Talk:Hen Ogledd

message: This article lists "realms" of the Old North. I was thinking that we might be more specific by having a list of kingdoms (such as Rheged and Gododdin) and a list of known major cities (Such as Dumbarton, Chalchvynyd, and Din Eitin). By the way, could we be more specific on the exact extent of the Old North? I've seen it referred to as the are between the Walls, but also as the entire area once ruled by Coel Hen. ---G.T.N. (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Realms" 

message: The realms I added were culled mostly from "Y Gododdin", though some came from other Brythonic and early Welsh poems.  Also, Manau (aka Manaw) was a separate kingdom.  I changed the order of which kingdom absorbed the other because Oengus I of the Picts, aka Oengus mac Fergus (of the Eoghanachta Magh Geirghinn), the King of the Picts who ruled Fortriu, was the first ruler to unify the north.  The Eoghanachta were an Irish dynasty based in Munster of Ireland, and they had branches in southwest Britain as well as this one in Scotland (the Mag Geirghinn branch).  As a matter of fact, Kenneth MacAlpin and his first four successors used the title "King of Picts".  Constantine I was the first king to use the title "King of Alba".  Natty4bumpo 0406 EDT, 22 July 2008, (UTC)
:It's not a question of you "not caring if I've heard of Novant or not" - you are quite wrong to say that it is "listed" (there is no "list") in Y Gododdin. Which edition do you get that from? Would it be W. F. Skene's 19th century edition with all its many faults or some website? I have Ifor Williams's standard edition of the text, Canu Aneirin before me now; "nouant" (="nofant") is there, but is not a place name; it means "(they) stain" and refers to the staining of spears in blood. The reading of it as a place name stems from W. F. Skene and has long been disproved. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, so what is the point of flooding the page (you've bumped it from about 5 to 43 kb and some people's browsers may not cope with that) with all the above just to try and prove your point? And you're still wrong. The text you quote is presumably Skene's 19th century translation (you don't give a source...) and the map of Yr Hen Ogledd is just as antiquated and unreliable. Sorry, but you are wrong. You should use reliable modern sources (and QUOTE them). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, so you removed the text. Good. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest you learn Welsh before lecturing a Welsh speaker and student of Middle Welsh on the correct spelling of "Yr Hen Ogledd" (ever heard of the soft mutation?). And I was not talking of my browser, merely thinking of other users, some of them on dial-up. Do you have to be so uncourteous? Enaidmawr (talk) 23:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: John Koch's "The Place of 'Y Gododdin' in the History of Scotland" (Celtic Connections, vol 1: 200–210) has a map on p. 200, "North Britain 547–685" showing where Koch thinks the kingdoms may have been. Nouant is shown, so too, proceeding clockwise, are Aeron, Arecluta, Lleudinyawn, Guotodin, Berneich, Deur, Elmet, ?Breint (Koch's question mark), Erechwyd, Lleuenyd and Reget. There's a similar, if less detailed, map in his Celtic Culture: A Historical Encyclopedia's "Gododdin" article. For more information on the Old North, Lowe's Angels, Fools and Tyrants and Smyth's Warlords and Holy Men could be useful, and there's a modern edition of Y Gododdin edited by Koch which might be useful. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Koch is a fine scholar, but not everyone accepts his interpretations of the evidence in this and other cases; I'm sure he'd be the first to accept that. In the case of Novant I'd say he was in a minority of one (unless somebody else has followed him on that). Some of his place-names given above are rather "unconventional" too. You'll see the problem with the barely-attested amongst these place-mames (I don't mean Gododdin itself, Rheged, and others). Take "?Breint" - could just as easily be read breint=braint, a legal term related to privilege and status (too complicated to go into in detail here). Thanks for this though. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

text: "You never answered my questions above about Arfderydd and Calchfynydd". Irrevelant to what I actually said and the fact you fail to give a reference for your Gododdin quote, but you might like to now that I moved "Kingdom of Calchfynyd" (sic) to Calchfynydd and have tried to make the ambiguity of the place's status clear in the article (not started by me). As for the truly antiquated and unreliable map (see also the section below), you should have a good look at it: Calchfynydd (spelling's slightly different) is shown on it as a town or settlement! That's how unreliable this unsourced map is. (Re: Arfderydd. It's the site of a battle; did I claim it was a kingdom or even mention it?). As for Koch, he is entitled to his opinion but his claim hangs on the reading of one word in a single line of text and his his resuscitation of Skene's claim is controversial (Koch would readily accept that was the case). This list of Hen Ogledd place-names should be divided into - 1.) Attested kingdoms and sub-kingdoms (e.g. Rheged, Gododdin), whose existence is widely accepted; 2.) Possible kingdoms and subkingdoms, whose existence/status is uncertain (e.g. "Novant", "Calchfynydd"); 3.) Places mentioned in the texts which are almost certainly geographical features/areas/towns or forts etc rather than kingdoms (e.g. Arfderydd). That seems to me to be a sensible way forward. Enaidmawr (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: My additions

message: "Mae enw'r ddinas yn dod o'r Frythoneg Din Eidyn, sef Caer Eidyn."  (Natty4bumpo) 1413 EDT, 26 July 2008  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What does this mean?

message: I figured since someone else had already made a reference to Morris, his information about the partiarch of the northern dynasties "between the Walls" should be included also, especially since the Kings of Gwynedd, and later native Princes of Wales, descend from Cunedda, grandson of Paternus son of Tacitus. Regarding the intermarriage of the dynasty of Catellius Decimus which came to rule Alt Clut with the Dal Riata and the Picts of Fortriu, the first of the Gaels to rule Fortriu, though not Dal Riata itself, was Bridei mac Dargart of the Cenel Comgaill, grandson of Bili ap Nechtan of Alt Clut, who succeeded to the throne in Inverness in 696 CE.
The idea of the northern Britons was kept alive even after the merging of Strathclyde with Alba and Lothian & Dunbar into the new "Scotland" thru the title of the monarch, "King of the Scots and Britons", which the sovereign used even in the days of Alexander III, as the seal of that king attests.
P.S.: I just found out about signing with tildes; Hawkeye = Natty4bumpo, in case anyone is wondering. Hawkeye (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Additions about northern dynasties

message: No article should cite John Morris without caveat. This article needs a lot of work, and that will include downplaying the assertions of Morris and including citations to reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 22:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And now, after four months with no improvement, I went ahead weeding Morris out.--Cúchullain t/c 20:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that much of this material was re-added, and some of the cited material I added was removed in the process. I reiterate that Morris's work The Age of Arthur is not a reliable source for the history of this period, and was rejected at the time by scholars such as David Dumville. Morris' theories should not be included without caveat.--Cúchullain t/c 14:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support what Cúchullain says above and his edits. We have far too many examples of material added from unreliable and/or controversial sources to articles in the sub-Roman Britain and Celtic history categories. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While we're on the subject of reliable sources, I see that the three references for Dent/Dunoding are self-published websites whose reliability is known to be doubtful (they don't usually give sources, for instance, and often mix legend and history), viz EBK, Britannia and the History Files. The consensus reached at :Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject European History/Sub-Roman Britain Taskforce was that these are not acceptable sources for references and I'd go as far as to say that even as external links they are best avoided or given a clear caveat. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Today I created a stub for Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd (which was now more of an exercise in fiddling with a template than a proper attempt at writing an article), as Cuchullain was quick to notice. It isn't quite the reliable primary source one might hope for, but I'm afraid that it has been taken uncritically on some of the websites mentioned above, and worst of all, in the articles for some of the rulers listed in the text (eg. Pabo below), which rely on websites like EBK. (Just so you know there's never a shortage of work on wikipedia.) Cavila (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good start on Bonedd Gwŷr y Gogledd, by the way. Odd that such a thing has had such a long shelf-life, I suppose by being propagated on certain websites.--Cúchullain t/c 14:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with many of your comments about Morris, but in addition to his flights of fancy in his book (like his outrageous notion that Arthur was a Romanesque emperor of Britain), The Age of Arthur includes much to recommend it, such as his information about the archeology of the region concerned.  Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That comment was over a year old, but the point still stands. Whatever value Morris' book may have, it is too controversial to include it without caveat, and additionally, there are so many better sources that it isn't needed anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: John Morris

message: Perhaps this article is considered a fraud or hoax, but I see nothing wrong, only good work here. So, keep up with it please. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself is not a fraud or hoax, Catraeth, it's just that some of the material that gets added from time to time is unreliable or just plain wrong, culled from self-published websites etc. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course the article is not considered a fraud or a hoax, and the subject surely is worthy of inclusion. However, we cannot rely on material taken from John Morris' widely criticized book The Age of Arthur, or from later works that draw their conclusions from it. We shouldn't say that King Cole was "possibly the last local dux of Britannia Inferior based at Eboracum" who is "regarded in sources as King of Northern Britain", as this is a suggestion that originates with Morris. Other material seems to come from the unreliable websites that Enaid has pointed out above, and will have to be removed. Fortunately there are plenty of readily available reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/c 01:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We are supposed to mention different points of view from different sources. If there are more sources saying one thing, then the minor point of view would simply not be stressed, only made note of. A Merry Old Soul (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Morris' book is rejected to the point of being FRINGE. It nearly destroyed his reputation. I'm not saying we can't mention his ideas at all, but the material needs to be sourced to a source that is reliable (ie, not Morris' book itself) and it needs a caveat such as "According to historian John Morris' in his widely-criticized book The Age of Arthur..." It won't be hard finding other secondary sources that mention Morris' ideas and put them in the proper skeptical context.--Cúchullain t/c 02:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thought you should know that "A Merry Old Soul" has now been banned from editing. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Works which I would actually consider "fringe" are those by Geoffrey Ashe or (especially) Norma Goodrich. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very interested 

message: Several historians, with little basis, have attempted to locate Aeron in Ayrshire, because of the slight, very slight, similarity of names.  I argue that there is a much better probability, one adjoining the region where those so far identified were located.  Strathearn, the area between Manaw and Earra a Ghaidheal (Argyll), derives from Strath Eireann, or valley of the Irish, Eireann having the same pronounciation as Aeron.  Strath Eireann in Welsh or Brythonic would be Ystrad Aeron, and indeed there is just such a place in southwest Wales, in Ceredigion that was once part of the kingdom of the Irish Deisi before Cunedda conquered the area and gave it to one of his sons.  Thus, I argue that Aeron of the ballads, elegies, poems, stories of the Old North is Strathearn. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting, but obviously if that interpretation doesn't appear in any sources it can't be mentioned in the article.--Cúchullain t/c 16:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So, despite the fact that there is an Ystrad Aeron in Ceredigion, meaning Valley of the Irish, the exact same meaning and nearly exact same pronounciation as Strath Eireann, that means nothing?  Just saying nothing would be better than the rather weak identification of Aeron with Ayrshire because of the very slight similarity of the name.  I suggest that whoever came up with that crap idea clearly does not know the derivation of Strathearn and probably still thinks Fortriu can be placed there. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Unless there is a reliable source explaining the theory, it can't be included. If you have some, by all means bring it up.--Cúchullain t/c 13:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for God's sake, at least remove the Ayrshire reference.  That idea has almost zero credibility, even if Koch mentioned the idea.  You yourself, or someone else on this page, said that Koch was sometimes not reliable.  If being published is all that counts, I can always start flooding the page with references to Morris. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I suggest that the utter failure of any historian to recognize the identification of Aeron with Eireann is because of the formerly widely held belief, and debunked since 2005, idea that Strathearn and Fortriu were one and the same.  Thus we get desparate attempts to make the identification of Aeron with Ayr.  Much better to leave it simply unidentified. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Koch isn't infallible (no one is), but he's hardly the only one suggesting a connection between Aeron and Ayrshire or the Ayr. A quick Google Books search returns a number of hits, which go into varying degrees of detail, including this (Ifor Williams), this (A. O. H. Jarman), this (another work by Koch), this (Rachel Bromwich), and this (The Welsh Academy Encyclopedia of Wales). I can find no relevant hits connecting Aeron with Strathearn. Please not that no one is saying that Aeron was certainly located at Ayrshire, as it isn't known for sure.--Cúchullain t/c 14:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter how many people propagate an idea with as little basis as the idea that Aeron of the Old North equals some as yet undiscovered entity in Ayrshire, solely because "A-y-r" is slightly similar to "A-e-r-o-n".  The truth is that the origin of the name has never been traced.  Several people, myself included, have propagated Morris's idea about Coel being the last Dux Britanniarum, but that does not make it true.  Nor did the fact that most historians repeated the now-proven-wrong idea that Fortriu was the same as Strathearn; no doubt that erroneous idea blinded them all to the fact that Ystrad Aeron is Welsh for the Gaelic Strath Eireann, the root of "Strathearn".  There are a few people who still cling to the idea that Fortriu=Strathearn and I have no wish to allow such a claim to stand than I do the idea that Aeron=Ayr. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not arguing for my theory to be put up instead, just that the erroneous information be removed. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any sources challenging the connection between Aeron and Ayrshire?--Cúchullain t/c 21:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some but I haven't seen them in a couple of years.  Do you know on what basis the claim that Ayr=Aeron is made? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Koch's comment that Aeron is a "kingdom or subkingdom, probably in south-west Scotland" or that Aeron was "probably in Ayrshire in Scotland" does not offer a whole lot of ground to stand on, and I doubt the other source is much much.  Morris' statement about Coel has equal validity since neither are backed by any attempt at evidentiary support. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

text: After looking at all your links above, I note that not a single one of them offers anything to back up their statements. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said, it was a brief Google Books search. But all the same, for my part I will try to find a source better explaining the rational for the suggestion that Aeron may be connected to the Ayr, and ask other users to do the same. In the meantime, the fact that so many authorities in the field have felt compelled to mention the suggestion in their works is enough for us to mention it as well. After all, Wikipedia is meant to be a summary of what the best available sources have to say. (The difference between this and John Morris is that Bromwich, Jarman, etc. are among the top experts in the field, while Morris' book was heavily criticized in the field, as I've shown.) For your part, do you have any sources that challenge the connection, or suggest another one?--Cúchullain t/c 14:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Until 2005, virtually all sources on Pictish history indentified Fortriu with Strathearn, with little evidence, just because some authority had once said, "It must be here".  The same is the case with all those who say Aeron is Ayrshire; no one offers a reason for it.  I'm not saying I have proof of a negative, I'm saying that none of them who make that claim have ever offered any evidence to back it up, none, zero, nada, zilch, squat.  It's an embarassment to them, and it's an embarassment to have it in this article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Or are you utterly incapable of using your own judgement? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I judge that the interpretations of the experts in a field tend to be more frequently accurate than those of passing folks on the internet who consistently refuse to back up their claims with sources. You say "none of them who make the claim have ever offered any evidence to back it up..." That's a big assertion, and I sincerely doubt it's the case. However, I'm continuing to search, and have asked a few knowledgeable editors if they have any additional input. Hopefully we can resolve this soon.--Cúchullain t/c 18:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The "experts", Hound of Cullen, have never offered a single shred of proof for the assertion that Aeron = Ayr, merely suggested that may have been the case because of the slight similarity of the names.  Before 2005, the "experts" universally identified Fortriu with Strathearn, reported that the unification of the north of Scotland took first place under Kenneth mac Alpin, that the unification was preceded by a massacre of the Pictish nobility, and the Fergus mac Erc was the ancestor of all Scottish kings through Kenneth mac Alpin.  One of the chief reasons Ayr was first suggested as a location for Aeron is that the "experts" had a blind spot preventing them from considering another alternative because of the misidentification of Fortriu as Strathearn (Strath Eiareann); with Fortriu having been a major power at the time and Fortriu=Strathearn according to the opinion widely-held by the "experts", some other location in the local region had to be found.  One of the chief reasons Fortriu was held to be in Strathearn was that too many "experts" bought into the afore-mentioned propaganda about Kenneth mac Alpin, whose base was clearly in the south and east of Scotland above the Firths.  FYI, in case you don't follow Scottish history like you do that of the Old North, Alex Woolf of St. Andrews Univ. published a paper in 2005 that blew the widely-held-by-the-experts assumption about Fortriu's identity out of the water; in fact, he showed rather conclusively that Fortriu and the early medieval Moray were one and the same.  In doing so, he destroyed the basis upon which the hypothesis about Aeron's identification with Ayr came about; with their mistaken assumptions about Fortriu, the sheep-like "experts" proved unable to see Strath Eireann, which is Ystrad Aeron in Welsh.  If you check your map, you will find that Strathearn and Clackmannan, the modern name for the area where Manau Goddodin was located, are immediately adjacent to each other.  Has there been anything published about this?  Not as far as I know, but I do know that all these are facts, just as I know that no "expert" has offered any evidence for the identification of Aeron of the Old North with Ayr.  If that is not enough to include identification of Aeron with Strathearn in the article, it is enough to warrant the exclusion of the identification as Ayr. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Multiple editors have expressed concern that you are making substantial changes without providing reliable references. Editors need not participate in every talk page entry. Content aside, Chuck, I really wish you would include citations with you edits. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

text: And yet, the only "evidence" any of them, who still labor under the blind spot produced by the above-misidentification of Fortriu, is that the very slight similarity of names AND its proxmity to Alt Clut suggests it.  Meanwhile, another entity with the exact same name in Welsh--Strath Eireann/Ystrad Aeron--exists within the same region and is immediately adjacent to the entity in question, and they completely ignore it due to their knee-jerk reaction deriving largely from their mistaken assumptions about Fortriu.  Nothing any of the "experts" have said constitutes anything resembling evidence, regardless of how many degrees they have.  No one even knows when the name Ayr came to be used for that section of the country.  For example, Alt Clut was based largely on the Damnonii who occupied the entire northwest region of the area between the Walls, so whence "Ayr"?  the name Ayr derives from the river flowing through the area and qauired its first geographical use in 1205 with the founding of the royal burgh of Ayr.  Ayrshire was named for the burgh.  Now, Strathearn/Strath Eireann/Ystrad Aeron?  It is one of the earliest Mormaerdoms of the kingdom of the Picts and its name goes back to the earliest years of the Middle Ages, probably about the same time Circinn became Oengus, Atholl became Atholl (from Ath Fodhla, or New Ireland), and fortriu first began to be called Muireabh.  It's a cute suggestion, but with absolutely zero evidence, that is all it amounts to, no matter how many repeat it.  For example, Morris may have been the first to suggest that Coel was the last Dux Britanniarum, but others certainly repeated it after him, some stating it as fact.  Nonuncurious: given the lack of evidence, the attack is called for, regardless of who makes that claim. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, at the point your theory appears in a published, reliable source, we can include it. Until then, it is still your own personal interpretation.--Cúchullain t/c 21:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I mainly came here to repeat what Cúchullain has been saying - at wikipedia we can only include information from reliable sources. Chucks suggestions may or may not offer a better interpretation - but no matter if other editors agree or disagree him it can't be included without external sources - so this discussion isn't going anywhere. I propose tweaking the relevant sentence however: "but it has been suggested by several scholars that it was probably in the Ayrshire region of southwest Scotland". That is verifiable, regardless of whether what this scholars suggests is the Truth.  Finn Rindahl (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never said my ideas about Aeron should be included, and they can't really since as far as I know that has never been published, just that given the lack of actual evidence upon which the suggestion of Ayr=Aeron is base that we not include that as a probable.  The problem with your last sentence is that it is also verifiable that Coel was the last Dux Britanniarum and that Fortiu is identifical to Strathearn. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Which of these is more likely, that a region with no trace of the name Ayr until the 13th century except for the river running through it is the location of the much-mentioned Aeron, or is it more likely that location is the region named Aeron (Eireann) since the Dark Ages?  Why do we have to perpetuate such an obviously baseless suggestion? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only obvious to you, as it's based on your own personal interpretation of the evidence. The rest of us are content to follow Wikipedia's standard practice of summarizing what the best available sources are saying. If you have a problem with the sources, take it up with them. This conversation has long ceased being productive; it's time to move on.--Cúchullain t/c 22:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cuchullain, I like the new wording, it's very exact. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not merely my opinion that the evidence is weak, it's merely self-evident.  The idea that Ayr=Aeron has been batted around for years with no basis for the claim other than that it sounds kinda neat.  Verifiable doesn't mean reliable, else I have a good claim for using Morris as a "credible" source; that was your argument against Morris, Hound of Cullan, that Morris isn't credible...where was your "verifiable" then???.  Not one claim of Aeron=Ayr has given any sort of grounds other than the flimsiest.  One person suggested that could be the case, others picked it up and said yes, that's it.  One source I found even mentions a tiny River Earn tributary to the River Ayr that doesn't not even show up on Google Maps; a much longer and bigger River Earn runs through Strathearn immediately to the north of Clackmannanan, "-manannan" as in Manu, as in Manaw.  Though the proposition that Strathearn is Fortriu has been thoroughly debunked since 2005, under Wikipedia rules that is still a verifiable and therefore admissible claim, as are many other popular historical myths about Scotland. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

text: The preceding isn't intended as a continuation of the argument as I've conceded that the article is okay the way it is, just making a inal statement. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 03:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There's really nothing more to say here. Once again, at the point that you (or anyone) present reliable sources challenging this view or proposing another one, we can talk about how to include it. However we can't ignore sources based only on your original research.--Cúchullain t/c 14:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reliable", what's that?  Wikipedia, as you said before, doesn't know anything about "reliable", just verifiable.  An idea based on the fact that it sounds kind of neat with no other basis for it to rest upon is most definitely not "reliable", no matter how many "experts" mindlessly echo it to make it "verifiable". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:55, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ??? Have you not actually read the verifiability policy? Or reliable sources? From WP:V: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" (emphasis mine).--Cúchullain t/c 19:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A published source which gives no basis for a statement about a subject, such as those made by so many about Aeron, is not exactly "reliable".  Group-think like that has been responsible for a lot of fictional history being taken as gospel, i.e., Strathearn as Fortriu. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you are entitled to your opinion. I'm not going to repeat myself any more. Good day.--Cúchullain t/c 22:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do like the changes you have made to the article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Aeron

message: I think Dumville's evidence for identifying the Caer Eidyn of Bede with the Carriden of the modern district of Falkirk is enough to suggest that the name Eidyn is of greater antiquity than the advent of the Angles. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not enough to justify removing all mention of the hypothesis that the name's origin is English. The Blackie text was intended to source the statement that the "Eidyn" may be a borrowing from English; please be more careful when making changes to cited material. And I don't remember the name "Eidyn" appearing in Bede; can you supply the relevant quote from Dumville?--Cúchullain t/c 19:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a .pdf of the article online: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/adsdata/PSAS_2002/pdf/vol_124/124_293_298.pdf. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, Dumville is not saying that Bede used the name Caer Eidyn, or that it can be taken as proven that Eidyn is Brythonic. I'll update the text.--Cúchullain t/c 20:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not with the exact spelling "Caer Eidyn", no, but Dumville does quote Bede using "Kair Eden". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Read it again. Dumville is quoting a 13th century manuscript, not from Bede. The instances of "Kair Eden" are from additions to Gildas; there passages taken from Bede, but "Kair Eden" is not included in those.--Cúchullain t/c 21:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, yes, I checked again and you are right.  Good job with the additions, btw. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: On the antiquity of the name Din Eidyn

message: Why the use of the word 'denizens'?Ériugena (talk) 21:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its ''denizens'' spoke a variety of the Brittonic language known as Cumbric.