Talk:Arthur Uther Pendragon

Article must be removed

The primary sources of this article are a book, Pendragon & Stone, written by the subject of the article and the Loyal Arthurian Warband, founded by the subject of the article. Kovar (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

- I attempted to mark it for deletion but don't have the time at the moment to learn the somewhat complex process. I'm hoping to do so later, presuming that someone else doesn't. Kovar (talk)Kovar 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Surely you are mistaken. Perhaps you have, inadvertently, overlooked the following independent sources - Berens, C, (1994-02-10) Britons, behold your King. The Independent (British National newspaper); Cohen, N, (1995-06-11) King Arthur fights holy war. again The Independent (British National newspaper); Glastonbury Order of Druids, British Druid order; Morris, S, (2009-05-03) Stonehenge protester King Arthur Pendragon defies eviction order. The Guardian. (another British National newspaper); Penton, K, Sunrise Festival Interview. (2008) independent radio interview.Fountain Posters (talk) 23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not overlook the articles you list; the tone of this entry is such that I looked up the book, went through the Warband website, and read the articles before commenting. And yes, I know both newspapers; even if I hadn't checking the citations would have shown their scope. I've pulled up the articles again to provide the details. I may be missing one or two but in the main they are as follows:

The Camilla Berens article is cited twice, quoting the quotes in reference to the subject being "a bit annoyed" and what he claims is his role in life. Nick Cohen is cited twice, once in reference to Pendragon being a self-proclaimed eccentric. The Glastonbury Order of Druids is cited once, giving the name of their co-founder and the meaning of his surname. The Penton interview is cited most often; I haven't compared the information there to the Wikipedia article because I don't do transcription, but . (I'm an information junkie and did some independent research as well: Druid wars: How a drunken row over 4,000-year-old bones is causing chaos in pagan circles is missing)

I've taken the time to answer you at length because while you are impassioned on the subject I'm not, and it's simpler to do this all at once. I will continue to watch this page but I really have no interest in getting into a long discussion. Kovar (talk) 03:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your long reply. Glad you detected our Brit passion for the subject too... Perhaps with a subject so close to our British psyche, that this Wikipedia article can now be given your blessing? BTW The Daily Mail article cited Arthur as having changed his name in 1976 - +ten years before+ he changed it. Also the article was slack in seemingly painting all biker clubs as 'Hell's Angels' - which any biker will tell you (and I've asked) this isn't the case. Further showing poor research. One may also see from The Mail's appetite for 'celebrity' stories (the Daily Mail page links to a dozen 'celebrity' stories whilst national/world news is pushed to the bottom) This is a prime example of how the press has shied away from investigative reporting and creates sensationalism instead. All the best, thanks for the reply. Fountain Posters (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Going to the meat of what you said, it doesn't matter how close a topic is to whomever or how many. An article must be unbiased and have appropriate citations. This one does not meet those standards.

I'll be away for about a week to ten days. If in that time this is rewritten such that it does meet, or is far closer to, those standards I will re-consider it. Given how passionate you are about the subject you're probably not the best person to accomplish that. Which is not a criticism of you, BTW, just true of almost everyone. Kovar (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Time to nominate for deletion. I'm amazed this hasn't happened already. The subject is unnotable, probably self-promotion, loaded with irrelevant links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.80.5.26 (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the source matterial comes from the subject, either from their book, their website or from interviews they gave and were subsequently reported in the press. The page lacks original second/third party verification. 92.18.106.33 (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

source

Long interview published in the Sunday Post 1994: http://www.nickryan.net/articles/arthur.html BrainyBabe (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me

Everything that is wrong with wikipedia is in this article I'd delete it all but people might think its vandalisim —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.230.206.2 (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

its a bit of a mess

and definitely needs spelling and grammar going over but as far as citing etc is concerned it seems reasonable.

92.39.207.78 (talk) 05:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the spelling - with this article having 'strong national ties to Britain' (see Manual of Style), it is without a doubt in the articles best interest that the British spelling is preferred.--Fountain Posters (talk) 09:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

== Far too long ==

This article is far too detailed for someone of such relatively minor notability. It seems to be almost entirely derived from his autobiography, which shows through in the tone. I'm going to go through and try to cull large sections of it. --ascorbic (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

How is that people think they can say these things is beyond me? The guy who wrote it, did so with the full support of Arthur and was provided information and pictures for it. It's not the best wiki page but that's how it is at this time. Everyone thinks they know all about Arthur, they only know what they read or hearsay - only a few know the Truth. Daily Mail continues to report inaccurately about Arthur, druids and pagans. What's new. He changed his name in 1986 and was NEVER a member of the Hells Angels as they claim. You can contact HA UK and ask them if you like. Thing is about Wiki, the facts can be presented and then anyone can come along and change them. The facts are there, just not enough of them but considering it covers over 20 years of someone's colourful life - it's hard to condense it down. Webmaster - www.warband.org.uk

This page could be replaced by a link to the Warband website

This is nothing more than a page to promote a campaigner, who gets media attention primarily because he changed his name by deedpoll. It needs a complete independent review/re-write. Too many of the references relate to his own writings or related Warband website which cannot be relied on for impartiality (even if they are). As for the nonesense claim that the EH decision to move the visitor centre was down to Arthur, are we to believe that a Government Department listens to him alone? The reality is that EH listen to a variety of groups, albeit most of them don't satisfy the tabloid's hunger for barking mad characters. JamesDGallagher (talk) 23:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

James, I don't think this is deliberately as a page to promote a campaigner; from this discussion page I think it's just written and worked on by people who are beyond passionate about the subject. It's also been clarified that the subject of the article has in fact been involved with writing it. The relevant Wikipedia Guidelines Autobiography [[1]] and Conflict of Interest [[2]]. But the most important one is Neutral point of view [[3]]. (Could you look at that specific one, please?)

That the article is still here is, in large part, my fault. My last comment here is the last time I looked at it, and I entirely missed the discussion about deletion. I'm only looking at it now because your comment above showed up on my watch list. I'm rather wishing it hadn't.Kovar (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

References to Excalibur

In the Poll Tax Protest section, "Excalibur" was changed to "his sword". "Excalibur" when capitalized is a proper noun referring to the sword of myth and legend. It should be clarified what is meant by "Excalibur" in this article, as it is not a mythical sword, but presumably a real one that this guy named "Excalibur" himself.

We don't know that the original Excalibur, or Caliburn, is a purely mythical sword. What we do know is that this sword was made for the film Excalibur, and has been named Excalibur. I'm assuming no one would confuse it with the sword of myth and legend, or the sword carried by the leader at the Battle of Badon.Meerta (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

References to Druids

The opening sentence of the article makes it clear that Pendragon is a neo-Druid. The neo-Druid page makes it clear that there is no connection between neo-Druids and the original Druids of Iron Age Britain and France. Accordingly, it is inaccurate to write that Pendragon is known for "restoring the rights of Druids to worship at Stone Henge". Corrected references to the contemporary "druids" as neo-Druids, while references to the Iron Age Druids remain as simply "Druids". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.195.75.155 (talk) 09:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

"Druids" is an established shorthand for "neo-Druids", and has long been used by the BBC to refer to the the Druid groups that go back as far as about the 1750s. Even before the term "neo-Druid" was coined in fact.

Just as it's unlikely anyone would confuse King Arthur's Excalibur with the original Excalibur, or whatever the Brittonic leader carried, I'm pressed put to imagine many being confused by this usage of "druid".Meerta (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2019 (UTC)