This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
In the section "The Revolt, 1400-15", starting with the sentence "His young protégé..." I can't tell for certain who 'his', 'he', and 'Henry' refers to. I think we need to use Hotspur, Monmouth, and Henry IV here to keep it clear, but I'm not the one to do this correctly. Any help?
I am wondering if the documented hardship after the revolt is as bad as it was made out. My theory is that most of the documents were from the English side, and the Welsh documents made by the higher ends of society which would more likely see the effects.
I wager that many of the English settlers in the towns left back for England during the years of the uprising which was the main cause of hardship and "grass growing in town centres" because populations in these areas was so low, whereas if 75% of the Welsh population at the time was "barefoot peasants" then any economic impact would be negligable on the poorest but self sufficient individuals.
This is in considerable contrast to today, where the poorest always seem to suffer first because of the absence of self sufficiency and dependance on society. I understand that the high echeleons of welsh society felt the pinch just as much as the English however, but I feel that widespread hardship of the Welsh as a whole is incorrect, beyond anti-welsh policies of the English.
@Academia45: You're using WP:SYNTH to support this. You'e given 3 citations:
Pierce: "he was thus descended from Madog ap Maredudd, last king of united Powys, and in him reposed claims of succession to that ancient province". Typically of Pierce, that's a rather antiquated turn of phrase: But what it doesn't actually say is he claimed that title. "In him reposed" actually suggests dormancy; something which has not been activated. that's actaully pretty close to the truth since there is no evidence that he accompanied his proclamation as Prince of Wales with a claim to Powys.
Gower: "Owain's father, Gruffydd Fychan II, had been hereditary prince of Powys Fadog". It doesn't say Owain was prince of Powys Fadog. Prince Andrew's mother was Queen of the UK. It doesn't mean he will ever be.
Davies/BBC: "He was the lineal descendant of the princes of Powys" Same point - it doesn't say he was prince of Powys.
It's notable that while each of these three sources deal with his ancestry - none say he claimed to be Prince of Powys. If you look at Davies The Revolt of Owain Glyn Dŵr on pages 153-155 he goes into detail on what was proclaimed in the revolt - he declared himslef prince of wales. there's no mention of Powys. DeCausa (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. No he didn't claim it, but was hereditary in the order of succession, which is why it is changed from claimant to hereditary like it was before. The first reference should have been enough but someone contested it after basically 10 years being there. Pierce reference = " in him reposed claims of succession to that ancient province " = he was the hereditary Prince of Powys Fadog. That the title was claimed or not is not the point here. As an example, the current heads of the House of Bonaparte and House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies did not "claim" their titles, as the monarchy was abolished a long time ago, but they are still Princes, as heirs (heredetary). Their titles are "titles of courtesy". Royal titles from deposed monarchies differs from noble titles.
None of the sources say he was "hereditary Prince of Powys". There's no inherent meaning of "hereditary" Prince of anywhere - you have applied your own interpretation which isn't in the sources. At minimum two of the sources fail verification and I'm taking them out. They don't even say that he was next in the line of succession. The Pierce source fails verification as well but I'll leave it in for the moment but add a better source needed tag. TYhe whole thing is WP:OR. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on working on the article a little more, with only 8 {{citations needed, and 3 {{pages needed, this article is almost complete after being restructured, and grammatically corrected. This article is better than a 'B', and I don't think this article would need an overhaul for a Wikipedia:Content assessment improvement, but I believe this can easily be upgraded to a Good Article (GA) with the removal of the unreferenced text and to find alternative sources or page numbers for incomplete references. Any thoughts on this potential article promotion to a good article from B? Cltjames (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some more work (most), but more {{citation, now 11. I felt a proofread was necessary and the separation of new sections. I haven't gone through all of it, but am at a bit of a disadvantage to finish as I don't have the correct sources to reference all the text. If anyone could come up with some references, that would be great, if not, tbc... Cltjames (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few quick thoughts:
The prose needs, quite a lot of, work;
There's a mix of referencing/citation styles, sfn and other;
There are quite a lot of old sources, 19th century histories and earlier, which I'm dubious about. The Banners / Lineage and Ancestry confusion sections are particularly weak here. On that point, I'm not sure what the Ancestry confusion section is actually saying. It says other historians "reciprocate" [not the right word] Lloyd, who appears to be saying OG wasn't descended from LG, but then ends with a citeless sentence that says he was? There are more modern sources - which is great - but are we sure we cover the most up-to-date studies of OG? It's not my period, so I can't say. There's also at least two blogs in there which would need to come out. KJP1 (talk) 08:49, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 OK, thanks. So, as for the prose, I agree that another proofread would be necessary to ensure the flow of the article. All I did was restructured chronologically and separated paragraphs with new headings for better clarity. Then, a simple grammar improval and the removal of duplicate text. As for the ancestry confusion, that was a late addition, and it is difficult to correctly explain due to a lack of sources. Which brings the issue of WP:RS with many books from the 19th and early 20th centuries. For now, I will try add a few details, to remove {{cn. But I will look into finding newer materials to replace older sourced references, so I guess take it from there for now before the article can be considered a GA, but it is close! Cltjames (talk) 15:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am mostly looking at the referencing at the moment. The citation style remains inconsistent. It will take a little longer to fix that. I haven't looked at the other good article criteria. Have we checked for copyvio? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, interesting, I've never heard of copyvio, but found it on a web search. As for the style, you mean {{cite book| etc. I'm pretty sure everything is covered in terms of either {{cite; harv and sfn. Perhaps this week we can submit the article for a GA review, it will take some minor work which I can look into in some time. Cltjames (talk) 15:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the copyvio suggests the article is potentially 52% copyright violation, with one article as high as 42% but the majority of the 70 or so articles, maybe 1/3 or the work under 10% with a few exceptions. I don't know where to take it from there, I didn't write the article, I just added the book references I could acquire and I restructured the paragraphs and headings. As for who wrote it, I don't know, and if it was plagiarism, then it makes it very difficult to write now. Cltjames (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy: the tidyup was a good idea, just wondering if all the book sources are needed now, because there's a lot, of whether we can cull the sources into a smaller list of books that are directly referenced in the article? Cltjames (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources under the Sources heading should be cited in the main text. That section is the bibliography that we are referencing with in-text citations. I am not aware that any there are not referenced. Are they? Further reading can be considered. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There wasn't many, I had this problem when I tried doing a copyedit with the Madoc article. I removed maybe 3 and moved the reference and link for Owen Glendower to further reading, which has relevance to this article. Cltjames (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy it's ok. Thanks for the hard work you put in. It's an interesting subject to learn about, eerie perhaps for those of us who are Welsh descendants of the Glyndwr era. I'm not too sure how to find some of the missing content that has been cited as citations needed or better sourced needed. At this stage, if we wanted to finish the article and submit for a GA review, would you suggest deleting content or looking to find the sources somehow ? Cltjames (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cltjames:. Yesterday you wrote (above) I didn't write the article, I just added the book references I could acquire and I restructured the paragraphs and headings. As for who wrote it, I don't know. The article stats (here) attribute 41.4% of the article's authorship to you with 47.6% of edits (by number) attributed to you and 34% of added text attributed to you. You are the main author of thde current version of the article by quite a long way - the next biggest contributors by each of those 3 measures are attributed with 8%, 10% and 26% respectively. DeCausa (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa ok, thanks for the stat check. Don't believe everything you read. I can confirm I found a complete article without references and restructured, just saying, I moved paragraphs which 'AI' suspected I wrote, but we all know AI isn't dependable for Wikipedia. Cltjames (talk) 23:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should any entry appear in the infobox, with or without a footnote? The article says this: "Tradition has it that he died and was buried possibly in the church of Saints Mael and Sulien at Corwen close to his home, or possibly on his estate in Sycharth or on the estates of his daughters' husbands: Kentchurch in south Herefordshire or Monnington in west Herefordshire." But the single (non-academic) source is this one, and this clearly says "Alex Gibbon's claims are disputed." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, the article addresses the confusion over Glyndwr's death place, therefore the infobox can explain there are suggested sites from different sources, despite one location seeming to be the most recognised oral tradition passed through generations of the same Scudamore family of Monnington Staddle. Cltjames (talk) 15:28, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I altered the text slightly and added your quote, please read and tell me if its ok or I'll comment vice versa, also I think adding it to the Death Date section works ok. Or alternatively, specify the Scudamore family source or his burial in Monnington Staddle, then add a text note about the confusion surrounding the burial location. Cltjames (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2a02:8084:c542:a600:9c32:f5ca:f72:71a: refuses to acknowledge the research conducted and work on the article over the past months regarding the additional text elaborating Glyndwr's ancestry. I updated the lede for 2 reasons. 1 it was outdated. 2 the lede was still too long after we had agreed to already shorten it. I trimmed the lede and updated the section considering the newly added sections involving Glyndwr's ancestry. Could we please find common ground on the 2 subjects mentioned, again being length of lede, and also addition of ancestry in lede. Cltjames (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never edited anything regarding Glyndwr’s ancestry, that’s not the issue. The issue was how you completely changed the opening of the article and unnecessarily removed reliable information without coming here and getting consent from the talk page first. You also wrote that Owain Glyndwr was a descendent of King Edward I which is false. 2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An editor does not need consent to make a bold change to a page - even quite a major one. And we should never revert simply because someone made a big change. However, if you take issue with the content of the change for some reason, then we can discuss that. Per onus, if content is reverted with reason then the onus would be on the editor introducing the reverted text to gain a consensus for it. That's how we do it here. So, what are the specific concerns you have, please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so we can just fix punctuation mistakes. Could you be more specific about what removals you are objecting to, and why. On this issue of descent from Edward I, this has gone in the article body:
Refs 3 and 4 there are not great. I don't have ref 1, although I do have other histories by these authors. I would be interested to know what they say exactly though, as I don't recall them saying this elsewhere. I do have library access to ref 2, and looking at page 45, I don't see the claim. I see discussion of a genealogy that purports to show his descent from King John, but the source does not say this is actually correct. What it says is
Versions of a text designed to show that Owain Glyndŵr was, through his mother, descended from Llywelyn ab Iorwerth and King John are found in Llanstephan 12, pp. 18–19 and 65–6 (s. xvimed) and Brogyntyn I. 15, pp. 382 and 391 (1593–6); these must derive from the common exemplar of those manuscripts, probably written by Ieuan Brechfa (cf. Table A.4.1.1).
That "designed to show" is a suitable caution. Genealogies were appealed to in order to give legitimacy, but we should avoid being more strident on the matter than the source itself. In any case, I would describe this claim as dubious at this point. Does anyone have the text of Davies & Morgan (2009)? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added links and had to paraphrase the final paragraph of the lede, as the text was moved to legacy. I still feel the lede is too long, and perhaps the article too. The text in the article is available in Glyndŵr rebellion and doesn't need to be duplicated in full in this article, which is a biography, not a story about a rebellion. So, can we please get opinions on the potential issue of WP:RS because of the age of the source explaining Glyndwr's ancestry in full. The problem is Bernard Burke was the King of Arms geneologist and is considered the industey leader, hence Burke's peerage. Also if he were to get the ancestry of Glyndwr incorrect in the 19th century, then there was over 150 years for his mistakes to be corrected, so the author is a reliable source regarding Glyndwr's ancestry. It's just whether people are willing to accept it or not. Otherwise, too reiterate, lede too long, needs to update regarding ancestry, Glyndwr was the direct descendant of the 3 royal houses ( Aberffraw, Dinefwr, Mathrafal), and that is how he qualified as the Prince of Wales, because his ancestry, then I added Edward I, because it's been updated in the text, so why not the lede? Please comment. Cltjames (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is a summarised description of his life, achievements, and fate. More advanced information is in the other sections below for readers. Regardless you still didn’t get consent here first for your edit which completely restructured large parts of the article. And lastly, yes Owain Glyndwr was a descendant of the 3 royal houses of Mathrafal, Dinefwr, and Aberffraw, however he was not a descendant of King Edward I, that shouldn’t be in the text. 2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2A02:8084:C542:A600:E4E7:F126:BA01:8334 I don't know where you've been these past few months, look at the Llywelyn II talk page regarding Burke's geneology, we have accepted Edward I's ancestral connection, it is in the article, it is not misinformation, stop being biased and read the facts, again, update was added to text, not the lede, that is why it was added yesterday, if the text is updated, the lede should be to represent the text. Besides, the lede is too long and not relevant to a person, but more a rebellion. An edit war won't change that, nor will it change history. Read the facts and ask for a consensus regarding the including of Glyndwr's ancestry and lineage in this article, otherwise, leave the text alone. And please can we get a consensus about the inclusion of Glyndwr's ancestry into the lede..??? Cltjames (talk) 17:15, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy we spoke about Catherine ferch Llywelyn, and @NetworkAuthority: made a bold inclusion, and with some editing the paragraph was added about ancestry confusion. I helped edit and found sources to confirm Llywelyn II's daughter being documented, and added it to the Glyndwr article, that is how Glyndwr was a descendant of Llywelyn II and Edward I, confirming the lineage section here in Glyndwr showing the connection to Gwynedd correctly but also adding some prose about the confusion between geneologist. Cltjames (talk) 18:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy The problem is not really, Lloyd 1881 in this article does mention the marriage of Glyndwr's Dad to Tomos, but no further. Virtually no sources I could find connects Tomos to Eleanor, Countess of Bar. Despite the fact of the authority of Norroy and Ulster King of Arms stating the legitimacy of Glyndwr's ancestry to Edward I, there isn't any websites or book directly addressing this issue that I could find. And, in the couple of books I have, and DWB, Llywelyn II has been ignored by modern Welsh scholars as Glyndwr's ancestor, and they revert to Gruffudd ap Cynan. Cltjames (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy Ok, strange situation. If it is deemed 'OR', but the contention is that the article could be missing key facts, then surely a note can be added explaining the geneological research of Bernard Burke in 1844 & 1876. Cltjames (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a world of difference between Eleanor is sometimes credited with a daughter named Eleanor (b. 1285), who married a Welshman named Llywelyn ap Owain and was an ancestress of Owain Glyndwr and Owen Tudor, but this claim is now considered dubious. and [Glyndŵr] was also a descendant of the English King Edward I, via his ancestors in Gwynedd. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I went with the Burke PDF reference from 1876 showing the line of ancestors from Glyndwr via Llywelyn II to Edward I. And like I said, Burke cannot be brought into dispute, really, despite this debate. Cltjames (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, another source can be found in Angharad ferch Llywelyn (Kenneth Panton, Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy, (Scarecrow Press, 2011), p. 173). Another modern book, which I haven't read, but I'm not doubting its authenticity in proving the ancestral link between Glyndwr and Edward I, but this time via Llywelyn the Great (Llywelyn I), not Llywelyn II. So, the references for the ancestral link exist as reliable sources. Now, the question posed today would be whether Glyndwr's ancestry should be mentioned in the lede or not?? Can we get a consensus, please? Cltjames (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Panton (2011) does indeed say
Eleanor (born in 1285) married Llewelyn ap Owain (a Welsh noble),
whereas Connolly (2021) states,
A possible third child, Eleanor, is said to have married Llywelyn ap Owen of Deheubarth; but her existence seems to be in question.[5]
their marriage took place 1383 in St Chad's Church, Hanmer in north-east Wales.[1][2] However they may have married at an earlier date in the late 1370s.[3]
Now there is a sense in which St Chad's is the obvious location for the marriage. He would have married at Margaret Hanmer's parish, and this would be the Hanmer parish church. Yet the sourcing is not good. The National Churches Trust and the Glyndŵr society do not state their sources. The society is a tiny charity with 2 trustees and annual turnover of £2,000.[1] No better than self publishing without stated sources. I did find a source that states this [4] but it is Terry Breverton, and so see this discussion [2]. Breverton is not a great source. And then there is this very uncertain phrasing anyway. If we don't know when he was married, we should not give a date and then contradict the information. Can we do better or should this just come out?
References
^"Hanmer St. Chad". nationalchurchestrust.org. Retrieved 17 January 2024.
@Sirfurboy I added the church website and Owain Glyndwr website references, but I also added the sentence explaining the uncertainty of the marriage anytime during the 1370s. The book doesn't specify, and like you said, the websites don't show their sources. Personally, I believe the websites explaining St. Chad, but I agree that a reliable source is needed. Maybe email the church or website asking for sources ? Cltjames (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Martinevans123 I deleted an unsourced line earlier and I see you have placed it back, amended and with a source here:
During the celebration of the 600th anniversary of Glyndŵr's uprising, Myrddin ap Dafydd wrote a fourth version adding five verses to the original, entitled 'Mawl yr Ehedydd' (The Lark's Eulogy).[1]
The first problem is verifiability. Myrddin ap Dafydd is a prolific author but I cannot find that title in any list of his works. E.g [3] and [4]. However I suspect that the work exists. But when I removed the line, I also considered whether the information was WP:DUE. Someone added some new verses to an old poem. Ok, that happens a lot. Did anyone take any notice? Have these new verses become an important part of the legacy of the page subject? I think Canu Gwerin itself would be the primary source - Myrddin ap Dafydd's published work. What we would need is some secondary source that shows why this deserves a mention at all.
This report shows 42.2% similarity with a BBC source [5]. There were some others flagged up with lesser similarity but all those look okay. It is quoted material being flagged up. Even that article is largely similar on quote material, but I think it is a violation because the arrangement of the quoted material is so similar.
@Sirfurboy websites such as geni.com do copy and paste text directly from Wikipedia. @DeCausa: you can see the article still resembles 90% of what it was time before, only like I said, I restructured and AI thought I added the paragraphs that I simply moved. Cltjames (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. my conclusion is that they copied from us. They even copied the headings and didn't format them. Can't find the exact version copied though, but going back in the page hstory a few years shows our wording closer to theirs. I am satisfied that our wording evolved from Wikipedia editor work. It appears that some of their material came from Welsh Revolt too. Likewise the first copyvio is now largely resolved, showing only this passage:
"Four years ago we visited a direct descendant of Glyndŵr, a John Skidmore, at Kentchurch Court, near Abergavenny. He took us to Mornington Straddle in Herefordshire, where one of Glyndŵr's daughters, Alice, lived. Mr. Skidmore told us that he (Glyndŵr) spent his last days there and eventually died there... It was a family secret for 600 years, and even Mr Skidmore's mother, who died shortly before we visited, refused to reveal the secret. There's even a mound where he is believed to be buried at Mornington Straddle."
Which is an attributed quotation, cited to the source that is being flagged. So this is not a copyvio now. If you want to submit this for good article assessment, you should probably point the reviewer to this talk section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My worry is that there is a selection bias. We had the Cardiff pub, but not the one in Mold or Llanddona or Gwernmynydd etc. (and who knows how many there are outside Wales). When we have list articles it is common to have the inclusion criterion that an entry must have an article to show it is notable for a mention. If there were a list of pubs by this name we could refer to that, and say that there are a number of pubs, (such as the key ones in the article). But I worry that this list of namesakes is focussed on the things editors know about rather than any objective notability criteria. Having said that, I am not at all opposed to some form of words that demonstrates the frequent namimg of pubs for him, as a demonstration of his penetration in popular consciousness. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that inclusion criterion obviously doesn't apply to Donald Trump! I'd be very surprised to see any pubs named after Glyndŵr outside Wales. Happy to hear the views from other editors on this topic. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was one in Shrewsbury, anyway. Finding "multiple sources referencing the connection with a specific pub in-depth" looks a bit unlikely. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy speaking of selection, I thought RGC 1404 was a good inclusion to show the determination of Glyndwr's legacy in modern times because of the comparisons between sport and war. Why not keep the rugby team and even expand the topic? Cltjames (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RGC 1404 was in the namesakes section, which contained several entries that were clearly not namesakes. I took it out from there. I have now placed it back in the legacy section instead. I would oppose expansion. The section is talking about the legacy of Glyndŵr, and not about rugby. We need to be wary of this: XKCD 446 - In popular culture. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sirfurboy I added one pub from the 2009 book and another half dozen references from the same book. Which leaves the article with 10 {{cn & 5 {{pn. But good job on the tidyup. It's almost ready for submission for a GA. What do you think, delete text, or try and find the sourced pages ? Cltjames (talk) 07:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The refs are a consistent style now, which is one job. As you say, plenty of citations needed still. The copyvio still needs addressing. The Welsh revolt section may be overly detailed as there is a main article for that. I would like better sourcing of the genealogy. The "Gwynedd Ancestry Confusion" section needs looking at. We might also want to expand the modern legacy if there are good secondary sources about how the myth of the man has been adopted and co-opted. I also have just received a library copy of Davies & Morgan that I need to read as it is used extensively in the article. Still plenty to do. Btw, could you put <nowiki> tags around your comments where you write {{cn as it messes up talk page pretty printing otherwise. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has an article on the topic itself, so the concept of naming things after him is (apparently) notable itself. It is merely a subsection here, that has to be WP:DUEWEIGHT, so best leave to the most notable (with an article) or generalise to the number of pubs named after Glyndŵr, or it may become increasingly long without any limits. If we specifically include one non-notable pub we should include all of them.
The club’s connection is more indirect (referencing an event) but probably enough.
Although if there are sources listing the pubs, a sentence like "many pubs in Wales have been named after Glyndŵr" etc would be fine. But not specifically mention them unless an article for them is made or multiple sources reference the connection with a specific pub in-depth. The Cardiff source was more about the postbox. DankJae12:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owain Glyndŵr's Privy seal impression (gold dragon and lion)
The image of a gold dragon on this page is not of a dragon at all. That image is a wyvern. Dragons have legs fore and aft - four legs in all. And on Glyndŵr's privy seal, the dragon was drawn with four legs (or at least, side on with front and back legs). So that image is inaccurate. Is there something better? If not, it should probably come out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a few people are very mistaken to the dragon image, in the edit, someone argued that: "it was a dragon not a wyvern", but as you can see in the seal, it is very much a wyvern, but yes, it was/is often referred to as a dragon despite it being a wyvern, in the case of this article and everything related to Owain Glyndŵr, we should always assume that a wyvern and a dragon means the same thing (I know.. it's not ideal, but alas, this is an error we need to overcome). Also the flag has been re-added is a faithful reproduction of what was used, and if someone argues that there are no images of the ddraig aur (as a flag) and it may be inaccurate, well the modern dragon we wave today is very different to what Henry VII flew on Bosworth, with even the pizzle missing (even though there are plenty of examples from Henry's rule of the dragon having that male addition in many carvings and painting/illustrations. What I would like here (if the image is removed again) is for you to justify why a modern image is not sufficient when wiki is full of modern digital flags that are very different from the originals, the whole reason wiki exists is to paint a picture of the past, to show as much evidence as possible and to show if an image is original or not. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that as the creator of the image you would like to see it included in the article, but as you can actually see, there is a difference between your representation and the one on the seal. The dragon on the seal clearly shows a fore leg and an aft leg. It is in profile, so two legs (one fore and aft) is the usual representation of a four legged creature (c.f. the two legs of the lion on the same seal). Yours is a Wyvern with two aft legs. As the creator, perhaps you could update to more accurately represent what is on the seal - although it is only supposition that this is what was on Glyndŵr's banner, so my preference would be to use the actual seal image and not an artist's representation of what may or may not have been on the actual flag. That is a curious form of artistic original research. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care if I made the image or not, the reason I did so in the beginning was because another version existed which was very inaccurate (4 legs), also if you're worried about which leg goes where, look at the other seal where the dragon is mounted on owain's crown and horse head, both legs are on the ground (no leg raised), I feel this is of minimal issue, if you have an issue with it, just mark it as (modern image), that's it. Hogyncymru (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Owain Glyndŵr on horseback
You mean this image? I am not convinced I can make out any legs in that image, but you are ignoring the point: in constructing an artist's impression of Glyndŵr's banner, you have gone beyond the sources. It is WP:OR. The seal is the best image because we can presume that the banner was based on the seal, but we really don't know. Has anyone other than you attempted to draw the gold dragon? Is there a source we can refer to that at least shows a representation of it? I don't think we should be using that image without better evidence. It is too speculative. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the modern Welsh flag is speculative, see how totally different it is to the original, if you're going to have this argument, I suggest you go through the entirety of wikipedia and remove every single one because they are not correct.. but of course, you won't do this because it's ridiculous and time consuming, just mark it as a modern representation if you have an issue with it, I feel you're making a mountain out of a molehill here.
We are talking about this article - a history article. The modern Welsh flag has no place on this article, and is not included. Neither is there a place on this article for a modern speculative image of what may have been on Glyndŵr's banner on at least one occasion. It remains WP:OR and should not be there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research though, the evidence is there; Adam of usk described it as being gold (yellow), and there's an image of the dragon on his seals, so I fail to see how a flag that is similar to the original is original research, perhaps it's 20% inaccurate, but so are most flags used on wikipedia, cut me a break here, the image has been updated to reflect that it's modern, that's more than what other editors have done when their flags are terribly inaccurate. Hogyncymru (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our page shows Glyndŵr's heritage from princes of Powys, Deheubarth and Gwynedd. We are relying on a mix of sources for this. Powys and Deheubarth are not really a problem. Davies & Morgan has a similar chart for these, and although we add detail, there are no discrepancies. Those are supported by a good source. But then, this is what R. R. Davies wrote about the Gwynedd line:
“What then of the third family, that of Gwynedd, the lineage which came nearest to realising the dream of a united and independent Wales, until broken by the fall of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd in 1282? Here Owain did not have the same strong claims as he did in Powys and the south. However, two factors were in his favour. His great-grandmother Gwenllïan was descended from Gruffudd ap Cynan, Prince of Gwynedd (d. 1137). Admittedly this connection would not carry much weight today, but in medieval Wales such a connection could be dwelt on by a bard or genealogist. The second and more important factor was that the direct male line of Gwynedd had undeniably become extinct in 1378. Its last representative was Owain Lawgoch...
Now here is my problem with this: Gwenllïan is not on the Gwynedd line, and we are calling Glyndŵr's great grandmother Catherine instead. I marked up some sources and there has been some rejigging, but edsums suggest we are relying on one source for part of the table, and a different source for another. And then we have the essay like Gwynedd Ancestry Confusion section. We cannot synthesise multiple sources, particularly if we are coming to a conclusion that is in actual contravention to information in another source. I think the Gwynedd branch should probably be removed and replaced with prose similar to what Davies has. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I knew this issue would arise. For clarity I started a talk page on Template talk:Owain GD's Lineage. I'm more than willing to find the best solution and wouldn't want to contend any ideas. So, please use the talk for the lineage to find the solution, therefore more people can better understand the confusion regarding Catherine ferch Llywelyn. Cltjames (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion should be here. More people are watching this page, and the template only gets used on this page. One might wonder why it is a template at all - but we'll park that. I am transcluding the discussion from there. That will ensure it is visible on both pages.
Welsh scholars in books such as Dictionary of Welsh Biography,[1] or Roger Turvery, have him descended from Owain Gwynedd (possibly) or Gruffudd ap Cynan.[2] Whilst other sources state Llywelyn the Great (Llywelyn I) was his royal ancestor from Gwynedd (Owain Gwynedd's grandson), which also connects him to Edward I, King of England.[3]. Then, the third individual listed as Glyndwr's Kingdom of Gwynedd ancestor would be Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (Llywelyn II) grandson of Llywelyn I, again connecting to Edward I via Eleanor of England, Countess of Bar through Tomos ap Llywelyn ab Owain (intermarrying Deheubarth and Gwynedd in his lineage) in the lineage chart.[4][5] However, historians such as Professor John Edward Lloyd and many modern Welsh people refuse the claim of Glyndwr being descended from Llywelyn II because of the dispute regarding the inconsistent recording of his supposed daughter Catherine,[6] and also his ancestry from England and Edward I has been brought into dispute.
Therefore, in this article there have now been 2 lineage charts created connecting Glyndwr to Gwynedd, Deheubarth and then Powys. So, I updated the original chart posted showing descent from Gwynedd and Llywelyn I to the full lineage of Glyndwr as descendant of his Llywelyn I's grandson, Llywelyn II, thus completing his direct lineage from the final generations of rulers of Wales' 3 royal houses, which made him a direct descendant from all the original Welsh Princes of Wales, prior to the English title from Edward I. The update shows Glyndwr's ancestor from Gwynedd being Llywelyn II, which represents the work of Bernard Burke, (1844 & 1876 geneology research) the Norroy and Ulster King of Arms, of the College of Arms (college-of-arms.gov.uk), who are the geneological industry's highest standard and authority on the subject of British Monarchy geneology, supposing if there was an error, a correction would have been made of Burke's work from over 150 years ago. If someone wishes to contest Owain Glyndwr's whole documented lineage from Gwynedd as his final ancestor from the dynasty, and then also existence of Llywelyn II's daughter Catherine, then please talk in this article, or read and contribute to the talk pages: Talk:Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and Talk:Owain Glyndŵr, as the 17th September, 2024.
Checking the history of Template:Owain GD's Lineage I see that we only had 2 lines on the template until a Cardiff IP added a third one in 2019 [9] and then you changed all that this year. Neither the IPs nor yours match what Davies says. He says His great-grandmother Gwenllïan was descended from Gruffudd ap Cynan. This is not on the lineages. He also says, the direct male line of Gwynedd had undeniably become extinct in 1378. The only place this template is used is on this page. We need to follow the sources and not synthesise our own research from a mixture of sources. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I just wanted to bring up the full story involved in Glyndwr's ancestry. But maybe it's best we use your knowledge on the subject matter and alter the lineage to comply with Wikipedia protocol. If you like, you can revert. But keep the talk for those interested in the whole story. Cltjames (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
