Talk:Owain Danwyn

I have reworked this article, because next to nothing is actually known about this man and the article needed to reflect that. I have left in details of the popular theories concerning him, but these are largely based on Phillips & Keatman, not Sims (which was actually Baker!) as previously stated. Walgamanus 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronuncation?

Perhaps someone could add the pronunciation of this name? --Ericjs (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

This article included sources by published authors, on the topic on the expertise. You remove almost all useful content, claiming fringe material, but have not cited a single source to support your opinion. I frankly don't trust you on this one and suspect bias. Many of your edits on Medieval articles consist only of deletions and no evident additions.

I also added tags on unsourced and potentially dubious material in the article. You removed them without discussion, and without providing any citation. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding here per discussion on my talk page with Dimadick and Cagwinn. Cagwinn is correct that the Arthurian connection is bupkis, and that Phillips and Keatman are not reliable sources. There is basically no factual information about Owain Ddanwyn apart from some genealogies indicating he was the father of Cynlas Goch (Cuneglasus). Bartrum does mention Owain briefly under the entry Cynlas Goch on p. 205 here, but I don't see that he says anything more about him.

This said, the Arthurian connection is the only remotely noteworthy thing about Owain Ddanwyn, other than the fact that the better known Cuneglasus was (perhaps) his son. I've found a few seemingly reliable sources that discuss the Arthurian connection, largely to dismiss it.[1][2] Perhaps Cagwinn has some more. However, the section should reflect the actual consensus which has not accepted Phillips and Keatman's theory.

It may be best to merge this article with Cuneglasus. There's no more than about three sentences that can really be said about this figure: (1) he was the father of Cynlas Goch; (2) two writers thought he was King Arthur, and (3) no one else thinks he was King Arthur.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I have no real opposition to a merger of the article. But I am still concerned that the section on "Extant records" features no citations and may be original research.

The article of Cuneglasus could use expansion, and has its own sourcing problems. Part of the article is unsourced, and the main source on his genealogy seems to date to 1912-1913. Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I found Bartrum's entry on Owain, it's under OWAIN DANWYN ab EINION YRTH here. Still not much info on him, but it corroborates some of the scant info that's here. I'll clean this article up.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I read the Welsh Classical Dictionary's entry on Cynlas Goch, thanks for the link. Some observations:

• The Dictionary mentions that this Cynlas appears in genealogies "as father of Maig". The Wikipedia article mentions a father and several possible siblings for Cynlas, but mentions no children.
• The Dictionary calls attention to the fact that the cognomen "Goch" is attested in a single source, and omitted in others. This is the same single source that connects him with Rhos.
• The secondary sources cited by the Dictionary were themselves outdated. One dates to 1918, the second to 1904, and the third is a letter dating to 1745 (!).
• The Dictionary mentions a grave of Cynlas, located in Bangor Church, Caernarfonshire. The Wikipedia article does not mention any grave.

Should I incorporate these data in an expansion of Cynlas' Wikipedia article? Dimadick (talk) 20:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Those would be great additions. I'll also take a stab if I get a chance.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:00, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Charles Wood Review

If you actually read the Charles Wood review you will see that it is fairly respectful of the Owain Danwyn is Arthur thesis while noting its speculative character. Of the other review only fragments are available online but so far as I can see from those fragments it seems to be in polite disagreement rather than disdainful rejection. The references do not support the text in other words. Wood says of the book in question "it is always accurate in its use of sources and seldom wildly far-fetched in the conclusions it draws". One of the fragments I was able to read from the other source agrees that Virconium is a prima facie credible nominee for the the original Camelot. Jeremy (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If the cited text does not match the cited sources, it is OR. Please summarise Wood's review. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I sort of have already, Dimadick. The review notes that the search for the historical Arthur remains conjectural given the paucity of sources, and that this book is addressed to a popular rather than a scholarly audience, written without footnotes rather in the form of a detective novel. Having said that Wood summarizes: "it is always accurate in its use of sources and seldom wildly far-fetched in the conclusions it draws". The other cited source, a book, is only available in fragmentary form online, and one of those fragments was ackowledging the prima facie credibility of the authors' identification of Viroconium with Camelot, a key point of the authors' argument. I'd need to get hold of the book to know more. Jeremy (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Just read from a larger excerpt from the second source, the Rodney Castleden one. It disagrees with the Owain Danwyn thesis but doesn't dismiss it as absurd or "fringe" etc. The subject is of great intrinsic interest and pr it deserves more discussion on the page. (I am tempted to note that Owain ab Urien is a "person of interest" but that would definitely be OR) Jeremy (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)