Talk:King Arthur

Template:Vital article

John Garrick - actor or painter?

A painting displayed in the "Geoffrey of Monmouth" section of this article, titled "The Death of King Arthur," is dated 1862, but the John Garrick hyperlinked in the description of the painting appears to be an English film actor who was born in 1902. Is this an error? 71.168.101.197 (talk) 14:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. The source of the painting is unclear, so I have deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Did a bit of research, and it might be the person who uploaded that file to Wikimedia Commons did so with a typo. I suspect artist's name actually could be John Mulcaster Carrick. This painting is currently displayed on the John Mulcaster Carrick Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mulcaster_Carrick) and is also uploaded with different authorship on the commons (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Death-Arthur-Carrick.jpg). John Mulcaster Carrick is at least listed in ULAN with appropriate dates to be attributed to the painting (http://vocab.getty.edu/page/ulan/500006272). Not sure if that impacts anything at this point, thought I’d share just in case. Annrose90 (talk) 13:04, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it shows I was right to delete! Dudley Miles (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

FA criteria

Overall the article looks in decent shape but what's with the further reading section? Ideally if these works are sufficiently important /contain additional info that belongs in the article they would be cited. (t · c) buidhe 05:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The article was promoted in 2008 and the works in further reading have been published since then. It could do with updating if anyone has the time and inclination, and the section draws editors attention to additional sources. It is also useful to people who just use Wikipedia as a bibliography, such as students writing an essay who prefer to form their view based on the sources without being influenced by reading the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Celtic

@Buidhe@Dudley Miles an editor has changed Celtic to Romano-British. Is that ok? Piggy backing on this, sorry. Doug Weller talk 15:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Neither is correct, but there is no really satisfactory alternative. He was too late to be Romano-British (except according to some controversial theories) and historians object to the term Celtic except as referring to the language. The native opponents of the Anglo-Saxons are generally just referred to as the British in modern histories of the period, and I have gone with that in editing this article, although it may confuse some people. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Titus Gold has reverted my change from Celtic Briton to British with the comment "Seen talk. Celtic britons is clearer. Think there should be a consensus to change from this." We go by the usage of reliable sources, not the opinion of editors on what is clearer. There is not universal agreement among specialists on the period, but the balance of opinion is very much against Celts. Contemporary usage in charters etc. was generally to describe the pre-Anglo-Saxon inhabitants as Britons, or occasionally as Welsh. The Cornish were sometimes called the West Welsh. I do not remember seeing the term Celt in any contemporary source. "Celtic" is occasionally used by modern historians. In 2018 the leading Cambridge University historian Rory Naismith reviewed my submission of Æthelflæd to the WikiJournal of Humanities at [1]. He commented on the term Celtic "Better to specify ‘Irish’ or ‘Irish and Welsh’. ‘Celtic’ is problematic as a collective label except from a linguistic point of view." I replied that I could not alter it as the term was in a quote from another historian, Nick Higham. There is also an article on Celts in the 2014 edition of the Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England, although this is retained from the first 1999 edition. Most historians prefer the term Britons. This is used in Naismith's volume of the 'Cambridge History of Briton'. Thomas Charles-Edwards's volume of the Oxford History of Wales is titled Wales and the Britons 350-1064. Higham and Ryan's 2013 The Anglo-Saxon World uses Celtic for the language and Britons for the people., even though Higham in 2001 (cited above) had referred in 2001 to "Celtic visions". George Molyneaux in his The Formation of the English Kingdom in the Tenth Century also calls the people Britons. Leading specialists have always, so far as I am aware, avoided referring to Celtic people in the last 20 years, and we should go by the views of the experts. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

King Arthur is primarily a figure of medieval literature, in which he is associated simply with Britain. The allegedly historical Arthur who supposedly fought the Saxons is secondary. The ethnicity of the allegedly historical Arthur who supposedly fought the Saxons is so far down the list it should not be in the opening sentence. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Text is changed to Briton. Arguably this is not clear enough as there were both native Britons and anglo-saxons living on the island during the period (as well as other groups in the area now known as Scotland). Perhaps "native Briton" might work? Titus Gold (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not agree that the Arthur who fought the Saxons is secondary. He was made famous by Geoffrey of Monmouth, who presented him as a hero because he defeated the Saxon invaders. I also do not agree with native Britons. That implies that the Saxons were non-native Britons, which is odd. He is currently described as "a legendary Briton who, according to medieval histories and romances, was leader of the Britons in battles against Saxon invaders". We do not need to say Briton twice, so I would change "legendary Briton" to "legendary hero". Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I've reorganised the lede a bit, giving what I think is the appropriate prominence to the literary and putatively historical aspects of the character. See what you think. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:37, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think his supposed role in fighting the Saxons should be mentioned in the first sentence. It is in Geoffrey of Monmouth, who is the most well known and influential source. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the second sentence is fine. The vast majority of Arthurian literature is not much concerned with Arthur fighting Saxons. It could be argued that the Round Table, the sword in the stone, Lancelot's affair with Guinevere and the Grail quest are more important elements of Arthur's story than fighting Saxons and should all have more prominence in the lede, and they were all introduced post-Geoffrey. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Tall tale?

I think King Arthur is a legend rather than a tall tale (see categories). Jack Upland (talk) 01:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

King Arthur Real?

I believe that during the Dark Ages there was a King Arthur. It’s just that the Dark Ages are pretty much lost to history except a record that states a man named Arthur was a great warrior thus showing he was real just during a time where history draws a blank. 75.97.52.227 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi ip. Is this a question or a statement? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Importance of Chrétien de Troyes

His finished and unfinished works are important, but Chrétien de Troyes did not begin any genre. Readily available books on the subject, such as those available at other Wikipedia sites (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_Ritual_to_Romance) provide ample evidence of weakness of this paragraph. Trewin (talk) 06:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)