Talk:Caerwent

Market town
The market town article says that such towns were a medieval creation. Anyone want to set the world straight? GreatWhiteNortherner 23:35, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Caerwent = Winchester
A non-user (82.110.109.214) deleted the statement that Caerwent would translate into Winchester. My reference is the respected EBK website - to be precise, their article on Caerwent. It states somewhere near the middle that if its name were translated from the Welsh (Old Welsh, of course) into English, its name would be Winchester. I'm going to re-add it, as the editor gave no reasons. He can argue it here. --Narfil Palùrfalas 21:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the suggestion that "Winchester" could be a translation of the name "Caerwent". The direct translation from Welsh to English is "Fort of Gwent", "Caer" meaning fort and "Went" being the soft mutated form of "Gwent", the region of south-east Wales. Narfil; I have looked at the EBK website you cite but am not convinced. It quotes another source - somebody desperately attempting to forge a link between Caerwent and Camelot! If you wish to un-do my alteration, please quote the original source in the article. Above comment added by User:Rhys jw, 13:54, 28 October 2006


 * Very well. Might as well be conservative on this point.  I'm not defending the site's information as I have no assurance as to its reliability (though it is highly recommended and a part of a Arthurian Britain research group).  It presents arguments for many other cities/forts as well being Camelot. --Narfil Palùrfalas 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've reinstated and expanded the references to Caerwent being synonymous, in terms of derivation, with Winchester, and hopefully clarified it and its relationship with the material on Arthur. Yes, Caerwent means "fort of Gwent", but the word "Gwent" itself derives from "Venta". Also referenced other sources.Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Time has now moved on, and the EBK website previously cited here is now recognised by many editors as not a reliable source. However, the theory of the confusion between Caerwent and Winchester in fact comes (so far as I can tell) not from EBK but from the book by Barber and Pykitt which I have now cited. Now, I'm fully aware that some editors might equally well not see that source as reliable - neither are professional historians or archaeologists. However, the theory exists, and in my view it should be mentioned here - as a theory, possibly making clear that other evidence does not support it. If there were reliable sources that stated, "However, the hypothesis is not accepted by orthodox historians", I would be all for adding that in - but I haven't found any evidence that they have said that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing should be included if no reliable source can be found for it, regardless of whether it "exists" or not. If the theory is truly notable, even if it's only as notable piffle, some reliable source or another will discuss it with all the appropriate caveats. Barber and Pykitt's book is not a reliable source, and as such it, like the EBK site, shouldn't be used here.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a thin line between not liking a theory - and we are only describing it as a theory, not as certain fact - and deciding that any references to it are "not reliable". In terms of the criteria at WP:RS, what is your basis for stating that it "shouldn't be used here" (by which I assume you mean "shouldn't be mentioned") ?  I would be happy to reword the text, so long as the reference to the potential confusion over names is retained in some form.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not really my province to argue why the book isn't reliable, when there has been no explanation of why it is. But this book is certainly not a "reliable, third-party, published [source] with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" in the way described by the guideline. The authors have no credentials in the field, I can find no responses to the book from other scholars, and the publisher describes itself as printing "books across the entire spectrum of occult and esoteric subjects..." – not history. This is FRINGE, and shouldn't be used as a source in any article. Now, if we came across an actually reliable source discussing Barber and Pykitt's theory (even if it was only discussed as a piece of noteworthy crankery) then the material could be mentioned. But until then it had better go.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not add a tag, which would allow other editors the chance to comment?  An alternative would be to find reliable sources (if they exist) which debunk the theory that Caerwent and Winchester are simply names in different languages for places called Venta. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I added the tag. Debunking sources are unlikely, I can't see that this theory has attracted any scholarly attention whatsoever. Could you explain why you think the book is a reliable source?--Cúchullain t/ c 22:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the section, I think that it may well need to be pulled apart and reconstituted, in order to differentiate more clearly between what is verifiably true and what is hypothetical. I am certainly not suggesting that the book is a reliable source in suggesting that "Arthur lived in Caerwent", or anything approaching that. But in my view the fact that the theory has been put forward, and is known locally, justifies a reference in this article, placed in the wider context of what is known from historic and archaeological evidence to be the case. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cúchullain's reasoning. This is a fringe theory by two amateur "researchers" who frankly haven't a clue about the subject. If we were to accept that the fact that a "theory has been put forward" - whether it's known locally or not is irrelevant - justifies including it in a Wikipedia article, then it opens up a whole can of worms. As Cúchullain notes, the chances of finding a refutation of such theories by academics is virtually zero. All you could do would be to note all the scholars in the field who make no mention of it at all, but what is the point of that when it doesn't deserve a mention in the first place? Why give these cranks the publicity they crave? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed all the stuff sourced only to that book, and incorporated the rest into the rest of the article. If the problem were just that the material was just being presented wrong, that could be fixed with changes to the wording. But the real problem is with using an unreliable source to imply that this theory is relevant to an encyclopedia article on this town.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I see it's been added again. I quote the FRINGE content guideline: "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." If a source beyond this unreliable book can't be found suggesting that this fringe theory is somehow important to the article's subject, it had better stay out.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Noted that you "went ahead"... I've reinserted a ref to the Athrwys ap Meurig theory, which is referenced at other WP articles, and which doesn't originate from Barber and Pykitt anyway. As discussed elsewhere, the theory is "relevant to an encyclopedia article" because it is public knowledge, and unless it is placed in the right context in articles like this - as I have now done - it will simply be left open for other later editors to reinstate a much more dubious interpretation of it. And, by the way, it's a small village not a "town", which if you lived 5 miles away, as I do, you would know. WP:AGF and all that. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not include information simply because some editors believe it is "public knowledge", but rather only if it can be verified by reliable sources. We have shown that this book is in no way a reliable source. As such it can't be used. The FRINGE guideline is quite clear about this, though, as I have noted, even debunking references are adequate if they are themselves reliable. Perhaps something along those lines can be found, though I've been looking and can't find anything.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing my point. WP:FRINGE: "Ideas that are of borderline or minimal notability may be mentioned in Wikipedia, but should not be given undue weight. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting new ideas, for countering any systemic bias in institutions such as academia, or for otherwise promoting ideas which have failed to merit attention elsewhere. Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing."  I'm not suggesting at all that the book is a "reliable source".  Graham Hancock's books, for example, are not "reliable sources", but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned - and it is part of the role of WP, and indeed a substantial responsibility, to place such sources in their proper context - that is far more informative and educational for readers than simply pretending they don't exist by ignoring them completely.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * All we're saying is that the unreliable book itself can't be used as evidence that the theory is notable. It will take a third-party reliable source to do that. I've been looking, and so far I haven't seen anything to "establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents" - even debunking or disparaging references.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Essentially what I am suggesting is a link between this article and the article on Historical basis for King Arthur - which you have just edited - with a brief explanation here of the relationship between the two articles. The theory is sufficiently notable to be included in that article, so I fail to understand why it is not sufficiently notable to be included in this one.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it really is notable enough for the other article, considering that no one has located any reliable sources even mentioning it. But assuming it was, it would have a place at historical basis for King Arthur, since it is a book on the historical basis of King Arthur, not about Caerwent, or even the Roman ruins at Caerwent. It doesn't need to be included up at every tangentially related article. It's certainly not mentioned in the featured King Arthur article.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caerwent. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715200733/http://www.roman-sites.com/wales/caerwent/caerwent.htm to http://www.roman-sites.com/wales/caerwent/caerwent.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:45, 30 November 2017 (UTC)