Talk:King of Wales

message: @Richard Keatinge Also now there is an inconsistency in an article related which mentions Rhodri Mawr with a link to this article. And also the Brut y tywysogion list is in the Ruler of Wales article as King of Wales, but not here since you've deleted the article. List of rulers of Wales#Title of "King of Wales". There needs to be consistency between both articles which link the King of Wales title. Also the Ruler of Wales article specifies the King of Britain, which you removed. Again, a historically reliable article using correct sources.Cltjames (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have removed the inadequately-referenced list and the unhelpful link that you mention. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Richard Keatinge Ok, the final issue now would be the King of the Britons article which has a similar list of Kings of Wales. I think this is a bigger scope than deleting the information and like you said it should go to wikiproject Wales to decide what to do. Can you make the request please? Cltjames (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I wonder if King of the Britons needs only a bit of editing, possibly a disclaimer, to the effect that none of the persons in the list was actually King of all the Britons, so the article lists people who were ever referred to by (almost) contemporaries as something of the sort, whatever their claims to kingship or to overlordship may have been. Anyway, that's best discussed on the appropriate talk page. Thanks. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistency with other articles 

message: Can we clarify what the focus of this article is intended to be? Is it a list of Legendary kings, like List of legendary kings of Britain or Legendary kings of Scotland? Or does it purport to be a list of actual kings, setting aside for now the question of how you can have a king without the existence of a kingdom? If it's the former, should this not be made clear in the title, e.g. Legendary kings of Wales? If it's the latter, where is the current, reliable sourcing that supports their historical existence? To take the first, directly relevant, section as an example, "Establishing the Kingdom of Cambria (Wales)", this has seven sources/ footnotes:
* Book of Baglan - complied in the 1600s. Our article on this says "it is not considered wholly accurate";
* Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae - written in the 13th century. Our article on this says, "it is now considered to have no value as history";
* A book by John T. Koch - Unfortunately, it's not accessible online;
* A blog published on a travel website - authored by Bernard Jones who, as far as I can see, has no standing as a professional historian;
* Geoffrey of Monmouth, again - our article on him says he is "is now considered historically unreliable";
* A article by Darrell Wolcott - he appears to be a retired banker who has established his own Welsh studies centre, . I've no idea of his standing as a historian, but the conclusion on Brutus of Troy states, "his pedigrees are deficient and likely fabricated"
* The Book of Baglan, again.
Assuming the Koch to be an RS, we appear to have one such source that may suggest King Camber, of whom our article states "Camber has no historical basis but is the product of Geoffrey of Monmouth's imagination, invented largely for political ends within the contemporary Anglo-Norman world", was a descendent of Brutus of Troy, Aeneas and ultimately Zeus. I am really struggling to see how we can confidently present this information as credible, if we are suggesting this is a list of actual, as opposed to legendary, kings.
Could the article's main authors (the text is showing as +90% to be by User:Cltjames and User:Titus Gold), clarify the aim/subject of this article. KJP1 (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, ignore all of the above. User:Richard Keatinge has addressed the concerns by a reversion, for which many thanks! KJP1 (talk) 08:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the version of the page before the edits of those two editors, so you can check that to see what may have been the original aim of the article when it was created and before these later overhauls, which seemed to be disputed. There could be something that can be re-added from these older versions, or is proof the subject itself is flawed. Nonetheless the older version has less citations, so best to be constructive if anything even minor from these later overhauls can be re-added and aren't disputed. DankJae 16:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In my view, it should be evidence based and historically accurate for those who self-identified as "King of Wales" or who were recognised by others as a King of Wales, regardless of how much of modern Wales they controlled. Titus Gold (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What? That includes him? That's an utter and complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia should be, which is your core problem and why you were TBAN'd. It needs to be WP:DUE. Of all the WP policies, it's the one you should read and re-read. Random claiming in an after-the-event medieval or antiquarian source? Who cares? The only timethe  WP:RS (arguably) reference a King of Wales was a decade under Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, regardless of POV pipe dreams. DeCausa (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this article about? 

message: I have boldly started the page Titles in medieval Wales, using some of the present text of King of Wales. I hope that it will prove to be a useful foundation for a far better article than King of Wales can ever be, and that we will soon find consensus here to turn King of Wales into a redirect. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambitious topic