Talk:Uther Pendragon

message: As part of a team of leading experts researching ancient British history since 1956 and having been involved in  much of the recent activity I am wondering why the self-styled Cuchullain is removing my every post. This is pretty serious as he has a limited and blinkered view of British history that does not appear to be based on the best available manuscript evidence.
In terms of the King Arthur subject we are the leading experts and although this does not remove us from criticism our view is that at least an alternative opinion should be heard.
A worrying development. 
Tim Matthews, Ancient British Historical Assocation, realhistoryradio@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realhistoryradio (talk • contribs) 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has so many problems, a review of your work would be welcome, as at least I am able to comprehend what you're saying. However, here on Wikipedia, no one is a leading expert - although if you start posting juried citations, then there can be a controversy section added to the main page.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by El Cubedo (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Mr. Matthews, alternate interpretations certainly are allowed and welcome here, but the books you quote are not reliable sources. We're not going to take your word for it that you and your colleagues are the "leading experts" on King Arthur, you are going to have to provide proper sources or at least rephrase your contributions to sound less definite. --Cúchullain t/c 00:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That quote appears in the section for the History of the Kings of the Britons, which is fiction.--Cúchullain t/c 00:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it was written as history it would be in the past tense. Uther is a legendary, not historical character, something that is stated right at the beginning of the article. I'd also disagree that the History of the Kings of Britain is "fiction", strictly speaking. It's not true, but that's not the same thing as fiction. --Nicknack009 01:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, "fiction" isn't the right word for whatever the Historia is. But the real problem is the user thought the article made Uther seem like a historical figure rather than a legendary one, and I don't think it does.--Cúchullain t/c 22:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: experts

message: The teams olf "experts" write reams about the inknowable myths in regard to any country
including Brittain. When,in areality the royal lines were recorded and are well known today.
(just not to those experts). Those royal lines show the location and ancestors and descendants
of all the long line of kings and include Uther and Sons Arthur and Eochaid descended from
Niall of the Nine Hostages, 126th HighKing of Tara/Ireland.
/s/ willy the kang no. 144
And they are also highly untrustworthy, source criticism maybe?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araven (talk • contribs) 13:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknowable

message: I switched the title of Whytes' books to A Dream of Eagles (here and elsewhere), as that is what it is titled in Canada, and Whyte is a Canadian authour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethpt (talk • contribs) 18:54, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's right, at any rate there needs to be a redirect page to the more common title.--Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Dream of Eagles

message: Someone has messed around with this paragraph; most of it is just some lame jokes.
Maybe someone can repair the damages? -85.179.90.195 (talk) 06:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It was just simple vandalism, I've reverted it.--Cúchullain t/c 07:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the Kings of Britain

message: Would it be appropriate to expand the 'Modern Literature' section to more of a 'Modern Fiction' section, to mention Uther's apperances in some of the recent Arthur movies and most recently, on television?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChicagoMel (talk • contribs) 05:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It would all need to be sourced to reliable, third-party sources - not just the novels themselves. We don't need a list of every book that mentions Uther Pendragon.--Cúchullain t/c 20:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: TV/Movies

message: Dragon is an Old French/Langue d'Oïl word which was invented when the Legends started being written by the French, it is not a Welsh borrowing from draco. The word dragon was brought to Britain after the Norman Invasion, deplacing wyrm. And before that Uther had several epithets, like Gorlassar.
The French borrowed from Breton drogn, in all likelyhood, and mutated it into Dragon. The Old Welsh dronn has not survived into Modern Welsh, though Breton and Irish still have drogn and drong, meaning multitude, crowd or warband. Penndronn, the Old Welsh form, would mean Chief of the Warband. UtherPendrogn (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The etymology, false or not I don't know, is confused and contradictory. First it says Uther's epithet Pendragon literally means "head dragon" in its original Welsh, though it was used figuratively to mean "highest commander; head leader; top of the command chain." but then a half paragraph down it says The title Pendragon was borrowed into Middle English from Welsh, where it originally indicated a literal dragon of great power or size but was eventually used figuratively to mean "a great leader; the highest commander". It is composed of Old Welsh prefix pen- "a tall hill; headlands; great heights",[7] which is still used for place names in Wales and Cornwall (as in the famous Cornish town Penzance, or "holy headland"[8]) combined with Old English dragoun "dragon" which was borrowed from Old French dragon - so is it Old Welsh or Old Welsh+Middle English? LamontCranston (talk) 02:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  False etymology