Talk:King Arthur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the King Arthur article.
Article policies
Good article King Arthur has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified King Arthur as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Esperanto language Wikipedia.
To-do list for King Arthur: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Clean up the article: Cite everything, proofread, resolve tagged issues, etc.
  • Apply for peer review and resolve all issues brought up.
  • Apply for FA status.
Archive
Archives
/Archive1


Contents

[edit] King Arthur project collaboration

The King Arthur project is beginning a collaboration on this article to bring it to FA status, so it is likely to change drastically in a short time. I just marked a lot of the article with fact tags, as the article will need inline citations if it wants to be FA. To be honest, this article seems poorly organized and kind of hard to understand right now. If I wasn't confident this would be fixed soon, I would remove this article's GA status by delisting it. Anyone who is willing to add their efforts to bettering this article are perfectly welcome. Wrad 20:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An overlooked topic needing coverage

Whenever I have looked at this article over the last few months, I notice that there is one major hole in its coverage: nowhere is the actual story of Arthur told. This could -- (& in my opinion should) be covered in a paragraph or two. We don't need every detail of every event in his legendary life, just the highlights: his miraculous birth; his defeat of the Saxons at Mount Badon that brought a generation of peace; his marriage and relationship to Gwenevere; the acts of his followers, whose numbers and tales swelled with each retelling; & the fatal rupture with Mordred that led to Camlann. Anyone who believes we need to add more details should be directed to the relevant articles to satisfy this need to add details. -- llywrch 20:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. Wrad 22:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thats not a neutral statement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people (Fictional characters such as King Arthur are not included in these lists.) Doesnt this statement break the WIKIPEDIA Rule regarding Neutrality? Since not everyone agrees that King Arthur is fictional why does it state that he is fictional? (Vrnparker 04:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC))


[edit] Sarmatian theory

The 2004 movie King Arthur (see King_Arthur_(film)) promotes the theory that Arthur was actually Artorius Castus, a knight descendant of Sarmatian warriors who were brought to Britain in indentured service of the Roman army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.186.219 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

And your point is what exactly? How does this comment help improve the article? Are you actually proposing that this film, a work of fiction, posits a reasonable theory as to the origins of King Arthur? Or is this just a random comment? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The Samaritan Theory is not 'random'. Many Samaritans were hired as Mercenary's by the Romans and eventually settled in Britain. It is unlikely that Arthur was a decendant of one, but even if he was, it would be almost impossible for even him to know so long after the Romans had left Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catuvellauni (talk • contribs) 17:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
What I said is that the comment was random, not the "theory." Frankly, I think the comment hardly rises to the level of a "theory." This is more like someone thinking aloud. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 17:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection

This page was unprotected 00:36, 15 October 2007 by WJBscribe with the edit summary "Unprotected King Arthur: Protected 5 months - trying unprotection". The immediate result has been a flood of vandalism and the erosion of the text: see here. WJBscribe had not recently edited King Arthur and has not since reverted a single act of the vandalism unleashed; I surmise, therefore, that the page is not even on WJBscribe's Watchlist. So unprotection has been tried, once again, and this is the result. Semi-protection of this article was a courtesy to hard-working adult Wikipedians. No one is unable to view a semi-protected article, after all. Could we beg our Teen Administrators to protect this article? --Wetman 15:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, another comment you chose not to make to to me. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of page protection - nowhere in Wikipedia's protection policy does it say that semi-protection is a courtesy to anyone. Semi-protection is a last resort when levels of vandalism go beyond what the usual watchlisting and reverting of vandalism can cope with. I do not believe that is presently the case with this article, though you may request another opinion at WP:RFPP (I recognise that some other admins are more ready to protect than I am). I do not however see any erosion of the text having occured (see this diff) comparing the article now and just after protection), in fact the article has been expanded. As I said at Talk:French Revolution‎, I would appreciate you addressing future concerns to me directly. WjBscribe 04:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism here isn't that bad. It's about what we get every day on the Romeo and Juliet page. Just a simple revert fixes it. Wrad (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links Revised + Further Reading Added

Removed commercial links and added some actually useful ones... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Added some additional further reading -- key texts and academic discussions of Arthur (e.g. Padel, 1994; Padel, 2000; Bromwich, 1991; Green, 2007) were not present in bibliography/further reading: now added. Have now looked through whole piece in detail: generally seems good, some confusion and gaps in places however and a little bit of inaccuracy here and there... Any objections to me making necessary changes? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. We'll take a look when you're done to edit it for style etc. If you need anything, let me or someone else know.--Cúchullain t/c 20:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I've had a go at the historicity section so far, adding in some extra refs and deleting some material that seemed out of place. See what you think -- the right general direction?? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, your edits have been a great improvement. I'll go through and make some style changes - mostly date formatting, removing words like "unfortunately", that sort of thing, nothing major. It's good to have someone who knows the subject editing here, keep up the good work.--Cúchullain t/c 06:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind comments :) I have now added some additional refs to the historicity section and revised the etymology section too, which lacked refs and was too reliant on the Griffen's work. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
It's looking good. Thanks for your excellent contributions.--Cúchullain t/c 23:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] King Arthur's Last name?

What was King Arthur's last name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.132.90 (talk) 02:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Pendragon. Wrad (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.132.90 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't. He doesn't have one. "Pendragon" treated as his "surname" by a lot of modern writers because his father was called Uther Pendragon, but "Pendragon" is not Uther's surname, it's an epithet, and epithets are not usually inherited. As far as I know there's not a single medieval source that refers to "Arthur Pendragon" or treats the name "Pendragon" as applying to Arthur. --Nicknack009 (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the case with a lot of/all Arthur characters. Their names change over time. Let's just say "in some versions" his last name is Pendragon, probably in all the versions in which he can be said to have a last name. Wrad (talk) 00:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


Dracula/Draculea means son of the Dragon, which Vlad did inherit from his father. So Arthur could have inherited Pendragon. Stranger things have happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 03:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A wife is not a possession

The section "Pre-Galfridian traditions" under "Literary traditions" contains the sentence "On the other, his warband in the earliest sources includes former pagan gods and his possessions (including his wife) are clearly Otherworldly in origin." A wife is not a possession, so somebody with an account should fix this, pretty please. 76.195.223.54 (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In many medieval traditions, a wife was considered a possession, actually, so I'm not so sure it's incorrect. Wrad (talk) 18:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to "his possessions and his wife" to make it less condescending.--Cúchullain t/c 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I was working on it and saved over yours but with same result :) Wrad is perhaps correct; Ford treats Gwenhwyfar thus, but in article such as this an alteration is more than appropriate. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
That's about what I was thinking. It's not exactly incorrect, but for a more modern article a neutral statement is more than fair. Wrad (talk) 00:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revision and Full Referencing of Article, Feb 2008

Ok, I think I'm done for now :) I've revised and updated all the sections in light of recent academic work etc and added references throughout. I've also updated the Bibliography to reflect the sources used. Any comments most welcome :) I've tried to refocus the text slightly on Arthur himself and his changing portrayal, in order to reflect the desire expressed above for a summary of his biography -- this changes from text to text so would be hard to make work, hopefully the above goes someway to at least giving the impression of his changing biog/role in the Matter of Britain. A couple of points from doing this revision that some readers/editors might be interested in:

(1) there was a reference to a Taliesin poem called Journey to Deganwy in the text I started to edit -- the reference to this poem was removed as it is not recognized by academic researchers as a genuinely early poem and is only found in post-medieval manuscripts, not the 13th-century Book of Taliesin. I've also cut a similar reference out of another Arthur article on wiki too, for the same reason. I'm guessing its presence in both is due to influence/misreading of John Matthews?

(2) Is it worth considering a section on Arthur's family, pre- and post-Galfridian? There is quite a bit of info that might be utilised and it might help flesh out his biog. I've confined myself to editing only existing material but wonder if this might not be worth doing... thoughts?

Cheers :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested in expansion on that second point. I also think we should add some sections about his portrayal in films and other media. Wrad (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how much of a biography a mythical king of the Britons really needs to have, but I'd imagine if there's anyone who could do it it would be you, Hrothgar. I'd suggest if we do anything we should keep it simple. I considered writing an article on Arthur's children, as there seems to be a pretty wide spectrum of information on that - the most obvious is Mordred, but there's a lot more material on it. I agree with Wrad that we might need to do something on Arthur's portrayal in modern times, but deciding what to include and what to leave out is a very daunting task.--Cúchullain t/c 06:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol, ok -- I'll have a go at a simple version. On the modern material, I'd suggest it too ought to be fairly simple -- perhaps key influential texts + trends in portrayal (e.g. the shift in a number of treatments from the romance Arthur to the 'Celtic'/'historical' Arthur etc), with particularly interesting 'different' concepts of Arthur (e.g. Camelot 3000) noted? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 10:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
A spectacular improvement. --Wetman (talk) 12:27, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you :) Edits seemed good to me, basically just cleaned up floating full stop from edit etc and standardized on century to current format (i.e. atm hyphenation avoided so no distinction between "a 12th-century poem" and "a poem written in the 12th century" -- is it worth going through and making this distinction the standard though, I wonder?) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Another thing we should add is an Influences section. Describing his effect on British culture. This would be another tricky section to write. Wrad (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The FA-Team is interested in helping our project get this page to FA status. The way things are going, I'd say we could get there in a month or two. The FA-Team would help with copyediting and reviewing and other things, while we would be providing the research and content of the article. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me :) Working on the 'Arthur's Family' bit now... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur's family

Put a couple of paragraphs up -- any thoughts on what else it might need? Cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Anything about his kids? They're an interesting bunch... Wrad (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Put a bit up -- more needed or should that be reserved for separate article?? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Let's start by adding whatever is relevant. If it gets too long we can create a new article then.--Cúchullain t/c 23:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Minor spelling queries

The following appear to be be minor errors or inconsistencies in spelling. Please ignore if the perception is incorrect.

  • Can someone with access to the Padel's Arthur in Medieval Welsh Literature check to see if the quote "inactivity and acquiesence constituted a central flaw in his otherwise ideal society." actually misspells acquiescence?
  • There are references in the section "Pre-Galfridian traditions" to the Otherworld as Annwfyn (wikilinked, but listed as inaccurate at the article), and as Annwfn (translated in parentheses). Are the two spelling variations correct for the article?
  • pre-Galfridan appears once in the article, but pre-Galfridan is present multiple times.
  • Medraut and Medrawt refer to the same individual in the article.

That's all I have for this pass. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

  • fixed
  • fixed to avoid confusion, though Annwfyn, Annwn, Annwfn are in fact all legitimate spellings :-/ (and thus Wiki article on Annwn is itself wrong and needs updating)
  • fixed
  • fixed
Thanks :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha! You fixed the entry properly even with my typo on pre-Galfridian in the query; a sad example of paste misuse on my part. Excellent. -- Michael Devore (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Removal Of John Morris

There was some relevant information which mainly concerned the theories of John Morris. I would like to know why they are edited out, because I will put them back in if there are no objections. ---G.T.N. (talk) 01:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything major on him, so must have been before recent edits... In any case, I'm not sure the article needs any more -- he's significant, but not that much so for Arthur as a whole (rather than just his historicity) and he already has a big section in the relevant part. If we increase his section, then we probably ought to increase others and historicity is already very large... Perhaps more appropriate to have a separate section on him in the Historical basis for King Arthur article, which is lacking one? Any other thoughts? Hrothgar cyning (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. But that article is getting big itself. In a few more weeks we might have to separate it out. Perhaps into "Historical Theories," and "Mythological Arthur," or into separate articles by area of origin (such as Arthur of Wales, Arthur of the Old North, Arthur of Logres, etc.) if really necessary. I'll get back to you on the John Morris section idea. ---G.T.N. (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok :) You're right on that article, it does need something doing to it... cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked out the John Morris article, and it's pretty short. There's also no "Age of Arthur" article. I'm going to read it and start that one. As for the Historical Arthur article, I think it really ought to be split up, so I'm going to look into it. More talk on it there? ---G.T.N. (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

--Craterus (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation of / additions to article

I've moved things around a bit to try and give the article more of a structure and added sections on Arthur's Return and Arthurian Revival/Modern Arthurian lit/film. Any thoughts? Do we still want something on the influence of the Arthurian legend? Anything else? Cheers :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Influence would be good, and we need a good peer review. Wrad (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the influence of the Arthurian legend be covered on the article about the specific subject rather than Arthur himself? Particularly because other characters and concepts of the legend have had their own influence on European culture. Dimadick (talk) 06:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we need it narrowed to just Arthur's influence. Wrad (talk) 06:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Though the first part of the name Arthur shares meaning and linguistic commonality with the Latin word Ursus (Bear) and a superficial resemblance to Artorius (Latin for ploughman)it is surely Celtic in the form, eirth dur.  Eirth or arth does indeed mean bear.  Dur or thur as it is sometimes rendered, technically means steel not iron, though "Iron Bear" would be the most esthetically pleasing literal translation to English and has to the modern ear a native American quality.  It is possible however that Arthur is an appellation and not a given name.  It must be noted that as a given name it became quite popular among the Celts even during Arthur’s probable lifetime.  The question still stands was Arthur the birth name of the great hero of the age?

Craterus

[edit] Peer Review/influence

Peer Review has finished and I'll incorporate changes when I finish writing the influence section (half-way done)... What next, guys? cheers :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 09:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done :) Have not expanded lead paragraphs, just split up at an obvious point. Do they need more in them? Also, is there a relevant info-box? Do we need any more changes or another peer-review/copy-editing, or is it worth me putting it up for FA?cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 12:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try and get us a more thorough Peer Review from the FA-team soon. Wrad (talk) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typo in quote

Re: the Norris Lacy quote "The popular notion of Arthur appears to be limited, not suprisingly, to a few motifs and names,...", can someone with access to the reference check if the typo suprisingly is accurate for the quote and [sic] or correct as needed? Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Done :) And thanks :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] The "Return" of Arthur

This is not historical fact, as far as I know, but LEGEND: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley%2C_1st_Duke_of_Wellington In Britain's greatest hour of need, "Arthur" did return. Maybe someone out there in wikiland knows the whole story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Arthur's Welsh genealogy"
"Arthur's Welsh genealogy"

[edit] The "genealogy"

Is the synthesized "genealogy" at right, which has been cherry-picked from various sources and combined in one layout, actually rendering a sound informative service? Standards of the current article are very high: an unattributed, assembled "genealogy" might not be appropriate. --Wetman (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed :) Don't know who added it, but it does actually conflict with parts of text so am removing it.Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] peer review

The recent peer review has some comments to look into. Wrad (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, been busy! Yeah, some excellent comments -- the lead is one thing I haven't touched but reading the peer review it looks like it needs it; I'll have a go in a couple of days or so if no-one else has. On length, I agree it is too long -- perhaps cut out all of the 'aspects' (e.g. weapons) into separate articles, with a brief para linking to them? This would seem the easiest way of shortening it, as I'd rather not cut the description of the development of the legend. Any other thoughts? Cheers :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 10:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
ooh, see someone has already done the moving etc! excellent :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to try to address Geometry Guy's comments about the lead in the next day or two. I think the article is in good shape for a go at FAC quite soon. I would like to suggest the use of abbreviated notes, with all the book and article details in the bibliography. For me, the notes section is so dense as to be almost unreadable, and most of the information is repeated in the bibliography anyway. How would you feel about that proposal? The other thing is that the books need ISBNs, which is a long and tedious job (I know that this is not done in academia, on the whole; but ISBNs make looking books up on line easy–they take one straight to the edition).
As you noticed, I've shipped some info out into other articles. (You may like to take Excalibur in hand sometime, because your material has put the uncited stuff in that article to shame.) I think the length is OK now, if the notes can be streamlined. There's a loss of some history material about Edward I and Henry VIII, etc., but I think this can be rectified in a sentence or two, without going into the former detail. It's a shame to cut down your excellent work, but this is the trouble with Wikipedia, it works in single pages and not in a series of pages or chapters like a book, or Encyclopedia Britannica, for example. We could do with a page two and a page three, etc., but Wikipedia articles don't work like that, unfortunately. qp10qp (talk) 02:02, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I second the proposal about the notes; I would also suggest including in the "Bibliography" only what is in fact cited. (This may be the case at present, of course; it's hard to tell.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know what I can do to help. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What still needs to be done

  • The last two sections particularly need a good copyedit, since they tend to listiness, and, as Jbmurray says, verge on trivia in places. Jbmurray also mentions in an edit summary that the "Historical truth" section is all over the place, and so needs sharpening. In the peer review, Geometry Guy commented yesterday on the choppiness of the lead and its need to summarise more material from the article. That's on my list, but any input from other editors there would be good too. qp10qp (talk) 22:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I can start on the copyedit, but what does "last two sections" refer to precisely? Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
"Tennyson and the Revival" and "Modern Legend." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have rearranged and copy edited "Tennyson and the Revival". This is going to need more work, though. I was loath to remove material - I know how important all of the nineteenth-century writers and works are. Perhaps I'll have more perspective later in the day! I'll also try to get to "Modern Legend". Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I have made a first pass at copy editing "Modern legend". I tried to remove some of the more trivial and listy information. Awadewit (talk) 02:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Great work. You have the rough end of the stick there. I have copyedited the lead and the "Historical truth" section. qp10qp (talk) 18:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I have done a first and a second pass over "Tennyson and the Revival" and "Modern Legend" now. Someone else may want to look it over. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've abbreviated the notes as best I could. They and the bibliography could do with more consistency. Perhaps Awadewit and Jbmurray could look at them to see what more needs to be done. Jbmurray has mentioned in an edit summary the, in my opinion, pedantic "at" used for some page references, and I agree with him that that might as well go, though this is not the first time I've seen that form (if you are around, can you comment, Hrothgar?).
Jbmurray has gone beyond the call of duty here, and the notes look tight and clear now, no mean feat. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • In the bibliography, there is no real consistency on where commas and full stops are used (a mix of footnote and bibliography form). I am willing to go through it, but what style would be best here? Also, there are too many page numbers (and still the fiddly, breaky, and unnecessary p./pps) in the bibliography, in my opinion: on what principle could some of them be removed (they seem to me OK for articles but not books)? I will bow to Hrothgar's, Jb's, and Awadewit's academic experience on this, as I am a total amateur on referencing formats and proceed rather on a "monkey see, monkey do" basis.

Though the prose and organisation are still dense in places, the article's sourcing is comprehensive and the weighting nuanced, so I feel this is worth submitting for FAC soon (thoughts, anyone?) I've learned a great deal from Hrothgar's approach: it's wonderful to have such a clear-eyed view of this messy subject. Smart copyediting from here on will nail this, I think. qp10qp (talk) 22:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

We are very close now, I'm sure. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
On referencing... what would people think if I changed to "citation" and "harvnb" templates. OK, I know I'm a fan anyhow. But it does seem to me that this is a case where such templates are really useful in sorting through a thicket of references. Thoughts? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 22:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a great fan of harvnb, as you know, but if you are willing to undertake what would be a laborious task and then keep an eye on the maintenance, I think that would be an offer this article could not refuse. So I would be in favour. I also doubt whether this article is going to need much reference revision in the future, so that system stands a chance of remaining more stable here than in more volatile articles. qp10qp (talk) 22:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Uff, I did, what, a tenth of the references? It is indeed a laborious task. I know Gguy loves this stuff, too, though, so perhaps he can help out. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, another bibliographical issue that strikes me is the, in my opinion, rather uncomfortable mix of fiction and reference works. Should these be separated? Of course, there is poetry too. qp10qp (talk) 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Strike-through text
OK. qp10qp (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed from bibliography

Here is a list of sources that, as far as I can see, are not directly cited in the present text (some did cite parts of the article now moved to other pages). I am not sure what to do with them: should they be made into a "Further reading" section, removed altogether, or kept with the other sources for a separate page? I believe it helps to thin this long bibliography on this page, but the total bibliography is useful as a resource in itself. Hrothgar, could you possibly check these, in case I have made a mistake? qp10qp (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Barber, R. King Arthur in Legend and History (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2004). ISBN 0-85115-254-6 [1]
  • Arthur of Albion: An Introduction to the Arthurian literature and Legends of England, London: Boydell, 1961, OCLC 8780987 .
  • Bromwich, R. "Concepts of Arthur", Studia Celtica, 9/10 (1975-6), pp.163–81.
  • Bryant, N. The High Book of the Grail: A translation of the thirteenth century romance of Perlesvaus (Brewer, 1996)
  • Bullock-Davies, C. "Exspectare Arthurum, Arthur and the Messianic Hope" in Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies 29 (1980-82), pp.432-40
  • Clarke, B. (ed. and trans.) Life of Merlin: Vita Merlini (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1973)
  • Ditmas, E. M. R. "The Cult of Arthurian Relics" in Folklore 75.1 (1964), pp.19-33 at pp.26-7
  • Haycock, M. Legendary Poems from the Book of Taliesin (Aberystwyth: CMCS, 2007)
  • Isola, Z. "Defending the Domestic: Arthurian Tropes and the American Dream" in E. S. Sklar and D. L. Hoffman (edd.) King Arthur in Popular Culture (Jefferson: McFarland, 2002), pp.24-35
  • Jarman, A. O. H. Aneirin: Y Gododdin, Britain's Oldest Heroic Poem (Llandysul, 1988)
  • Jones, T. "The Early Evolution of the Legend of Arthur", Nottingham Medieval Studies, 8 (1964), pp. 3–21.
  • Lewis, C. S. That Hideous Strength (London: Lane, 1945)
  • Loomis, Roger Sherman (1959), “The Legend of Arthur’s Survival”, in Loomis, Roger Sherman, Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages: A Collaborative History, Oxford: Clarendon, pp. 64–71, OCLC 190970 .
  • MacKillop, J. Dictionary of Celtic Mythology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)
  • Masefield, J. Midsummer Night and Other Tales in Verse (London: Heinemann, 1928)
  • Rosenberg, B. A. "Kennedy in Camelot: The Arthurian Legend in America" in Western Folklore 35.1 (1976), pp. 52-59
  • Rowland, J. Early Welsh Saga Poetry: a Study and Edition of the Englynion (Cambridge, 1990)
  • Snyder, C. Exploring the World of King Arthur London: Thames and Hudson, 2000 ISBN 978-0500051047.
  • Starkey, D. "King Arthur and King Henry" in Arthurian Literature XVI (1998), pp.171-96
There are a bunch more uncited references in there, too; I've left some inline notes, and am far from finished. I'm not sure what to do with these, especially as we also have List of books about King Arthur already. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing page numbers

Hrothgar, next time you are around, could you give page references for the following cited authors (unless you feel that a general reference is sufficient in these cases)?

  • J. Morris
  • R. Morris
  • Anderson
  • Phillips and Keatman
  • Merriman
  • Topsfield
  • Kibler and Carroll

qp10qp (talk) 22:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Bartrum's direct quotation definitely needs a page no., too. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And a couple of others. It'd be grand if Hrothgar could cast his/her eye over 'em all. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find alternative refs from my own books and will have a trawl around Google Books and Amazon Search Inside as well. qp10qp (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed all these plus others, except Bartrum (will try to find a similar quote). Some I found the page numbers for and others I've cut or replaced with alternative cites. I realised that John Morris doesn't need a page, since the whole book is mentioned. There's no initial to distinguish J and R Morris: even though the links click to the right ones, I wonder if there is a way to add the initial with Harvnb? qp10qp (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't find a replica of the Bartrum quote but have found a ref for the rest of the point about spurious Welsh sources for Geoffrey found by Lewis Morris and co. So, I've cut the quote and the unpaged Bartrum ref and replaced it with Rosemary Sweet. To my knowledge that's all non-general cites page-numbered now. qp10qp (talk) 00:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cut some peripheral stuff

I cut the following:

Related to this suggestion is one popular theory that, whatever the origins of the name 'Arthur', it was not actually a name but rather an epithet borne by the man who led the Britons against the Saxons.<|ref>Rudmin & Rudmin 1993, chapter 5</ref|> Some Arthurian enthusiasts suggest that the 'nom de guerre' Arthur is a combination of the Welsh and Latin words for "bear", 'art' and 'ursus'.<|ref>Phillips & Keatman 1992</ref|> However, such ideas have not, as yet, gained widespread acceptance.

If these ideas haven't gained widespread acceptance, maybe we can do without them. It's not as if the ideas are well-based: the first point is not backed up by any historical source that I know of; and the Rudmin site has been deemed unreliable at Peer Review, being a creation of amateur enthusiasts. The Phillips and Keatman point is totally unintelligible to me ("bear bear"?). Before I cut this stuff I looked through my books and on Google Books and Amazon Search inside but could find no mention of these particular theories. qp10qp (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, this was in the original text I started to revise and reference back in Feb and is a partial survival from that. I certainly don't see either idea as having any merrit and am happy with them cut, but would caution that it remains a common 'theory' amongst non-scholarly writers and enthusiasts and so some recognition that it has no serious academic support might not be out of place... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References/bibliography

I don't agree (surprise, surprise) with the change from "Bibliography" to "References", even given that we have removed uncited works from the list. Two main reasons: a) the general readers will have no idea of the nuance that "references" means "works cited", so it is a largely wasted distinction—and they may also think of notes as references anyway; b) the distinction presupposes a future tight supervision of the list that is unfeasible on Wikipedia. In other words, you only have to have one note edited out or one book added to the list and the distinction is blown. I prefer "bibliography" for three reasons: a) it is self-evidently a list of sources, like the ones you see in the back of books that include works not necessarily cited directly in the book itself; b) it gives a Google hit to people searching for bibliographies on a topic (people don't use the search term "references"); c) (I know jbmurray disagrees with this) it should be easy enough to tell from the notes which books have been cited (well, if it isn't, the citation clarity should improve—it's not the bibliography's fault).

There are subtler aspects to this. When one has read widely on a topic, as Hrothgar has in this case, books not directly cited may feed indirectly into the writing all the same. Or one may, as I often do, choose to cite (where there is a choice) the most widely available books rather than expensive and rare ones which may nonetheless deserve a place in the bibliography. I also like to place on bibliographies books cited at second remove, though I may not have read them myself (you could argue here that one should therefore read them, but sometimes a source is seminal for one phrase or theory only.)

If we really are going to insist that the book list consist only of cited works, I suggest we call it "Works cited", just to make the point crystal clear. Would we then need a section called "Further reading", though (and what does "Further reading" actually mean?). qp10qp (talk) 14:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe... the can of worms is opened! Personally, I suspect that this is a matter to take to the MoS, but though I've never tried to alter even a comma of the MoS, a brief look at its talk pages suggests that I should be happy to pass out the remainder of my years without getting embroiled...
As Qp knows, given the imperfect WP world that we live in, I'm in favor generally of going with treating References as though it were works cited, and I'm also generally not in favor of "Further reading." Except that this might be a good case for a further reading section in which we picked two or three of the most important, broadest, and most accessible works from the "References" section. That actually makes sense. But it would probably do everyone's head in.
Meanwhile, and perhaps Gguy could add some input if he's watching this page, I was idly thinking as I was going through the references that it would be really cool if the makers of the citation and the harvnb templates could add the functionality so you could spring back as well as forwards: i.e. click somewhere on the bibliographic information in the "References" section and see where a work was actually cited in the text. That would be super marvellous. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
On that last point, Ling Nut showed on your talk page how one can use the back button, which takes you back to the note, from which you then go back to the text. This is actually slightly laborious, but not as laborious as finding one's way by scrolling. By this method, though, the note is not blued on the return journey, and one may still have to peer, especially when there is a string of notes to one source. Springing back to the note from the book list to the text would be ideal, but I don't know how that could be done when one source is noted several times. qp10qp (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Oh, I was aware of the back button. But I'm talking about something different. What if you wanted to start from the References list? OK, so I guess not everyone else starts reading an article from the references... But it would turn that section into something like an index. It would be really useful (to me, at least), especially with longer article. And, incidentally, you could instantly tell whether or not a source was actually cited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to put my two cents in for a "Bibliography" or a "Works Cited". These are two recognizable ways of listing sources. "Further reading" is just confusing for someone looking for research materials and I like to think that the article's bibliography is a helpful section in and of itself. Divided between "References" and "Further reading", the list of sources is not helpful to the person coming to the article looking for research help. I also like to promote the idea of using recognizable reference standards. I think it is easier on the reader than having to a learn a wiki-specific reference standard. Awadewit (talk) 20:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the name "references", because we can list references used in writing the article that have not been cited directly in the article's current state. I also believe "Further reading" sections are unnecessary.--Cúchullain t/c 15:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A few comments

I've noticed a sprinkling of "For example, [citation]" or "See, for example, [citation]" notes throughout the notes. I feel that these should either be expanded (a la "See Ashe 1985 for an attempt to use this vita as a historical source.") if explication is necessary/helpful to the reader or just cut down to the [citation] if the note is there to indicate that that particular reference was used. One particularly odd example of the "see, for example" usage is with current ref number 51: "See, for example, Brooke 1986, p. 95." The sentence uses quotations, so it leaves me wondering why this would be a "for example". Do other scholars use the same exact wording too?

On an incredibly picky note, there's an inconsistency in concluding full-stops for the notes which contain multiple references separated by semi-colons; some feature full-stops (Ashe 1985, p. 6; Padel 1995, p. 110; Higham 2002, p. 76.) while others do not (Hardy 1923; Binyon 1923; and Masefield 1927 [this one also has an "and" which the others do not). These should probably be made consistent. BuddingJournalist 09:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there are still some quirks. The notes have gradually been reduced from a great density. I assume the "see also" notes are to reinforce the main cite but perhaps along slightly variant lines. So the first one is a direct cite and the "see also" is probably to connected points. (I don't know, though, because I didn't make the notes.) Perhaps the see alsos can go, since the first citation will lead to a page that has its own notes and might lead to other scholarly sources in itself.
I'll have a look at the full stops. qp10qp (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

Just popped in and see lots has been done -- it's beginning to look real good and hopefully we should be able to get that FA status soon! It's nice to work with such a group of dedicated and thorough people :) I'll look over all the points mentioned above when I'm back with my books next week; on a preliminary check there are a couple of places where the reference no longer points to the right work, but these are minor fixes. Looking at the piece as a whole, are we now happy with length and is the lack of a section on import/impact of Arthur ok? There was one before, but then it was also too lengthy before too! Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hroth (if I may), good to see you back! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(Edit-conflicted the words out of my mouth.) Great to see you around. There are bound to be new little mistakes and shifted refs, owing to all our edits, and if you could check things through carefully when you have time, that would be wonderful. I think the impact of Arthur comes through generally and the "modern legend" part deals with that too.
What we need to do is get this submitted for FA. Just tell us when you are ready: you can nominate it, and we will brave the fray with you. We will be on hand to help, but you need to be reasonably available to respond to the questioning and requests, which can be gruelling. Please keep in touch with the three FA team members who have been attending here: me, user:jbmurray, and user:Awadewit, so that we know when you are ready to nominate the article.
All the best. qp10qp (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, once again, for the kind comments and all the help -- I'll check through it tomorrow after some sleep! And then, if everyone's happy, we'll go for it :) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm going to try my hardest to help the FA-Team on this one, and I was wondering if this is the type of article where every sentence should be referenced? This is what I'm going to try to achieve. Thanks.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  00:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think this article has been well worked over and is ready to go to FAC when main editor Hrothgar is ready. In other words, I think the FA Team have done their main work now. As far as the referencing goes, I don't think it needs to be increased, and I certainly never believe in citing every single sentence. I have checked all the information carefully and am sure that it is all covered by the copious citations; but of course, some people at FAC may ask for certain individual points to be further referenced—we can deal with that at the time. I think I had better drop a note at the FA Team to say where we are with this one: the other missions need more attention now, in my opinion, particularly the Everglades one. qp10qp (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the status information on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Featured articles/FA-Team page. qp10qp (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikisource refs

I see that a couple (I count three) references link to wikisource. I was wondering if that was ok or not.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  14:17, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd perhaps rather see us give full publication details for the editions on wikisource, but I don't think this is a major issue. In a sense, the wikisource is a convenience link: one could look up these refs in any editions of the works cited. One links to the bible or Shakespeare in this way without publication details. qp10qp (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In addition, is there anything wrong with good web refs?  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  14:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with good web refs; in fact they are wonderful. But they are few and far between (most King Arthur websites are dire). Thomas Green's site is good because it gives previously published scholarly documents: he is obviously committed to free quality information on the internet. qp10qp (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)