Talk:Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr

Hoax or not?
I certainly have never heard of Ieuan and have more than a few doubts about this article. Neither Ieuan or his three sons are mentioned in R. R. Davies authoritative and exhaustive study, The Revolt of Owain Glyndŵr (OUP, 1995). Peter Bartrum does exist (I assume the gentleman is still alive), and is the recognised doyen of medieval Welsh genealogical studies. I suspect this may be a case of getting a bit over enthusiastic and uncritical rather than a deliberate hoax. As it's such a startling claim it most definitely needs a reliable source and should not stand as it is. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Peter Bartrum and University of Wales (Aberystwyth)
For those unfamiliar the work of Peter Bartrum is being put on to a data base by fellows of the College of Aberystwyth (University of Wales). I refer you to this;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/mid/6106074.stm

This process is ongoing. Peter Bartrum has researched Welsh genealogies since 1929. I was personally emailed some scanned copies of parts of his manuscripts which I am interested in by the University of Wales at Aberystwyth which mention the sons of Owain Glyndwr. Please if you doubt you may get in touch with the college and ask to speak to her. Among the sons detailed in Bartrum's work is Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr, referred to as a bastard son, who had children of his own and grand children. That is where Peter Bartrums research appears to end, so therefore, it is entirely possible that their are male line descendants of the sons or grandsons of Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr and therefore heirs to the line of Glyndwr and by extension that of Rhodri Mawr waiting to be discovered. If anyone has any further doubts I would happily forward them a scanned copy of the page from Bartrums original manuscript. Furthermore, according to tradition it was this Ieuan who proclaimed a free state in Abergavenney in 1404. This page on Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr is not a hoax page, it is potentially of significant importance to Welsh royal research, so please do not delete it. If Enaidmawr would like me to email him/her the pages of Bartrum's work that I have please email me at jfrankcom@btinternet.com James Frankcom 14:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have seen the scans of Bartrum's work kindly provided by James Frankcom. I ask that any possible move to delete this page be put on hold as further references are sought particularly regarding the university's plans. Thank you. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly that would count as OR and I believe the article should still be deleted. Abtract (talk) 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Why the sudden urgent rush to delete? This is most curious and I wonder what your motives are for demanding a deletion so abruptly. Surely if the sources used by Bartrum in his original work can be referred to on this page then it is properly referenced. Nevertheless this Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr is a person of historical significance and clearly also of public interest. The fact that he existed and that this is news to many people makes it the sort of page Wikipedia should be proud of. 86.146.107.76 (talk) 09:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but the article constitutes OR imho ... please read that policy. It would be quite misleading to retain an article that simply cannot be verified. Abtract (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference of this page should read; Welsh Genealogies A.D. 300 - 1400, P. C. Bartrum; Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 5; Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 5 (A) (pages 32 and 67). I have amended the page accordingly. This book is available for public inspection at the Welsh National Library in Aberystwyth and the British Library and will be online in December 2009. I have amended the wiki entry accordingly. I hope this is now sufficient and threats to delete this page will be rescinded. James Frankcom (talk) 13:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will leave this for 48 hours now the article is referenced, and if there are no objections I will then remove the erroneous "hoax" tag, the "references" tag and the "original research" tags.James Frankcom (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * But that is not a published book. Abtract (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a published book and can, as I said, because of its large size (you can buy a copy for £950.00) be viewed at the National Library of Wales or at the British Library. I recommend you do a search online and you will find it. The Bartrum Project is to put this book online. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Frankcom (talk • contribs) 16:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Who are the publishers? Is it in English? Abtract (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sure you could have found that out for yourself, anyway you can buy a copy of that book in printed form here: . As I said, that book which is enormous is in the process of being put online.James Frankcom (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * "Is it in English?" I thought the title would clarify that! This is regarded as the single most authorative survey of the field. It's published by the University of Wales Press. As it costs a small fortune I don't have a copy and neither would my local libraries. I concur that the article should not be deleted but given a fair "breathing period". Enaidmawr (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK life's too short to worry but I remain highly sceptical about this. Abtract (talk) 00:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * your scepticism is based on what grounds? i am prepared to publish a screen print of the original here but i do not own the copyright and clearly you are not qualified to judge it. Now that this article has been referenced and that this reference has been viewed by two independent parties I don't believe you have grounds for any continued "scepticism" considering you have never even heard of the source we are both refering to which would be common knowledge to anyone who has actually studied this subject. Unless there is someone other than the user 'Abtract' with reasonable grounds for objection I propose that this matter should be closed within 48 hours of the posting dated 6th December 86.146.107.76 (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) (James Frankcom)


 * James your attitude does you no credit. My scepticism arises from the fact that the documents being quoted are not available for checking (in Welsh and cost £1k) and are the work of one man 30 years ago (a lot has happened in genealogy since then). Now I am not saying this isn't all perfectly correct but I am saying there must remain real doubt until this [| primary source] has been reviewd by commentators and becomes more widely accepted. Until then IMHO it should not be included in wkp as "fact" (as it was when I first stumbled accross the article, but as speculation - albeit now with references. Abtract (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that the article was not properly referenced from the start and I am also sorry for exibiting my annoyance in my previous reply to you, however please try to empathise with the strong sense of annoyance someone who has studied this area for more than a decade would feel if firstly they were accused of writing a "hoax" article (which implies that the author (e.g. Me) is some sort of liar, fantasist etc). Then once that is cleared up I am accused of writing it all myself (Original Work) and that therefore this is not dependable either. Finally when the true source is declared, shared and agreed (PC Bartrum) then you have the unbelievable arrogance to suggest HE is an unreliable source "the work of one man 30 years ago". Considering you have not even heard of this source and demonstrably have a limited knowledge in this subject which you are seeking to edit it is entirely unacceptable for you to suggest the work of Peter Bartrum is unreliable (it is used as the basis for many works on Welsh genealogy during the 20th Century) and I hope you understand the sense of exasperation and annoyance I felt. I believe that if the University of Wales considers it "fact" then you have no reasonable grounds to state it is not when you are obviously not well versed in the subject. For your information the documents ARE available for checking, go to the British Library, register as a Reader and look them up.James Frankcom (talk) 12:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * So you say. However WP requires more than your sayso or even faxed documents to another editor. more later Abtract (talk) 16:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if you have read No original research. It says,

"A primary source is a document or person very close to the situation being written about. Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. Any interpretation of primary source material requires another reliable source for that interpretation. To the extent that an article or particular part of an article relies on a primary source, that part of the article should only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge; and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source, unless such claims are verifiable from another source. (note I have added highlights and altered the punctuation slightly to make it easier to read here)

IMHO the implication of this is that the primary source used for this article must be treated very carefully and too much weight must not be put on it with the very bold assertions that were in the original article. As and when there are other publications that refer to the passages in question and give opinions or commentaries, then naturally the article can become bolder and bolder. You notice I am making no attempt to indicate whether the article is "true" or not because that isnt the point - reading Rouge admin may help understand this point (it's amusing anyway).

You ask for empathy ... imagine that I was a Russian emigre reading a genealogy book (published in 1975 by the University of Moskow) in the Moskow State Library, not just any old book but one written, albeit in Russian, by the foremost expert in his field. This book states that the author had reason to suppose that there was a previously unknown illegitimate son of the Zsar and that son had three children; the book named these children. Furthermore, the Moskow State Library is known to be putting this entire tome on the internet. Despite this being the only source for these assertions, I then write a WP article saying something like "The Zsar had an illigitimate son named xxx; he had three children named a,b and c. This gives rise to the possibility that there exists today from the patrilineal line, one who is the true heir to the throne of Russia". How long do you think that article would last in that form? if it lasted at all.

Last but certainly not least, please try to resist the urge to make personal attacks; it does you no credit and will if continued undoubtledly lead to a block and neither of us wants that. I am sympathetic to your position but try to understand that "knowing it to be true" is not the test of how a wp article should be written. Abtract (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I sincerely hope this argument can be defused and put to rest. I acknowledge yout well argued view points. I don't welcome the...how can I say this...threat? to "undoubtedly lead to a block" ye whose first ever article was a defense of the so-called "cabal" etc. Nevertheless I accept and acknowledge your points. I was never personally attacking YOU. I just thought your continued scepticism of the source which is acknowledged by the national library in wales as entirely dependable was a bit much from someone who had no specialist enquiry in this area. I want to empathise there was never any personal attack. I am sure you are very nice LOL James Frankcom (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)


 * OK apology accepted; let's move on. Abtract (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Speculative comments
Wikipedia is no place for speculation or comments by editors. Abtract (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It was not "speculation" it was based on an understanding of the dates when the main Welsh royal houses are considered to have expired and the fact by Ieuan's existance (and also that of his sons and grandsons) that their lives would have extended beyond the acknowledged dates of the extinction of the other royal houses and logically must represent among the latest surviving descendants of Rhodri Mawr.James Frankcom (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Look at this from No_original_research "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." and this from the same page "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". And then from lower down "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." This last quote in particular precludes the application of "logic" by an editor. I have no opinion as to the truth of your claim but it is only valid with checkable, reputable citations. Abtract (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Welsh language citations
It may be worth reading this assuming the reference is to a Welsh language text. Abtract (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As aforementioned it is NOT a Welsh language text. The title of the work is "Welsh Genealogical Tracts" which being in English should serve as an indication James Frankcom (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Continued unfair edits by User:Abtract
I have decided to source the original material used by Peter Clement Bartrum where the reference to Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr can be found. I have discussed this matter with the research fellows at the University of Wales and have been directed to the manuscripts known as Peniarth 287 and Harley 1969. I have also found the precise sections in those manuscripts where Ieuan and his sons, grandsons and great grandsons are detailed. These documents are the original sources which were used by Peter Bartrum in his published books that form the backbone of Welsh genealogical research at the University of Wales. Peter Bartrum's work are in English although the original 17th Century manuscripts are in Welsh. Nevertheless the Peniarth Manuscripts by Robert Vaughan of Hengwrt have been translated into English in the Handlist of Manuscripts in the National Library of Wales (Aberystwyth, 1940-2003), vol. I, pp. iii-xxiii, J Gwenogvryn Evans’ catalogue, Report on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language (London, 1898-1910), volume. I, pp. 297-1126 and Ancient Peniarth Manuscripts (all the manuscripts that did not come to the Library in 1909): typescript catalogue Peniarth MSS: A Catalogue of Additional Manuscripts (1990). See here for further information: National Library of Wales - Peniarth Manuscripts.

I feel that the User: "Abtract" is unfairly vandalising this page by removing the referencing to suit his own argument that it is not well referenced. I do not understand why this was done by the user Abtract. He stated that the reference was "garbled", he could have done some work to un-garble this if it really was so, but the reference relates to particular scrolls and as such cannot be put in the ordinary way as one would for a book. To just delete the entire reference after he had made such a point about it requiring more referencing I think is not only very unreasonable but also seems like a concerted campaign by him to frustrate my attempts to develop this page.

He has also sought to threaten me for debating this point with him with some sort of ban from the site - can anyone answer me, does he have the authority to do this?? For the record I have never made any criticism of him personal, it has been a purely academic debate, but it is now I who feels the victim of unjust and continued attack.

I have sought to add to Wikipedia an interesting and important topic for the purposes of enlightening users and expanding the Wikipedia project, I feel that Abtract (an anonymous person) - who has been rather ill-informed of the subject throughout but has sought to make himself out to be some sort of moderator of the site.

For anyone in a position of authority who is not familiar with the topic Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr was the illegitimate son of Owain Glyndwr the last native "prince of Wales". Under Welsh custom illegitimate children when recognised by their fathers and entitled to the same rights as legitimate ones. Ieuan, his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren are detailed in genealogical tables constructed by Peter Clement Bartrum in his work 'Welsh Genealogical Tracts' which is considered the single most authoritative document on Welsh genealogy and is so important that the University of Wales has embarked on a project to put the whole thing online. The works of Bartrum are available for viewing at several central Libraries in the UK and I and others have viewed them and can confirm that Ieuan ab Owain does exist in them as described. Bartrum - whose work is in the English language - built the genealogical tables after many decades of research into original manuscripts. The original manuscripts where Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr and his descendants can be found I have detailed at the top of this page (alongside published English translations of them available). None of this is original research by me or Peter Bartrum.

I believe that this page is fully and fairly referenced and the continued attacks by Abtract are unjustified and are now bordering on vandalism. James Frankcom (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. I have no desire to stand in the way of improving a wp article, far from it. However, original research is not permitted (and quoting from primary Welsh sources counts I'm afraid WP:PSTS), speculation by editors is not permitted (such as presuming that subsequent generations exist). And just to be clear, I have never threatened you, simply advised you that if you continued to revert beyond 3 times in a short timescale you were likely to be banned (not by me I hasten to add). My concern in all this has been to avoid your overenthusiasm and personal opinions spilling into this article.     Why not ask an independent admin to look at the history and give you some guidance; if such an independent person allows you to include OR and speculation then I will withdraw my objections. And a happy new year to you James. Abtract (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is so tiresome. I am not asking to have original research or my own opinion put in this article.
 * PC Bartrum is the source of the information. His work is in English and available for anyone to read. I have also provided HIS sources, namely J Gwenogvryn Evans’ catalogue, Report on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language (London, 1898-1910), volume I, which is also in English - I have also provided the original information for THAT reference, namely; the Peniarth Manuscripts which are kept by the National Library of Wales and are in Welsh because that is the language of Wales and this piece relates to a Welsh person.
 * None of what I have written is "original research". It is the published work of P C Bartrum who has extracted information from other sources as aforementioned.
 * You first say the article was an invention. I presume you now accept it is not. Now you are saying it is tarnished by my "over enthusiasm". Yes, I am enthusiastic, this is a subject I have studied for more than a decade.
 * You threatened to have me banned for "personal attacks". I have never made any personal attacks against you. I feel it is you making personal attacks against me such as implying I am a liar or worse (see previous point).
 * It is not my personal opinion. The same document/s that assert the existance of Ieuan ab Owain also show his children (e.g. Maredudd ab Ieuan), their children (e.g. Gruffudd Goch ap Maredudd) and then their children (John ap Gruffudd Goch). Finally it indicates that there were further descendants which are un-named. So when I stated that the same source indicates further generations beyond Ieuan, I do not think that this is unreasonable speculation because it is based on the source. Lamentably when ever I have sought to expand the article to include the listed descendants of Ieuan ab Owain Glyndwr you delete it, again and again, without any regard for the fact that this is a sourced article based on the work of noted experts in Welsh genealogy fully supported by the University of Wales which is certainly the highest academic authority to judge such things.
 * I believe it is your obvious reluctance to admit when you are wrong (which you should have done a LONG time ago) and your desire to have the "last word" that has kept this fruitless debate going. I am not prepared to relent because I believe that this article is well referenced and genuinely of interest to anyone with an academic interest in the House of Powys-Fadog, Owain Glyndwr or Welsh royalty in general and i will not see it neutered, deleted or edited to death by someone whose apparent main interest is in getting their own way rather than in the merits to wikipedia of this article as an information resource based on real sources written by real experts.
 * I ask you once again to leave this article alone. I welcome other persons input into this debate, and as it stands, the only third party to have got involved so far asked you to desist in your urgent desire to see it deleted and criticised the barrenness of your knowledge on the subject. As for your "happy new year" jibe I shall mention it here again just so others can see that your real intention is clearly to goad me rather than any real desire to 'save wikipedia' 217.43.43.160 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC) James Frankcom


 * Dear 217.43.43.160; please do not take this personally. I believe that Abtract is correct in removing your addition to the article here. Now, while you may have a source for it, right now you are just asserting notability instead of proving it; there's a difference. For example, I could assert right now that the moon was a block of cheese, and say I know so because I have a book about this huge cheese; however, if I don't show anyone the book nobody will believe me. Please feel free to cite your source; for example, citebook might be a start. Remember; if you can provide a reliable, verifiable source, then that will quell this issue. Cheers! Master of Puppets   Call me MoP! ☺  23:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear again. Please get an admin to look at it (there are plenty about). Indeed I think this will attract attention. Good luck. Abtract (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What should I find?
What is the central claim that Abtract finds dubious? I can see these books (Welsh Genealogies and Reports on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language) in the local university library catalogue. If I go in and look at them, what am I looking for? A printed reference to Ieuan being Ieuan ap Owain Glyndwr, or to a possibility of this? Or to the existence of Maredudd, Robert and Iorwerth ap Ieuan? Or what? Telsa (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [| This] is my removal of speculation, as was [| this] earlier. There were other attempts to say much the same thing. The article looked like [| this] when I first spotted it. Abtract (talk) 10:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh. I see. Well, when I get a chance, I'll look, but I have to admit that I see a great difference between "these sons are recorded; their progeny, if any, are unknown" (which is the sort of thing I assumed was being queried) and "there is a possibility that descendants exist today, the true meibion Glyndwr". There are all sorts of possibilities in the world. We're supposed to be including facts. Telsa (talk) 12:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment about the true meibion Glyndwr was, as I have previously conceded, unnecessary and is no longer in the piece. Nevertheless Abtract has continued to dispute the references, first saying that they are written in Welsh, when they are not, then saying it is original research by me, which it is not, then suggestring it was just the work of "one man" (e.g. Bartrum) when he is not only the single most authorative source on this subject but his work was based on previous earlier sources, not to mention an awful lot of academic scrutiny at the University of Wales. I am now totally exasperated and don't actually know what it is he is disputing NOW as the article stands. The source for this article is PC Bartrum - Welsh genealogical Tracts: 1400-1500 plate 68 (Bleddyn ap Cynfyn 5(a)) - a copy of which was faxed to me by the fellows working on the Bartrum project (the original is a very large and expensive book) and I would be glad to forward the page to you for your inspection James Frankcom (talk) 12:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Bleddyn_ap_Cynfyn_5(a).JPG|left|thumb|150px|The relevant page from P C Bartrum]] James Frankcom (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to the article as it stands though I am doubtful if references to manuscripts are strictly accordance with guidelines. I do object to your continued insertion of speculation the most recent of which was "Presuming that the sources are correct this would make John ap Gruffudd Goch ap Maredudd ab Ieuan ab Owain Glyndŵr and his descendants potential claimants to the title Prince of Wales as asserted by his great-great-grandfather, Owain IV in 1400". You seem to have taken this very personally whereas all I am seeking is an article that contains a little more than "there is a possibility that", "thought to have", "presuming" and "this would make" speculative statements. You are obviously a bright guy, why not concentrate on citable facts rather than speculation? I apologise if any of my remarks appeared to be a personal attack on you; that was not my intention. Abtract (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting though that page may be, it is hardly a published source. Abtract (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh but it really is.... I have told you the name of the book again and again and even found copies on Amazon to buy and told you which libraries hold it. Just because it is written in his own hand does not mean it is not a published book. I really hope we can wind this whole thing down. You know one of the things that really gets me is that I have my real name on here, where as you just use an alias, what is your name? Also, I have contributed lots of articles to this site over the years whereas you just criticise other peoples work and are not even an administrator? It just seems a bit much James Frankcom (talk) 13:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah well. Did you ever live in Godalming? Abtract (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)