Talk:King Arthur

Template:Maintained

Arthurian fiction overlap

"This trend towards placing Arthur in a historical setting is also apparent in historical and fantasy novels published during this period."

Footnote: For example, in historical fiction: Parke Godwin's Firelord (1980) and its sequels; Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle (1987–99); Nikolai Tolstoy's The Coming of the King (1988); Jack Whyte's Camulod Chronicles (1992–97); and Bernard Cornwell's The Warlord Chronicles (1995–97). In fantasy fiction: S. R. Lawhead, Taliesin (Crossway, 1987); N. Tolstoy, The Coming of the King (Bantam, 1988); J. Whyte, The Skystone (Viking, 1992); and B. Cornwell, The Winter King (Michael Joseph, 1995)."

Problem is, I think the line between historical and fantasy fiction tends to be blurred for Arthur books, and the above are no exceptions, though their basic framework is indeed historical. Lawhead is clearly fantasy - he adds Atlantis in the mix. When does the depiction of paganism fall into fantasy? If the pagan gods manifest themselves? That's Tolstoy. What about writers who write in such ways so readers can interpret the magic stuff is not really magic? Cornwell, as I've heard, wrote thus, but online summaries mention curses and spells. What about Mary Stewart? Do we go by established classifications (how others have classified them)? Uthanc (talk) 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of the sentence is that works of both historical fiction and fantasy fiction (or works that combine elements of the two) tend to place Arthur in a specific historical setting (ie, post-Roman Britain at the time of the Saxon invasions). This distinguishes these works from those based on the romance tradition, such as The Once and Future King and Excalibur, which do not place Arthur in a historical context.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I didn't see you were commenting on the citation rather than the sentence. Your right, we don't need to draw a distinction between historical and fantasy fiction here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Undone edits to historicity section

I have undone the recent edits by WikieWikieWikie to the historicity section, as they seem to me to be a retrograde step away from the FA quality standard - concerns include misspellings, what seems to me poor phrasing, non-academic ref used (the dire Celt & Saxon). My feeling is that the revisions (1) need more work before they are inserted into a recent FA, and (2) they need discussion on the talk page e.g. changing the opinion on a 10thC date of addition of the Arthurian annals to the AC from likely to possibly may represent the editors opinion, but the original wording reflected what the work referenced there argues; if there's a change to be made, back it up with a reliable reference which disagrees, perhaps, otherwise it reflects your assessment of the case, not that of the secondary materials we're meant to be summarizing. Other opinions very much welcomed! :-) Cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you consider Celt & Saxon to be 'dire' I assume you are on the doubters bench, Hrothgar cyning. I did these alterations to attempt to properly balance the article. One in my opinion does tend to agree entirely with the disregardment of the Nennius text, and the idea of corruption of the Annales Cambriae through this author, whom academics in doubt even think may be ficticious himself. Do you mean to say my reference of the Berresford-Ellis text is in some way erronious? You cannot disregard this reference as worthless!WikieWikieWikie (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article was already finely balanced to try and reflect all viewpoints; I'm not sure what is being achieved here. I realize that you feel historians are rejecting these documents out of "spite" (as you say in a comment near the top of the Talk), but this doesn't mean you should bias the material in the direction of your personal opinions. We're providing a summary of current views -- if you want to disagree with an assessment of the date of the AC Arthur entries, great! But do it but adding a ref from a respectable source that backs up your changes (and write is as a summary of their opinions) otherwise it is surely original research... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The "historicity" section has a definite structure. It begins with the evidence used to argue for Arthur's existence, then moves on to the reliability or otherwise of that evidence, and then to the alternative theories to Arthur's origins. If we are to present all sides, this is really the only order they can be put in. And I would say that Berresford Ellis, a populariser of other people's ideas at best, a regurgitator of long-discredited Celtomania at worst, is indeed worthless as a source. --Nicknack009 (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You can say this although the point at hand here is certainly not controversial. I can see his work does not use too much scholarly discression, although he knows his sources and uses them. This is good enough for him to be seen in the light of achademia.WikieWikieWikie (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me be clear - I have no interest in keeping what I wrote unchanged, as suggested on my talk. What I am interested in is having an academically respectable article that is free of Original Research, editor opinion and reflects the current best sources of knowledge. Thus I'm persoanlly happy with NickNack's version as a compromise for the minute. It keeps some of the reorganization of text -- which may be a good move: opinions, people, please! -- and removes most of the bias and personal opinion that Wikie is introducing e.g. "though if we consider the fact the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle usually omit defeats of its protagonists, and the written record of the Britons from the areas of present-day Enlgand under their sway at the time in question are practically non-existant, this may not be as clear cut as it sounds." Now, I'm not saying it's major bias, but this is an argument made by the editor: we are not arguing the case, we are presenting the evidence. e.g. John Morris representing a consensus (!!!!!!). e.g. not citing a reference to back up moving the text on the AC date away from what the ref argues, which therefore=Original Research imho :-/ Re: Berresford Ellis, he is -- as was pointed out above -- not an acceptable academic reference, as it is neither scholarly nor even always accurate. I would like to see more opinions on all this from interested editors, before we start damaging an FA... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hrothgar cyning on the approach, though on the specific points he makes his expertise far exceeds mine. I would prefer to see this article reverted to the version prior to WikieWikieWikie's edits and then a discussion take place here on what changes, if any, to make. Specifically regarding the sources: a source that is regarded as unreliable by a consensus of editors on the talk page should not be introduced. I also agree that the material about the bias of the ASC is personal opinion and would need much stronger sourcing to be usable. Mike Christie (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I really am at a loss here then. Its current tone does not beget an impartial article in my opinion though. And for god's sake the Berreford-Ellis reference does not say anything untoward. I know he is entirely ready to accept a historical Arthur upfront and without reprieve. He is I agree a populist writer (yet he is still a scholar with knowledge of the sources). This is not me though (at least not on the Wiki). It is perfectly true there are scant British Celtic sources from the time in question. This befits beneft of the doubt I think, rather than the contrary. And the point on the ASC is valid. I must reitterate the points shown in any evidence here are all only conjectural and must be treated accordingly in line with Wiki standards when there is an unbalance of possibilities on the table. To settle for one argument or another is unaccpetable. I look forward to an unbias section here. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Finally added after three edit conflicts: My rationale for my edits are that there are three positions it's possible to take - (1) that Arthur was a real person as described by the HB AC, (2) that he may have existed but even if so there's nothing we can usefully say about him, and (3) that he never existed. I've tried to arrange the material to give due prominence to all three options. I've also rewritten the intro to be more general and less technical - we don't need to introduce terms like "Galfridian" and "pre-Galfridian" until we get to the relevant section - and a little more chronological. That's a problem the article has generally, referring to topics that aren't introduced until a paragraph or two later. A little ongoing revision is always necessary in an article of this size to incorporate new additions into the flow of the article. --Nicknack009 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Like Hrothgar, I am open to change if it improves the article, but not if it disimproves it (and we had some bad sentence construction added, apart from the spoiling of the sense in places). I am prepared to watch the cut and thrust here first, but after that I'd want to carefully check new versions against old and choose which seem the better. qp10qp (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Currently the state of article does befit these points NickNack. In my opinion it does not treat the subject with enough care, although this indifference may be close enough to impartial. It is maybe now overly complex and narrative (if this is the right word). I did like the division of the article into the school of thought form though. This represents the argument for (should be first) the argument against (clearly second) and the compromise between the two at the end was quite appropriate I thought. The ending on the idea we should discard the idea of an historical Arthur is not too good here. Surely words like paucity and agnostic are inappropriate too. We must comment on the evidences, yet as clear-cut as possible. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I disagree strongly that the article was written with indifference and lack of care: just the opposite—look at the number of books and articles consulted. I'm all in favour of clearer writing, where possible, but there is always a danger of simply being less precise. The article does not endorse the idea that a historical Arthur should be discarded: it quotes historians who say that. If the article takes any view, it is a neutral one, as expressed by "Historical documents for the post-Roman period are scarce, so a definitive answer to the question of Arthur's historical existence is unlikely". qp10qp (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of points of view may count for something, yet this concensus rests on the theories of people still. It is maybe an inappropriate use of points of view as evidence suitable for reference. Wikipedia should be careful of its consensuses. People are known to be wrong even when they are not alone in their ideas, you know!?! WikieWikieWikie (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, here is the diff between the version prior to recent changes and the current version. Any opinions about what should be left in and what taken out? Mike Christie (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Nicknack's version clears up Wikie's concerns that the article is taking a side. It is now even more clear that we are just giving the evidence rather than making a judgement, and saying which scholars are convinced by what. It's not our fault that belief in a historical Arthur is largely restricted to the likes of Ellis and Morris, neither of whom are seen as credible on the topic (I wouldn't mind a quote from Geoffrey Ashe on this, as he is both respected and what we may call a believer). If WikieWikieWikie or anyone else has any specific issues with the current version, he should suggest them here for us to vet. Like others I beleive that an article of this high calibur should not rely on the likes of Ellis to make any point; if something he says is true, it can surely be found in another, more reliable, source.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Britannia: Conversation with Geoffrey Ashe might provide you with something quoteable.--Alf ^melmac 18:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I did revert Nicknack's changes to the intro though, as it made some changes that were incorrect - notably, the earlier sources have Arthur as a supernatural warrior, and the later ones have him as a saxon fighter, not the other way around. I also removed the reference to Malory as "canonical" (though I now see this was not Nicknack's wording.) The intro might could be tightened, but this point needs to be made.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the likes of The Spoils of Annwn and Culhwch and Olwen are earlier than the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae? I would have thought the opposite is true. The other flaws I pointed out in the intro have also been restored by your revert. And I think Malory, "canonical" or not, is important enough to merit a mention in the intro.--Nicknack009 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hrothgar will be able to address this better than me, but there are several references to Arthur which probably predate the Historia Brittonum, and none contain any mention of him fighting the Saxons. Additionally, some works which may be from a later date (such as Preiddeu Annwn and Pa Gur) reference what are clearly much older traditions, and all of these feature Arthur as some combination of folklore figure, supernatural champion, or otherwordly adventurer, but never a Saxon-fighter. Moreover, other than in the HB and works based directly on it (such as The Annales Cambriae), Arthur is not associated with the Saxons in Welsh literature until the Welsh adaptations of Geoffrey. I also don't know if a chronological format is the way to go; the legend developed differently in different places, especially in the wake of Geoffrey.

As to Malory, I don't think he needs to be mentioned if we don't mention the prose cycle tradition he relied on, especially the Vulgate Cycle.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cuchullain is correct on the above: the nature of Arthur in the early evidence (and the dating of this) is discussed at length in Padel 1994 and Green 2007b (refs as article bib). On the date of Preideu Annwfyn, for example, it has been argued by a number of researchers (e.g. Koch 1996) that linguistic and orthographic factors combine to suggest an origin in perhaps the eighth century for the poem. Similarly, whilst Culhwch is late, it clearly contains much older stories: thus its tale of the boar hunt not only appears in the E9thC HB, but also seems to be referenced in a probably 7th century praise poem (e.g. Green 2007b). Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

My main concern right now is the idea neither Berresford-Ellis, nor now Morris are credible references. If we set aside the conclusions they draw, their assessments of the sources are still perfectly reasonable. The reference to Celt & Saxon some here have seen fit to make redundant, states an achademic point of view on the sources, without any conclusion at all. This does not draw a conclusion, it suggests one. If anything it is the use of quotes with a point of view in the presentation of the case we should be wary of here. May I propose we do away with any quotes not from primary sources with a point of view (if there are any), and let the facts stand alone? This is something I think Wikipedians ahould seek to achieve in an article! I as a reader dont want to be told the sources and ideas I trust aren't valid. I dont mind if I am told another point of view. Just as long as Wikipedia doesn't tell me this point of view is the right one and mine is wrong. There are always maybes (????) here!!!!WikieWikieWikie (talk) 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Quoting scholars is a reasonable thing to do in order to point the arguments. Scholarship evolves, and certain statements by scholars are worth quoting in the article. In any case, this article does not stick just to the current scholarly consensus but reports earlier views, or else Morris would not even be mentioned. The neutrality policy doesn't mean that all theories are equal, and a good article will represent them in proportion to their significance today. The historicity section used to do that, with Morris restricted to a sentence or two. qp10qp (talk) 11:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

We clearly differ on the kind of content we want to see on the Wiki. If care for neutraility and tone is amateur and the (to me at least) slap dash approach Wikipedians generally seem to prefer, I cannot win. This is all wrong. If Wikipedian neutrality does not mean where there is doubt, there is also the benefit of it, and the realms of historical possibility are left to the whims of certain academics, rather than everyone's imagination, of their own accord, it fails at its task to present 'the sum total of human knowledge'. This is a concern I hope I do not stand alone in. I dont think Ill hold my breath though. It stands to reason what it basicly an academic forum will tend to stand by the prevailant POV. I am sure Wikipedia's rules allow this too. Maybe the perfection at least some must seek here will indeed be a work in progress for quite a while. I still feel the article concludes there never was an article, on the basis of the conclusiveness lent to the quotes with a definite criticality of tone. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 13:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Academic scholarship is not about whims. It is about painstaking study and research into archaeology and sources, etc. It is about knowing all the books and articles that contribute to the evolution of scholarship on specific matters. As amateurs (which most of us are), we have not the time nor the ability to mount a challenge to academics, even if we doubt some of their findings. Our task as Wikipedia editors is merely to summarise the existing state of scholarship on a topic, attending carefully to proportion and weight. qp10qp (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course proportion and weight. Can you reference for the the publication with the official stance on the measures we must abide by here then. Otherwise it is all opinion of editors. The only way to avert the instillment of conclusions drawn through individual opinion, is the presentation of an argument in balance. If there are possibilities for and against something, these should be lent the proportions and weights of individual casses, rather than to shut the book on one or the other. Futherly, if one case stands as the defendant, and the other as the accusor (in this case: extant texts vs extant texts are null) the defedant must hold the rights of innocent until proven guilty, with the provision of benefit of the doubt. And the jury is not the editors' consensus, it is the individual this encyclopedia is meant to inform, without disinformation. If the jury is told what it is that they must descide, it is an unfair trial and the case is thrown out. WikieWikieWikie (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm understanding you correctly, but if you are asking which Wikipedia rules apply then this section of the Neutral point of view policy is likely the one.--Alf ^melmac 17:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think WikieWikieWikie is misunderstanding the NPOV policy on this issue. It specifically lays out that Wikipedia is to summarize the findings of the top scholars in the field, not to give equal weight to all viewpoints regardless of standing scholarly consensus. If he were to point out specific issues he has with the text we might be able to correct them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of removal of edits to historicity section

WikieWikie, I have removed your edit to the Historicity section simply on the grounds of bad writing. Compare your opening with the previous one. I'm sorry to be harsh, but in my opinion, your edits reduced the section from a professional to an amateur level of writing.

(Your version)We know there was never really any king of England known as Arthur. What we dont know is whether there is any fact in the fiction. In search of a historical basis for this figure on the borders of fantasy, two early medieval documents stand out, the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae.

(Previous version) Whether Arthur was a historical figure is a matter of controversy in scholarly and popular literature. The argument for his existence is based primarily on two early medieval documents, the Historia Brittonum and Annales Cambriae ...

I have restored the featured-article version of this section, which I believe is a well-written and admirably concise summary. It includes the following, which in my opinion summarises all the different viewpoints briefly and without bias:

This lack of convincing early evidence is the reason many recent historians exclude Arthur from their accounts of post-Roman Britain. In the view of historian Thomas Charles-Edwards, "at this stage of the enquiry, one can only say that there may well have been an historical Arthur [but …] the historian can as yet say nothing of value about him".[8] These modern admissions of ignorance are a relatively recent trend; earlier generations of historians were less sceptical. Historian John Morris made the putative reign of Arthur the organising principle of his history of sub-Roman Britain and Ireland, The Age of Arthur (1973). Even so, he found little to say of an historic Arthur.[9]

I honestly don't see how that can be beaten.

qp10qp (talk) 12:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Qp has a fair point here; I've been sitting on my hands to see where everyone goes with this before voicing my opinion; as I said, I'm happy to see the article improved. However, I do have to say that the last edit by WikieWikie seemed to me a definite retrograde step that reduced the quality of the article and removed a number of useful quotations. On the whole, I think the FA version was well-written, unbiased and provided good coverage of current approaches and scholarship, which is what we're aiming at here, although the Cuchullain/NickNack version is interesting and there are a couple of tweaks I'm tempted to make to the FA version on the basis of it, if we agree to stay with the FA version. Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that WikieWikieWikie's version is inferior. Again, I encourage him to bring up specific problems he has with the current text here on the talk page and we can deal with them here. As to the FA version versus the "Cuchullain/NickNack" version, I'm fine either way; I think the FA version is probably superior. I say go ahead and make any improvements you see fit to make, Hrothgar.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

King Arthur's 'Death'

I remember reading in a book when I was young that King Arthur did not die. He is asleep wating to return and lead Britain in it's hour of need (The once and future King, was his title) According to this version of the legend Arthur is asleep under a hill in Winchester (Home of his 'Round Table' in the Great Hall). I understand the hill he is under is 'Sleepers Hill' in the City of Winchester. Can this be added to the dialog?Bettybutt (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

See King Arthur's messianic return. qp10qp (talk) 12:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar

I just had to fix two glaring errors in grammar. How a FA makes it this far with those kind of things in place is beyond me. 173.20.224.196 (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with "an" historic but there certainly is with "an" large. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"A historic" is a lot more common in modern English and follows modern grammar rules since the "H" is always pronounced now. Although if "an historic" is used more often than "a historic" in the UK then that would be good reason to keep the "an". To the first poster: it's easy for a paid, professional copyeditor to miss one "an" that should be an "a". Plus, this article has been featured for six months and anyone can edit it, what is so hard to understand? LonelyMarble (talk) 07:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A Google UK search for "a historic" results in 502,000 hits; "an historic" results in 421,000. So I would have thought either would do in the UK. I would prefer "an historic" myself on the dubious basis that, if one is in doubt, one should stick to the old-fashioned approach. There is an interesting debate on the issue in the House of Lords, with one school of thought being that one should say "a history", but "an historical..." because of the change of stress from second to first syllable: [1]

45ossington (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Language evolves, that's why we don't use "thy" "thee" and "thou" or "ye" anymore. The "old fashioned" version is obsolete. Even in the link given discussing this in the HOL, they're at odds since words like "hotel" aren't pronounced in the French manner anymore in English. As a result, I would think that "an historic" or "an history" are both very much wrong and "a" is the article to use. FWIW. 192.44.136.113 (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing topics

Surely this article can't be considered complete without mention of the lady of the lake and the full legend of Excaliburm which would seem to be relevant here rather than needing a separate article. And no mention of media interpretations such as The Sword in the Stone or even the BBC's recent Merlin?? Monkeyhousetim (talk)

British or English?

Apologies if i'm missing something here, but Great Britain (the island) = England, Wales and Scotland, The United Kingdom was founded in 1707 and includes Northern Ireland, Before this England has a history of fighting Wales and Scotland, So how can a man living in the sixth century be British? - Sureley this is English History

Yes, you are missing something! maybe start at Britons (historical). Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't know exactly how related to Cornwall Arthur is, but he could be Cornish (Kingdom of Cornwall) - long before England came about. --Joowwww (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

britain meant just the geographical location and the somewhat homogeneous people that lived there, not a political entity. there was no england until well after the angles, saxons etc arrived, where do you think angle-land got it's name? so to say a pre saxon king is english is absurd--Mongreilf (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For this reason I have changed "King Arthur is a legendary British leader who..." to "King Arthur was a legendary Briton leader who" --194.106.137.50 (talk) 12:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

British is the adjective for Briton. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But it isn't wrong to say Briton Leader and to say so would avoid any confusion with modern day Britishness. --194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be wrong, as "Briton" is not an adjective. "British", piped to "Britons (historical)", is absolutely right. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, perhaps we could just say Arthur was "King of the Britons"?--194.106.137.50 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

..."legendary leader or king of the Britons.." would be OK (in my view "King" with capital K would be less correct, as it suggests that he actually was, which is not authenticated), but I don't see a problem with keeping the existing wording. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"British" is fine because there would have been many British kings or leaders, not one. British peoples were found from Cornwall up to Scotland and were not, historically at least, united. "King of the Britons" sounds as if there was just one king of all the tribes/territories, which there never was.qp10qp (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Let's leave it as it is. Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, it is quite difficult to word it nice and neatly. I suppose people can always click on British to see the differences between ancient British and modern British.--194.106.137.50 (talk) 12:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

First sentence

Which is correct?

• King Arthur was a mythical British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Anglo-Saxon invaders in the early 6th century.

OR

• King Arthur is a mythical British leader who, according to medieval histories and romances, led the defence of Britain against the Anglo-Saxon invaders in the early 6th century.

To my mind, the first is correct and the second is ridiculous. Others disagree. Ericoides (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Using "is" is treating King Arthur as a character of folklore and legend, basically a fictional character, and fictional characters are always talked about in the present tense. Since there's debate whether he actually existed or not, there could also be debate whether to use "was" or "is". However, even if he did exist as a real person, his "legend" would still be talked about in the present tense. Just an observation: it's been "is" since it became a featured article and only changed to "was" today and it seems as a result of vandalism (successive edits: [2] [3]). LonelyMarble (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The same question sprang immediately to my own mind, i.e. three words in, and I thought does Arthur get the present tense because he's mythical, because he's British or because he's a leader. Or maybe because he's a king? My national beliefs aside, I'm still unsure. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's partly the conjunction of "is" and, at the end of the sentence, "in the early 6th century", that jars. But maybe I am funny like that. Ericoides (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there perhaps a distinction between legendary/mythical figures who had a legendary/mythical death and those, like Santa Claus and Rumpelstiltskin, who did not (and never can)? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection?

Having just looked over the edits made in the two weeks since semi-protection of this page removed, am I alone in feeling that the return of some protection might be justified? The vast majority of the 250+ (!) edits over the past fortnight have either been acts of mindless vandalism, well-meaning but very inappropriate changes to the text, or reverts of the above two categories of changes... Now, I have to say I'm impressed and humbled by the dedication of those who are going out of their way to repair the article and check edits (I try to check at least once or twice a day, but others usually get there before me), but is this really a good use of people's time? Any thoughts? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Or it could be volunteered for the flagged revision trial... Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it - looks interesting.... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that semiprotection would be nice. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Gimmetrow for enabling semi-protection once more :-) Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Family Tree Removed

I've removed the family tree, as it (1) is unsourced and (2) seems unhelpful -- i.e. there are many different family trees possible, this only represents one possible tradition. In addition, such a tree -- if it is useful at all -- seems to me to be most appropriate at the page on King Arthur's family. Issues over inserting genealogies into the article have been raised here before (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:King_Arthur/Archive2#The_.22genealogy.22), and I would continue to think them a bad idea which detract from the article. Any other opinions? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This tree reflects only one tradition of Arthur's family but it doesn't make that clear. I don't see what's added by including it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)