Talk:Cynllibiwg

message: This article contains no valid references, and several statements that are uninformed and incorrect. I have put in a few fact-tags, and the tagged statements will be deleted if they remain unreferenced. . . .LinguisticDemographer 20:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the website referenced here : "A study of Wales in the twelfth century soon shows that there were four competing Welsh 'kingdoms' striving for dominance in this isolated, mountainous and generally poor region, viz Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys and Cynllibiwg." Funny no scholars of medieval Welsh history mention it. But hold on, the reason is that it "was only recently rediscovered" (presumably by the author of the website). Enaidmawr 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Almost every sentence in this article could be prefaced with "According to P. M. Remfrew" and concluded with "however this is not accepted by other historians of early and medieval Wales." Where is the proof that any reputable scholar other than the author of the website given here (and placed here by the website owner, it would appear) and the book referenced at Rhwng Gwy a Hafren (ditto) supports this theory? This should be merged with Rhwng Gwy a Hafren and critically edited to sort fact from theory. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tagged as Original research as per wikipedia policy: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". Enaidmawr (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

text: See my comment on Talk:Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Remfry is undoubtedly an expert on the castles of Wales.  Another article cites his M. Phil. thesis, on a related subject to this article.  Technically, this may be WP:OR, but it is the research of a reliable historian.  It thus desrves respect.  If there are articles, as some one states, can they be cited?  If others disagree with this interpretation, can their writings be cited?  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've proposed merging this into Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

text: That's the problem with giving this kind of weight to new and largely unaccepted (or not yet accepted) theories on Wikipedia. Including them with no caveat makes them appear that they have a great level of acceptance in mainstream history than they really do, and including them with a caveat requires a credible expert to have actually weighed in against them. Personally I would have preferred that Cynllibiwg be deleted or merged elsewhere barring much better sources than we currently have; the line you mention was the compromise provided so that the article be kept at all.--Cúchullain t/c 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

message: Remfry's theory falls afoul of FRINGE, which states that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Nothing against him, but we can't reference his personal website, which only references (and sells) his own self-published books, as evidence that this theory is notable. Any non-reliable source needs to stay out.--Cúchullain t/c 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is excessively harsh.  This, which sets out his thinking in "Discovering the lost kingdom of Radnor", describes him as "an independent historian, author of The Castles of Radnorshire (Logaston, 1997) and of many booklets on castles."  The fact that the Council for British Archaeology publishes his articles in a well-known publication surely gives him some respectability.  It's also ref'd here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

text: PS: I've now reinstated the info, with the legit Remfry ref above.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree with Cuchullain regarding FRINGE. This isn't an inflammatory fringe, but it is fringe nonetheless. If Remfry is talking about castles and archaelogy, well and good, as that is his area of expertise. And that seems to be the focus of the  links provided: archaeology, excavations, castles, that kind of thing. The anecdotal exception where he publishes an article on political history (eg, Remfry's 1994 A political hstory of Abbey Cwmhir) may be interesting reading due to Remfry's knowledge of archaeology, but it doesn't qualify Remfry as a reliable source on the topic of general history – his might be a reference in support of reliable source's thesis, but he is not a reliable source in support of his own thesis, as he is out of his area of expertise. Nor does the Council for British Archaeology count as a scholarly publication outside of its own area of expertise. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I didn't mean to knock Remfry; this is not the kind of daft nonsense we often think of when we think of something as "fringe". But this is a novel idea that hasn't gotten traction outside of Remfry's own writing. As such it's disingenuous for it to be discussed here, especially if we're just quoting his own self-published sources.--Cúchullain t/c 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I don't think we have the authority to cherry pick like that. A report published in a reliable source meets criteria for inclusion - we shouldn't be adding our own opinions as to whether it was legitimate for that source to have published it. If other reliable sources criticise Remfry's work, we should of course quote them as well - but I haven't seen anything that does, only the opinions of editors here. Sorry, but they don't count, however well qualified they may be.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please don't spin what I said into an interpretation like that. It is a response to your specific example, so if it is cherry-picked, it is yourself that picked the cherry. As for 'other reliable sources' being critical of Remfry's work (in political history, which is the specific example that you cite), the criterion regarding inclusion of potentially "fringe" theories is to have those criticisms in hand before including the theory so that they can be included, so as not to give undue prominence. Note that this applies to Remfry's theory, and not to whether or not Cynllibiwg existed in some form; the existence of Cynllibiwg is not the point here, only Remfry's theory that Rhwng Gwy a Hafren was a kingdom known as Cynllibiwg. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I've been busy over on cy: of late - 25,000 articles at last! - so I've just seen this. I think I've said just about all I have to say about Cynllibiwg and Mr Remfry's theories above. As for the name, the Cinlipiuc of the H.B. is clearly a Latinised form of the Welsh name, the standard rendering of which, in Welsh and English sources alike (few as they are, but including Wendy Davies), is Cynllibiwg. Other than that, I'm not too concerned about the article's fate as long as we make clear that Remfry's medieval kingdom theory is just that, a theory, and pretty much his alone: almost counts as 'OR'. Besides, I'm off to Morocco for seven weeks from tomorrow so this debate will be part of wikipedia history by the time I return, no doubt. I'll be back about a week before Christmas. I expect to find at least 50 new articles on Early Medieval Wales by that time, or heads will roll... :-) Enaidmawr (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: However little you may like Paul Remfry's theories, British Archaeology is a WP:RS, though a popular (rather than academic one).  His publisher Logaston Press is a small but reputable publisher of local history of the Welsh border area.  Both the Red Book and Domesday Book are precisely cited.  People like Cúchullain are seeking certainty where there is none.  There just are no more sources on the history of mid-Wales in the 11th century and before.  We have a historical vaccum.  This means that Remfry's view is worthy of at least as much respect as any other historian, at least until an academic historian comes up with a better theory as to what the names refer to.  The fact that the topic is ignored in earlier histories is hardly surprising: there was noting to comment on until Remfry propounded his theory.  Both Kenthlebiac and Cinlipiuc come from Latin sources that have mangled Welsh names, so that a reconstructed Welsh name is probably to be preferred.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I would oppose merger to Rhwng Gwy a Hafren because we cannot be sure whether Remfry is correct as to its extent: it might as easily be just two or three of the later Welsh states in the area, rather than all of them: it is impossible to know, but for me to propound that theory is WP:OR.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to Remfry, or even his theories per se, I just object to giving weight to a theory that has gotten negligible scholarly coverage. At any rate, I have rewritten the section Cynllibiwg section at Rhwng Gwy a Hafren to include the information here. Discussing it there doesn't imply that Cynllibiwg represented all or most of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, but if the Red Book reference can be trusted it was certainly located within that region. I'd like to complete the merge, but if others want Cynllibiwg to keep its own page, that's fine. Based on Peter and Enaid's comments re Cilipiuc I have changed some of the wording in the article, and reworded a few things for the sake of clarity. However, I removed the Gerald of Wales reference, as him not mentioning the word could mean any number of things; it's not our place to speculate.--Cúchullain t/c 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just as a general point, I think it's important in articles on entities like this not only to set out what is known about them, but also what is not known - not to ignore what others speculate, but to set out those speculations and explain what the uncertainties are.  After all, Google will lead many people to the more speculative sites (like EBK), and it should be the role of WP to inform those readers who then move on to here, and in effect say, "look, we know what those sites say, and we don't want you to add more stuff from them, but this is what the scholarly consensus is."  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and using 'scholarly consensus' has its own ambiguities. If Cynllibiwg isn't mentioned in scholarly works, then they must not have thought it was worth mentioning, so let's not mention it – just the sort of conclusion to be avoided. On the other hand, their lack of mention is not irrelevant to the issue, and absent compelling information and/or argument, it seems to be a caution to tread lightly, but not a caution to avoid the topic completely. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The lack of scholarly discussion in works before the 1990s proves nothing, because the issue had not been raised.  The two allusions had not been linked.  I consider that the level of detail both here and in Rhwng Gwy a Hafren is appropriate, and would suggest that we do not need to spend more time on the question, until it is addressed by some other scholar, with a substantive no arguement.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Remfry 2K9