Talk:Kingdom of Strathclyde

message: The map of post-Roman southern Scotland from William Forbes Skene's Four Ancient Books of Wales (1868) is charming but almost invisible.  Deipnosophista 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try clicking on it.potatoscone 07:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Strathclyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070606150144/http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/scothist/booklets/sh1/documents-alba.html to http://www.arts.ed.ac.uk/scothist/booklets/sh1/documents-alba.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:35, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Strathclyde. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060614181433/http://jebbo.home.texas.net/asc/asc.html to http://jebbo.home.texas.net/asc/asc.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Can someone with a good understanding of the history of this kingdom put in a paragraph or so on the status and ethnic make-up of the Galloway region during the exsitence of this kingdom?  It is given very short shrift in the article - even the infobox map blocks it out - despite it being of obvious strategic importance immediately south of the core of the kingdom.  Every map I've seen made of the old kingdom seems to show it as a province, sometimes looking semi-autonomous and sometimes with a diverse ethnic composition. It just seems to be an obviously important area that is maybe mentioned in passing once or twice in the article. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galloway 

message: In the article it says that Edmund I's invasion in 944 and subsequent handing over the kingdom to the king of Scots probably didn't happen (no source). It says this is to follow John of Fordun's account too literally. These events are described by the earlier Roger of Wendover, so this implicity claim that it didn't happen needs substantiation. It seems to have been only of temporary effect anyway as I read that the exiled king Dunmail soon found his way back to his throne anyway. This all from 'The Age of Athelstan' by Paul Hill. LastDodo (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edmund I's conquest of 944 

message: The focus in this article is very much on political, linguistic and military issues, which is understandable as these are prominent in what sources we have and were undoubtedly very eventful areas during the time of this Kingdom. However, I would argue for extending the article to explain more about social organisation and other issues. I suspect there is little evidence available in this area, and one thing which would be useful to have would be an outline of what specialist sources there are (for example, the Wikipedia article on the laws of Wales makes reference to the legal customs and terminology of the Britons of Strathclyde, citing Lloyd, John Edward, A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, 1912 – this is not exactly an up-to-date source, and I for one would be interested to know where Mr Lloyd got his knowledge and what modern scholars think of it; this article would be a suitable place for such information). Similarly what original sources are available for, or work has been done on, religion in the kingdom, or literature or social organisation, would enable the article to present a more rounded picture.  Deipnosophista (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: So far as I know there are no primary sources covering these aspects. The best secondary sources are probably the books by Charles-Edwards and Clarkson. Driscoll provides a brief summary of the archaeology. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broader focus wanted? 

message: There was no reason for some imbecile to put a lock on this page. All content must be able to be sourced, including introductory paragraphs. The enteries on Wikipedia are in constant flux and it is up to the populace to keep them as accurate as possible. That means dealing with the uneducated, the snooty high brows and vandals alike. Putting a block on a page is akin to muzzling the freedom of speech. Sic semper tyrannis 96.61.91.149 (talk) 23:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Site protection 

message: origins section, second paragraph says the Northern border was Hadrians wall. Hadrians wall is to the south, the Antonine wall is to the north. 146.90.57.85 (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording means that Hadrian's Wall was the northern border of Roman Britain, except for the period when the Romans advanced north to the Antonine Wall. I have revised to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect information  

message: An IP argues that "a region the Welsh referred to as Yr Hen Ogledd" should be "a region the Welsh tribes referred to as Yr Hen Ogledd. That is wrong. Historians do not refer to Welsh tribes for this period. The Welsh were divided into kingdoms or territories, not tribes. See Wales in the early Middle Ages, which makes this point specifically. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Again you are incorrect. However before I get to that; please explain to me why for the past three plus years you have had no issue with the word tribes being used. Then for some unknown and quite unnecessary reason someone decided to rewrite the article. Now you have an issue with the word being included. Funny that. Now to the issue, you should know better then to try and reference another Wikipedia article as a source of information. All the minor ‘petty’ kings would have liked to think their people were part of a kingdom but the people were woefully independent; and tended towards tribal/family ties. See King Henry the second’s letters where he describes first hand the manner of the Welsh people. And this being hundreds of years later then the time in question. 64.35.203.197 (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The Welsh were divided into kingdoms which frequently changed their boundaries, Dyfed, Powys, Gwynedd etc, as different dynasties rose and fell. Rory Naismith says that loyalty to a lord was a paramount virtue and he does not mention tribes (Early Medieval Britain, pp. 258-259) If tribes were important in this period then their names would be very well known, but I am not aware of any. Can you name any early medieval Welsh tribes or cite a reliable source for them with details of the title and page numbers? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tribes