Talk:Rhun Hir ap Maelgwn

merger
Yes. Merge ASAP. Rhun Hir ap Maelgwn is the preferable article name (although personally I wouldn't bother with the ap Maelgwn). There are many Rhuns. Walgamanus 16:50, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

etymology?
any knowledge of the etymology of "Rhun"? All my googling attempts proof me that aholls can only think of one type of Rhun and that's Tolkien's eastern Rhun, there's not even an explanation whether Tolkien's source was this Rhun or other... I mean, he's great, but it seems that people rather think on his Rhun than on this Rhun...Undead Herle King (talk) 09:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Antiquated sources
Why are almost all the references here culled from antiquated sources? Is it simply that they are available on-line and so "will do for Wikipedia"? No modern scholar would dream of using them as primary sources - they invariably contain inaccuracies and may suffer from the blight of Ioloism - and neither should we. This is not the only article in this field which suffers from the same problem but it is possibly one of the worst affected. PLEASE USE RELIABLE MODERN SOURCES. Enaidmawr (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Seem to have struck a nerve. FYI, many (MANY) "modern sources" are mere copies of these "older" sources with a more recent print/publishing date provided&mdash;that is hardly a modern source of the kind you are requesting. There are many examples of this throughout wikipedia. For example Keith Matthews website of the genealogies is a copy of Phillimore's work (he even says so, to his credit). And if you want to de-Iolo wikipedia, then try using sources that cite their own sources (that would leave out Davies' H of W, wouldn't it? But it would admit the "ancient" H of W by Lloyd, wouldn't it?). And by the way, Iolo is a reference here (for the sake of ensuring that he does not contaminate legitimate historical sources). Also, I presume that you are aware that a 17th or 18th century work is the written origin of allegations concerning the origin of Bangor monastery (sometimes referred to in modern works, though usually without attribution). Lastly, good sources of Welsh history are not omnipresent, and when they are available they usually have predatory pricing ... not everyone has convenient, low-cost access, and even so, not all of them are worth reading (ie, it is not necessarily better because it is newer). Just something to consider. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Notuncurious, if it was you who added all the references here then I'd ask you again, as I did on my talk page, not to be offended. My comment was a bit abrupt perhaps, but it was aimed at all and sundry and if I had the time I'd post something similar on scores of other article talk pages.
 * Just out of interest, here's the list of refs from the article (excluding John Davies) together with some comments:
 * Guest (translator), Charlotte, ed. (1877), The Mabinogion, London: Bernard Quaritch. Acceptable as a source for translations, although dated and not always 100% accurate even in that respect (Victorian prudery, for instance!), but not for the notes, as you are probably aware.
 * Jenkins, Samuel (1852), Letters on Welsh History, Philadelphia: E. S. Jones & Co. Of purely antiquarian interest.
 * Lloyd, John Edward (1911), A History of Wales from the Earliest Times to the Edwardian Conquest, I (2nd ed.), London: Longmans, Green, and Co (published 1912). Lloyd's work was seminal, yet even in his own lifetime the first and second eds were superceded by the 3rd edition (1937), which was revised and updated to take into account advances in scholarship and new discoveries. Only the 3rd ed. is used by modern scholars. Chapters on early history to be used with some caution because of new discoveries in archaeology etc.
 * Morris-Jones, John (1918), "Taliesin", in Evans, E. Vincent, Y Cymmrodor, XXVIII, London: Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion. Again, a seminal work by a highly respected scholar, but dated and superceded. He accepts Taliesin as author of 'Marwnad Rhun' for instance.
 * Owen, Aneurin, ed. (1841), Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales, I, Commissioners of the Public Records of the Kingdom. A fine work of scholarship for its day, but inaccurate and outdated. Re: his text of the Venedotian Code: "it is unfortunate that the MS. he (Owen) chose as the basis of his edition (The Black Book of Chirk) was far from being the best of its class, faeturing, as it does, many anomalies." (Aled Rhys William in the intro to his edition of those laws, Llyfr Iorwerth, which is now the standard text).
 * Parry, John Humffreys (1821), "Genealogy of the Saints", The Cambro-Briton, III, London: W. Simpkin and R. Marshall. I'm lucky enough to have a copy of the Cambro-Briton (whole series bound in one vol.). Wonderful antiquarian work but need I say that it is only as an antiquarian work that it would be quoted today, and not as a source for a text?
 * Phillimore, Egerton G. B. (1886), "Boned y Seint (A Fragment from Hengwrt MS. No. 202)", in Powel, Thomas, Y Cymmrodor, VII, Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, pp. 133 – 134. No objection at all to Phillimore if one is quoting the text only. Anything else is likely to be dated.
 * Phillimore, Egerton, ed. (1887), "Pedigrees from Jesus College MS. 20", Y Cymmrodor, VIII, Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion. ditto.
 * Phillimore, Egerton (1888), "The Annales Cambriae and Old Welsh Genealogies, from Harleian MS. 3859", in Phillimore, Egerton, Y Cymmrodor, IX, Honourable Society of Cymmrodorion, pp. 141 – 183. ditto, although better eds of the Annales are readily available.
 * Rhys, John (1904), Celtic Britain (3rd ed.), London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. Hopelessly dated, often giving an interpretation that has been rejected or disproven by modern scholarship. Definitely not a reliable source in itself.
 * Skene, William Forbes (1868), The Four Ancient Books of Wales, I, Edinburgh: Edmonston and Douglas. A valiant effort, but the translations are sometimes inaccurate and the texts don't come up to modern standards. Superceded a long time ago as a source for the original texts, not to mention the translations.
 * Stephens, Thomas (1849), Evans, D. Silvan, ed., The Literature of the Kymry (Second ed.), London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1876. Stephens was a wonderful scholar but this is old. There have been so many advances since his day that it beggars belief that he could be used a primary source and this was also written before Iolo's mischief was debunked (not TS's fault, but there we are).
 * Williams, John (1844), The Ecclesiastical Antiquities of the Cymry, London: W. J. Cleaver. What can I say? Belongs on the antiquarian shelves and nowhere else. Amongst other faults, he had some decidely odd interpretations of early Welsh history, although perhaps less so than some of his contemporaries. Using this as a primary source is a bit of a joke, I'm afraid.
 * Am I being super-critical here? No, just trying to improve this encyclopedia. Let's leave these venerable works (exlcluding Lloyd and Phillimore, with caveats as noted), whatever their merits, on the antiquarian shelves where they belong. Enaidmawr (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)