supposed to only summarize (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

There are actually quite big problems with the article

For example, the notion of the Round Table (and the Knights) is only mentioned in the lead (as in "various Knights of the Round Table" without even mentioning Arthur's role), an illustration (where it's only "The Round Table experiences a vision of the Holy Grail" again without explaining Arthur was their leader even there), and literally the last paragraph which is in the "modern legend" section (and even there it is something random about how "In the 1930s, the Order of the Fellowship of the Knights of the Round Table was formed in Britain to promote Christian ideals and Arthurian notions of medieval chivalry").

There's a lot of other stuff like that. Think of the various absolutely key elements of what should be mentioned (not to even talk about explaining things, I mean just mention with links) and check if it actually is. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Another example: Lancelot is mentioned repeatedly, his affair (or "cuckolding", as the article says) with Guinevere is there alright, but there's nothing about the resulting war between him and Arthur. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:30, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I wanted to say there's literally no mention of Igraine at all, but she's there as Igerna once. No sisters are as much as named, not even when "his sister" is mentioned (Morgause there). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

And for my perhaps last example, Excalibur is in the lead in 3 words as "the sword Excalibur" and then in the article only a mention about how his Celtic sword would become Excalibur without elaborating anything again. I'm going to actually add an Excalibur illustration there with short not it's from "later tradition", but seriously this article needs reworking to be standalone informative about even the most iconic motifs (but don't presume the reader will know about them). SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

But seriously, more is said about, to quote, "the recurring theme of Arthur as a cuckold", then his association (and the role) in the Round Table, which is a thing probably most people are going to think of first if they hear "King Arthur". This and Excalibur. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think these are problems. There's too much to cover to get into everything. I don't know that we need to specify that King Arthur is the leader of the Round Table (what else would he be?), that Igerna is also known as Igraine, and that Arthur has sisters in different versions of the story. I also don't think Lancelot's war with Arthur needs to be discussed here. The recurring theme of Arthur's wife having an affair is indeed one of the oldest and most prominent elements of his story. The Round Table/Arthur's band of warriors is another important theme, but I don't know what else would need to be added to that. The Round Table itself only appeared in the 12th century though the concept of the warrior band long precedes that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

People aren't born with the knowledge of Arthur and the Round Table (and it's not obvious, the name itself is pretty cryptic), or anything else, they learn it, and it's a learning place. If the relevant Wikipedia article is named Igraine (for a good reason), you should mention also the name "Igraine" when talking about "Igerna" (I think I added it already or someone else did). No, I've never heard about the form "Igerna" for most of my life before I became seriously interested some years ago, and actually I never heard about Igraine too back when all I knew was a couple of cartoons and comics and random movies. When there's "his sister" it should "his sister Morgause" (not yet there), with a name and hyperlink there to click. And yes I also never heard about Igraine as a child or a teenager and even later with only very causal interest. Lancelot's war with Arthur isn't actually really "discussed" anywhere on Wikipedia at all (most of it is literally 4 sentences in Le Morte d'Arthur), but here it isn't as much as mentioned even as it leads to his death in the post-Malory "canon" tradition (or rather the modern tradition before it's been excluded by almost all of these cartoons/comics/movies, because actually I also never even heard about it until relatively recently like only maybe 10 years ago). That same sentence with the unnamed "his sister" continues with "established the role of Camelot, first mentioned in passing", itself mentioning it only "in passing" and not explaining at all whatever is this "Camelot" thing that being mentioned for both the first and the last time. All the articles should begin with the presumption the reader knows nothing at all about the subject, which he well may do. Also the lead section should only summarize the content, not include concepts not appearing in the actual content (as in the case of the Round Table), which is also why it should not include any references because the lead is not a part of any article that isn't a stub - it's only to "adequately summarize key points" "to provide an accessible overview of all important aspects of the article" and nothing by its own. And the Knight of the Round Table has its own article but right now it's only a bunch of them merged to a list without almost anything else (I marked it as a stub but someone removed it as "not a stub"). Some of these merged articles have been like literally 4 sentences long since the early 2000s. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

At least three mentions of "cuckold[ing]" seem tendentiously introduced into the text, with the most egregious being "Camelot, with its focus on the love of Lancelot and Guinevere and the cuckolding of Arthur, was itself made into a film of the same name in 1967." While the musical's plot is moved by a love triangle involving Lancelot, Arthur and Guenevere (sic), surely its "focus" is on conflicts between love and loyalty, private desires and public duty, anarchic hedonism and the rule of law. Is the article required to say as much? Of course not. Might we be obliged to improve or simply cut a cartoonishly inadequate characterization? I think so. Since the article already states the source material for Camelot, and links to an article on it, why not simply "The stage musical was adapted into a film of the same name in 1967"? Michael (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Arthurian Bibliography

Hi, please add this page to the external links https://bias.internationalarthuriansociety.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.181.130.103 (talk) 06:34, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Not British, English

England was not even a country at the time (and Scotland had its own kings) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk) 12:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Welsh or Brythonic, never english KPR9 (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2019

195.35.101.5 (talk) 09:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Here Aron kills murtaza in à Battle it was Easy for Aron

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

An edit that violated GA/FA standards and needs to be reverted

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Arthur&type=revision&diff=936632010&oldid=935255883

The lead can be made of only 4 paragraphs max, and the paragraphs also can't be just single sentences.

I can't see a similar https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=King_Arthur&diff=next&oldid=936632010 helpful too but it's not that glaring.

--5.173.120.115 (talk) 10:12, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary para breaks now removed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Suggest inclusion of possible Scottish Arthur

In this article we have references for English, Welsh and Breton Arthurs, There's gathering evidence of King Arthur actually being Arthur McAedan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artuir_mac_%C3%81ed%C3%A1n). Being the first know person in history with the recorded Name Arthur. The Mountain Ben Arthur is name after him. Many of his battles can be placed within Athurian legend, for example the 12th battle at Badon can't be located in England or Wales. There's actually a place called badon less than a mile from Dunnad fort which was the heart of his fathers Kingdom. And the Battle of Caledonian Forrest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStewartWoods (talk • contribs) 09:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This theory is discussed in Historicity of King Arthur, but most historians believe that Arthur is a mythical figure. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:13, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

There's a random bolding out of "Knights of King Arthur" at the end of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.97.15 (talk) 21:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Round Table article lacks any mention of Edward III's real world Order of the Round Table

I know it's a different article but I thought I'd get more attention here. It's actually mentioned in Edwards own article and discussed in https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1x71zc and elsewhere. It would make use of a separate section, like with the tournament's and the Winchester RT. The article also needs an improved summary of it, as so does the one of Tristan and Isolde. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.96.175 (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Arthur's Seal

In the preface to his edition of Malory's Morte, Caxton reports seeing an impression of King Arthur's seal set in beryl on the shrine of Edward Confessor in Westminster Abbey: https://englishmonarchs.co.uk/confessor_shrine.html + https://www.jstor.org/stable/27870602?read-now=1&refreqid=excelsior%3Ab1807652e5a79812e4d9095764d9dde5&seq=2#page_scan_tab_contents Any more information on this? Shtove (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here... "In his ‘Preface’ to Le Morte Darthur in 1485, Caxton wrote that “in the abbey of Westminster, at St. Edward’s shrine, remaineth the print of [Arthur’s] seal in red wax closed in beryl, in which is written, Patricius Arthurus Britannie, Gallie, Germanie, Dacie, Imperator” (“The Noble Arthur, Emperor of Britain, Gaul, Germany, and Denmark”). Possession of this forged seal demonstrated the monarch’s imagined right to wield the same authority as Arthur, including a right to rule over the listed countries. Even though it held no legal weight, the seal presented itself as a useful propaganda tool, and its placement at the Confessor’s shrine implied its authenticity." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. I wonder who was the last English monarch to assert a claim to the throne of Denmark - anyone post Geoffrey of Monmouth, or even post-Conquest? I see Philippa of England was Queen of Denmark in the generation before Malory. Shtove (talk) 18:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2021

The artist for the print is Charles William Sheeres, not John Cassell who was the publisher most likely 77.119.170.219 (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 10:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Recent research focusing on Powys and Gwynedd

A whole new section has been completely removed on the basis of personal bias alone. While the emphasis on this work may have been rather strong, I believe its thrust is very significant and needs to be mentioned. The research was not only thorough and well-documented, it stands up to scrutiny much better than some of the other notions here that are heavily mired in the romances. Reactions please. TonyP (talk) 21:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Graham Phillips' book has been discussed over at the talk page for the separate article on Historicity of King Arthur. Rather than seeking to include a mention of it in this article, it would be better if you read the views expressed on that talk page, and contribute to that discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

- I agree with the revert per WP:UNDUE - Graham Phillips (writer) is not a reliable source - Epinoia (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the other topic. I checked it out but I see that the cognitive bias is too well-established. A sad weakness of academic research in many fields is that an inability or unwillingness to objectively judge an argument leads to an emphasis on an author having the right post-nominal letters, or mention on "Google Scholar". Phillips comes to several conclusions, not all with the same weight, but some of them make perfect sense (e.g. simple military logistics during a period of successful coordinated resistance), and so deserve an objective mention.TonyP (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

You have a point but it does not apply in this case. Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources and Phillips is not reliable. It is not for Wikipedia editors to base their edits on a personal opinion that an unreliable source has in a particular case put forward a valid argument. In addition, the literature on Arthur is so vast that any valid point he makes has almost certainly been made by a reliable source and could be tracked down by anyone willing to put in the necessary work. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Newly discovered Merlin manuscripts

[2] If relevant for here. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 06:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be relevant to Lancelot-Grail but is far too specialised for this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Infobox

I have given King Arthur a Infobox character. Most of the other Arthurian characters have one, so I thought Arthur should have one too. Michael May II (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Historicity section

The historicity section in this article has grown too large, given that we have a full article on Historicity of King Arthur. In particular, the last two paragraphs, rather than summarizing the main article, talk about individual theories. Why is Breeze mentioned here? Why are the individual historical figures mentioned Where? Why is the "Arthur stone" mentioned? --Macrakis (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Opening question, clarification

The third paragraph in the article has: "Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey's Historia..." Is the intended meaning that these elements first appear in Geoffrey? If that is the intended meaning, the fact that they appear, at all, doesn't add nearly as much information. Maybe some clarification is in order. Venqax (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Vandalism Question

Why is this page closed for editing? I'm just wondering, as I wanted to contribute some to the page. I have some articles and such I wanted to add. 174.199.230.13 (talk) 02:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is closed for editing by anonymous editors due to persistent vandalism. You can edit if you register as then other editors can see your track record. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Galfridian traditions

There is no datation to any of the three mentioned traditions. Anyone can check it on the citated book, or any other source? It's pointless to say there was a tradition before Monmouth if we don't know when. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.43.201.216 (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Este articulo podría ser mejor.

En la versión en Español (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rey_Arturo) tiene bastante más información. Podrían traducir fragmentos faltantes desde la versión desde es.Wikipedia para que quede mejor. Digo, ahí hay un árbol genealógico que se podría traducir y expandir con los bastos conocimientos de en.Wikipedia.

Atentamente: Christian Alexis Arroyo Ortiz (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Historicity" section needs to be copyedited, and better yet just rewritten

The flow is of reading it just awful as it's seemingly randomly divided into many very short paragraphs. There are also errors like the capitalized "extreme". 5.173.74.94 (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Still nothing was done,not even "Extreme" was corrected. If you don't want to work on it, open it for the public to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.42.36 (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Arthur

After Arthur was fatally wounded at camlann how long after his was taken to Glastonbury Abbey did he die, 89.243.51.90 (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

He couldn't have been taken to Glastonbury Abbey after his death as the Abbey didn't exist during the time he is alleged to have lived. Valgrus Thunderaxe (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

John Garrick - actor or painter?

A painting displayed in the "Geoffrey of Monmouth" section of this article, titled "The Death of King Arthur," is dated 1862, but the John Garrick hyperlinked in the description of the painting appears to be an English film actor who was born in 1902. Is this an error? 71.168.101.197 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The source of the painting is unclear, so I have deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Did a bit of research, and it might be the person who uploaded that file to Wikimedia Commons did so with a typo. I suspect artist's name actually could be John Mulcaster Carrick. This painting is currently displayed on the John Mulcaster Carrick Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mulcaster_Carrick) and is also uploaded with different authorship on the commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Death-Arthur-Carrick.jpg). John Mulcaster Carrick is at least listed in ULAN with appropriate dates to be attributed to the painting (http://vocab.getty.edu/page/ulan/500006272). Not sure if that impacts anything at this point, thought I’d share just in case. Annrose90 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it shows I was right to delete! Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

FA criteria

Overall the article looks in decent shape but what's with the further reading section? Ideally if these works are sufficiently important /contain additional info that belongs in the article they would be cited. (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article was promoted in 2008 and the works in further reading have been published since then. It could do with updating if anyone has the time and inclination, and the section draws editors attention to additional sources. It is also useful to people who just use Wikipedia as a bibliography, such as students writing an essay who prefer to form their view based on the sources without being influenced by reading the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Celtic

@Buidhe@Dudley Miles an editor has changed Celtic to Romano-British. Is that ok? Piggy backing on this, sorry. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither is correct, but there is no really satisfactory alternative. He was too late to be Romano-British (except according to some controversial theories) and historians object to the term Celtic except as referring to the language. The native opponents of the Anglo-Saxons are generally just referred to as the British in modern histories of the period, and I have gone with that in editing this article, although it may confuse some people. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Titus Gold has reverted my change from Celtic Briton to British with the comment "Seen talk. Celtic britons is clearer. Think there should be a consensus to change from this." We go by the usage of reliable sources, not the opinion of editors on what is clearer. There is not universal agreement among specialists on the period, but the balance of opinion is very much against Celts. Contemporary usage in charters etc. was generally to describe the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants as Britons, or occasionally as Welsh. The Cornish were sometimes called the West Welsh. I do not remember seeing the term Celt in any contemporary source. "Celtic" is occasionally used by modern historians. In 2018 the leading Cambridge University historian Rory Naismith reviewed my submission of Æthelflæd to the WikiJournal of Humanities at [3]. He commented on the term Celtic "Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." I replied that I could not alter it as the term was in a quote from another historian, Nick Higham. There is also an article on Celts in the 2014 edition of the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, although this is retained from the first 1999 edition. Most historians prefer the term Britons. This is used in Naismith's volume of the 'Cambridge History of Briton'. Thomas Charles-Edwards's volume of the Oxford History of Wales is titled Wales and the Britons 350-1064. Higham and Ryan's 2013 The Anglo-Saxon World uses Celtic for the language and Britons for the people., even though Higham in 2001 (cited above) had referred in 2001 to "Celtic visions". George Molyneaux in his The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century also calls the people Britons. Leading specialists have always, so far as I am aware, avoided referring to Celtic people in the last 20 years, and we should go by the views of the experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

King Arthur is primarily a figure of medieval literature, in which he is associated simply with Britain. The allegedly historical Arthur who supposedly fought the Saxons is secondary. The ethnicity of the allegedly historical Arthur who supposedly fought the Saxons is so far down the list it should not be in the opening sentence. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Text is changed to Briton. Arguably this is not clear enough as there were both native Britons and anglo-saxons living on the island during the period (as well as other groups in the area now known as Scotland). Perhaps "native Briton" might work? Titus Gold (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that the Arthur who fought the Saxons is secondary. He was made famous by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who presented him as a hero because he defeated the Saxon invaders. I also do not agree with native Britons. That implies that the Saxons were non-native Britons, which is odd. He is currently described as "a legendary Briton who, according to medieval histories and romances, was leader of the Britons in battles against Saxon invaders". We do not need to say Briton twice, so I would change "legendary Briton" to "legendary hero". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reorganised the lede a bit, giving what I think is the appropriate prominence to the literary and putatively historical aspects of the character. See what you think. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think his supposed role in fighting the Saxons should be mentioned in the first sentence. It is in Geoffrey of Monmouth, who is the most well known and influential source. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the second sentence is fine. The vast majority of Arthurian literature is not much concerned with Arthur fighting Saxons. It could be argued that the Round Table, the sword in the stone, Lancelot's affair with Guinevere and the Grail quest are more important elements of Arthur's story than fighting Saxons and should all have more prominence in the lede, and they were all introduced post-Geoffrey. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Tall tale?

I think King Arthur is a legend rather than a tall tale (see categories). Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)