Category talk:Arthurian legend

Arthurian English and Scottish?
I propose that this category be removed from the English and Scottish folklore sections as A) They are not 'native' folklore of those countries, B) if English and Scottish why not French and Dutch, both countries of France and the Netherlands, have poems and tales set in the 'Arthurian' world, and in the case of France various locations have been associated with him. If it's the fact that many places now in England are associated with England then I should remind everyone that 'Beowulf' is set in Geatland, now in Sweden, but is not considered a Swedish poem.

I think the folkloric categories should be for folklore that is native to the region rather than attributed to the region (i.e. 'The Laidly Worm' being in English folklore but not in Scandinavian folklore just because the hero is said to be in Norway at the beginning of the story in many versions). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 20:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but wikipedians that edit articles related to England and Britain have a ridiculous pro-Celtic bias and thus want to make England as Celtic (or British) as possible. Scholars know that Arthurian tales are British tales that were adopted by Normans as a new way to insult the English (they thought tales about an old enemy of the English to be rather humorous when forced down the collective throat populace).

Yes, France, the Nederlands and even Germany have many, many tales about Arthur (infact, most of the famous Arthurian romances were written by French authors and Germany has him as the leader of the wild hunt). However, the Nederlanders are seen as Germanic whereas the English are not, despite the fact that the closest language to English, Frisian, is within the borders of the Nederlands and the Frisian have close genetical links (which seems to be the only thing most wikipedians care about; I don't) with England and also has a connection to the Celts as Britain does. Deutschland is seen as 'more Germanic' than England because of the English name for the country, despite the fact that the Halstatt culture and the Lá Tene are Celtic and within its borders and it has Celtic traditions aswell. The Germans are connected with Nazism and thus the British wikipedians don't want to be connected to them.

Like 'Holland' and 'Germany', the French are continental and thus the wikipedians that follow the stupid Britishist plague don't want to be connected to them. They want Britain to be all one culture and ethnicity when infact it is many. They want to be seen as special and different from the continent and thus support the much discreditted Sykes and Oppenheimer because they make it seem as if the British more 'indiginous' to Europe than most of the other Europeans. It is a form of nationalism; anti-Germanicism is a hidious byproduct of the otherwise acceptable anti-Nazism and the new age pro-Celtic rubbish (not that Celtic culture is rubbish but the new age take on it is) that has grown in popularity.

Due to all these reasons these wikipedians are not content with listing Athurian myths as Welsh and Cornish like most academics but instead want to force it into the English folklore section.

I have no idea why people want King Arthur to be part of the folkloric tradition of Scotland, either, as it (like England) doesn't have much to do with the Arthurian tradition.

I am all for either Arthurian myths being put into the Nederlandic, German and French categories or being taken from the English and Scottish categories and left in the Welsh and Cornish categories. - Mr Roland Spounge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.51.113 (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Arthur and the Arthurian legend do relate to English and Scottish folklore, meaning that modern (or past) English and Scottish people incorporated them into their own folklore. The clearest example is in the folklore of places, I believe I mentioned Glastonbury and the many places called Arthur's Seat or Arthur's Cave that are present throughout Britain - these places are important folkloric items to the modern English and Scottish people. In contrast Beowulf and the Laidly Worm are not important to the Scandinavians, but only to the English. This is the reason the categories are appropriate.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. English culture hasn't been exclusively Anglo-Saxon for oh, quite a while now. &mdash;Mhari* 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So if what you say is true, it then also be put into Dutch, French and German, folklore categories? They incorporated the Arthurian mythos into their own, also. And Beowulf is somewhat important to the Scandinavians, firstly there are places associated with him (associated by the English but then again the English and Scots did not associate Arthur with the locations in their respective countries, but some Welsh poets) and there is a debate in Scandinavia to where Beowulf is from (Gotland or Geatland) and many think he is from a Scandinavian story. And obviously the English have not been exclusively 'Anglo-Saxon' as that was a period not the culture (they called themselves English...well Engla, Englisc...etc...).

Why not just put it in the British Folklore if it is in the folklore of all the nations in Britain rather than repeat it in all the subcategories?

If it is decided then that it shall have to stay in categories it (in my opinion) shouldn't belong, then I shall go about the tedious task of placing it in all the countries with Arthurian tales (as it should be in them by the definition used here). Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk)


 * Firstly, there is a difference between literary and folklore traditions. Dutch, French, German, etc. use of the Arthurian legend has always been primarily literary, they have not incorporated it into their folklore extensively. England and Scotland have a strong literature of Arthur, but they've also incorporated the legend into their folklore, one instance being the place lore I mentioned (and no, Glastonbury and the Arthur's caves have nothing to do with Welsh poets). As for Beowulf, I don't know nearly as much about that, but my understanding was that he was not very important to the Scandanavians, if he were obviously this would be a poor example. And as for just placing it in the generic category British folklore, it's generally considered poor form to place something in both a category and a subcat, per WP:CAT. I don't mind it being in the national category on top of the subcats, but it should be in all the appropriate subcats if it's in any of them.--Cúchullain t/ c  19:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Arthurian 'folklore' is predominately a literary tradition at least in England and Scotland. You are correct that the legends that surround Glastonbury Tor have nothing to do with Welsh poets (other than the fact Arthur started predominately as a character in Welsh/Brythonic poetry, I presume..see Aneirin, Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth) it is mainly the work of a French poet named Robert de Boron (unless you are in the minority that believe monks 'found' Arthur's grave before his writings). As for 'Arthur's Caves' I take you mean caves like Merlin's Cave at Tintagel (which would make it Cornish not English as they are generally accepted as separate strands though they do share many motifs via borrowings into Cornish and vice versa). Besides the French and Dutch have some folktales associated with the Arthurian mythos, for instance Paimpont forest has a local legend concerning Merlin and the Lady of the Lake. The majority of Arthurian folklore is literary and not true folklore, so if we are going to be picky and separate folklore and literature then we should remove much of the pages in the Arthurian category and only place genuine folk tales (of which there are few). I do agree that the Arthurian Mythos is part of English and Scottish literature but not genuine folklore. at least not anymore than it is French. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of being picky, it's a matter of being accurate. There is a difference between literature and folklore. England and Scotland have a strong literary tradition of Arthur, but they also have incorporated Arthurian lore into their own genuine folklore, to a much greater extent than on the continent, where the Arthurian legend was primarily a literary concern. I don't know where you get the idea that this is not the case. By Arthur's Caves, I mean the folk belief that certain caves around Britain are where Arthur sleeps until his return. I quote The New Arthurian Encyclopedia, under "Cave Legend":"But a folk belief... took hold among the Welsh and in parts of England and Scotland: that [Arthur] was asleep in a cave until his messianic return". The "Folklore" entry in that same encyclopedia discusses many folk beliefs about Arthur from Wales, England, Scotland, and Brittany, but virtually nothing about such beliefs in other European nations. Some of your other assertions are wrong, for instance Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth did not compose "Welsh/Brythonic" poetry, but Latin prose, and say nothing about Glastonbury. Also remember that Cornwall is in England, and that Brittany, where Paimpont is, is now represented here with a folklore category.
 * The folklore categories that are here are appropriate. It's time to let this go.--Cúchullain t/ c 23:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether Nennius or Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote in Latin or Welsh. He is Welsh. I did not specify which language they wrote in as it does not matter (in this regard). Just as Bede was English and yet wrote in Latin, Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth were Welsh (or Brythonic). Let's not skirt around the issue that on the continent they also have 'folktales' featuring Arthur. Maybe you do not think it is quite as much as in England and Scotland (fair enough) but he still features. But I am bored with this subject now. Wikipedia is not renowned for it's common sense so it does not really matter in the long run. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 09:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no need to get testy, we're all civilized people here. But note that I referred you to an encyclopedia that refers to English and Scottish folklore about Arthur but does not mention any on the continent save for Brittany. If you have any similar evidence to back up your notion that countries on the continent have equally strong folklore traditions as the Brits, bring it up. Otherwise it's just assumption.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

PockBot (run by IP:207.160.66.129) - Category articles summary as of 21:7:37, Wed Apr 25, 2007
 List of all pages in category Arthurian legend retrieved by Chris G Bot 2. '''Chris G Bot 2 is an authorised bot. '''   Edit by PockBot (on behalf of Warlordjohncarter)

Category overkill
I agree entirely with the assessment by User:Cuchullain above, dated 1 February 2008. Four years later, nothing has improved. The number of categories "Arthurian legend" is supposed to belong to is simply ridiculous.

It would suffice to put it in "British traditional history". This is exactly what it is, but no, it must also be made explicit that this is, among other things, not just a topic of Cornish folklore, no, but also of Cornish culture, and not just of Welsh flolklore and of Welsh mythology, but also of Wales in fiction. And let's not forget Scotland in fiction, I don't know where that comes in, but in 300 years of chivalric romances, I am sure some character at some points sets foot in Scotland, so there you are, put it in the category (never mind that historically, there wasn't even a "Scotland" in the Arthurian period any more than there was an "England", these tales being set before the migration of either the Anglo-Saxons or the Gaels to Great Britain).

If all topics on Wikipedia would be treated as redundantly as this, our categorization system would break down completely into an unusable mess. --dab (𒁳) 14:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)