Talk:Owain Danwyn

I have reworked this article, because next to nothing is actually known about this man and the article needed to reflect that. I have left in details of the popular theories concerning him, but these are largely based on Phillips & Keatman, not Sims (which was actually Baker!) as previously stated. Walgamanus 16:17, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Pronuncation?
Perhaps someone could add the pronunciation of this name? --Ericjs (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Wood Review
If you actually read the Charles Wood review you will see that it is fairly respectful of the Owain Danwyn is Arthur thesis while noting its speculative character. Of the other review only fragments are available online but so far as I can see from those fragments it seems to be in polite disagreement rather than disdainful rejection. The references do not support the text in other words. Wood says of the book in question "it is always accurate in its use of sources and seldom wildly far-fetched in the conclusions it draws". One of the fragments I was able to read from the other source agrees that Virconium is a prima facie credible nominee for the the original Camelot. Jeremy (talk) 13:45, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

If the cited text does not match the cited sources, it is OR. Please summarise Wood's review. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC) I sort of have already, Dimadick. The review notes that the search for the historical Arthur remains conjectural given the paucity of sources, and that this book is addressed to a popular rather than a scholarly audience, written without footnotes rather in the form of a detective novel. Having said that Wood summarizes: "it is always accurate in its use of sources and seldom wildly far-fetched in the conclusions it draws". The other cited source, a book, is only available in fragmentary form online, and one of those fragments was ackowledging the prima facie credibility of the authors' identification of Viroconium with Camelot, a key point of the authors' argument. I'd need to get hold of the book to know more. Jeremy (talk) 01:50, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Just read from a larger excerpt from the second source, the Rodney Castleden one. It disagrees with the Owain Danwyn thesis but doesn't dismiss it as absurd or "fringe" etc. The subject is of great intrinsic interest and pr it deserves more discussion on the page. (I am tempted to note that Owain ab Urien is a "person of interest" but that would definitely be OR) Jeremy (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)