Talk:Garth Celyn

I believe that this article is still work in progress. However, I would like to make what I hope are some helpful suggestions:

Apart from the capture of Dafydd ap Gruffudd near Aber Garth Celyn, the passage from 'The invasion of Wales was accompanied by savage reprisals...' to '...but that it existed before the conquest' is largely irrelevant to the subject of the article and should really be moved to a more general article on the English conquest of Wales which does not currently exist.

I take it that the 'Declaration of Garth Celyn' was the November 1282 letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury? I suggest that this is given its own article and that the 'Garth Celyn Letters. November 1282' and 'Extracts from the Register of John Peckham, 1282' sections are transferred there.

The literature section at the end needs some explanation.

Walgamanus 21:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of Garth Celyn

What is the etymological meaning of Garth CelynDrachenfyre 20:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Unencyclopaedic?

There is no explanation to accompany the tag, therefore I am removing it until the editor explains what he or she means. Deb (talk) 19:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding to this sooner. In retrospect, I agree I should have written something like this when I tagged the article, though at the time I thought it was obvious. Clearly it wasn't.

Why did I mark it unencyclopaedic? Well, the article starts off very well: the "Early History", "Llys Garth Celyn, the royal court" and "Wales becomes England's first colony" sections are all very good. The next section, "Garth Celyn after the English conquest" seems a bit of hotchpotch of unconnected facts, but that's not a serious objection, and maybe that's all there is to say on those events. The real problem is with the next two sections.

Irrespective of how important the Garth Celyn letters are historically, it's not appropriate to have such long extracts present (or complete text if that's what it is). Compare it, for example, with the Magna Carta article. I suspect that the Magna Carta is of at least as much historical importance as these letters: but only three clauses from the Magna Carta are quoted. This article should do likewise: quote a few particularly noteworthy passages, and give a broad overview of the rest. The full text can always be moved to Wikisource and linked from this page.

Then there's the "Extracts from the Register of John Peckham, 1282". What can I say? It reads like a series of library index cards. — ras52 (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that this article needs some work done on it, but I cannot agree that it is worthy of deletion, as the tag suggests. 17:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogyn Lleol (talk • contribs)

I agree that the article dosen't deserve deletion, though I do think the article would be significantly better off without the last two sections. I've retagged these two sections specifically. I'm quite content with the remainder of the article, as I said above. — ras52 (talk) 14:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone wants to remove the text from the 'net. Just put it in the right place - wikisource.

It's a mess, but don't understand the {{unencyclopedic}} idea. Have change to {{cleanup}} maybe more suitable. Change back if you like but identify what part of WP:NOT applies. SunCreator (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors in letter translation or transcription

I've spotted a dating error in the letters. The letter 361 (CCCLXI, no MSS (ie manuscript number for the Lambeth archives) is given) states that 11th Dec 1282 is the Friday after St.Lucy's Day. However Monday 14 December 1282 (or Sunday 13th depending on the system in use, the 14th is more likely) was St.Lucy's Day. This is consistent with the letter 372 for example which states the 17th to be the Thursday after St.Lucy's Day.

Now where that error comes from I don't know. It does look like some notes of the translator have been included. Also without MSS numbers and better referencing of the whereabouts and nature of the manuscripts these translations can't be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 03:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Pbhj (talk) 03:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Garth Celyn: The real site????

Recent dendrochronology tests carried out at Garth Celyn show that the timbers date from the 14th century. Many scholars disagree that the site now known as GArth Celyn is actually the site of the 13th century house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.153.32 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If this is the case, shouldn't this be reflected on the page? Could you provide a reference? Ynyrhesolaf (talk) 10:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Current use

What is the current use of the house? This should probably be added to the article. Tibetologist (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

See Pen y Bryn. Civis Romanus (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Pen y Bryn

Looking through this page for notable, mainstream, referenced comments, I find very few. Much of what is here has no connection to the actual place, and I note that mainstream scholarship does not identify this Garth Celyn as an important place where interesting things happened, see http://www.coflein.gov.uk/en/site/93697/details/ENCLOSURE+%26+ASSOCIATED+STRUCTURES+AT+PEN-Y-BRYN%2C+A/ and http://www.abergwyngregyn.co.uk/html/body_old_pen_y_bryn.html. That leaves very little of this article indeed to be appropriately included in an encyclopaedia, and the remainder could best be covered by a straightforward blanking and redirect to Pen y Bryn, where the Aber Trust's claims are outlined and referenced. Civis Romanus (talk) 17:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

In view of the above, I have incorporated into Pen y Bryn all the reliable details about Garth Celyn that I can find. I have also reinstated the unencyclopedic tag. It would help a lot if, before the tag was removed, we could have some mainstream, published, reliable sources for claims made about this place. In particular, scholarly references for the mediaeval age of the place, for any connection with Celyn ap Caw beyond a common name element, for its identity with any Garth Celyn found in the Lambeth letters, and for the Lambeth letters themselves. If we can't - I'll wait a month or so to see if we get any comments - this article needs to be replaced with a redirect. Civis Romanus (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your work towards straightening out these two articles, Civis Romanus. User:BrynLlywelyn created this article and sourced from materials she has scanned from the library, most of which has never been published in what you would call mainstream publication; see the reference section of the article. Does this type of sourcing make it not notable? That is not my call to make. Her site has samples of these materials, but she was not allowed to point to her site (which shows scans of the documents) as reference. She made a lot of effort to document what she has found, but are we to not allow it because it is so old that is has not been scanned by a library (yet) or ever published by a book publisher? I think it would be a shame to lose this research. I think the articles should be separate, and I think she should be invited into this discussion. ~Geaugagrrl ^talk 05:44, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

To answer your comments, yes, the sources presented absolutely fail to conform to Wikipedia policies about reliable sources. Nobody's suggesting that we should lose it, but it really does not belong in this encyclopedia (except in the form that I have presented it at Pen y Bryn). It belongs on her web site, and of course if given suitable third-party publication it can be included here. But not as things are. I'll make the redirect now, and look forward to any reliable sources that may be presented. I'll just repeat what I think are the key issues: scholarly references for the mediaeval age of the place, for any connection with Celyn ap Caw beyond a common name element, for its identity with any Garth Celyn found in the Lambeth letters, and for the Lambeth letters themselves. Civis Romanus (talk) 20:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)