Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 16:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Cronica Walliae

 * ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Prince Madoc had already made two trips to America from Wales in the year 1170, long before Columbus?
 * QPQ Template:Did you know nominations/From Elvis in Memphis‎

Created/expanded by Doug Coldwell (talk), 7&#38;6&#61;thirteen (talk). Nominated by 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC) at 17:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC).


 * As it is, it's POV as it's suggesting a fringe position is fact. The very existence of this Prince Madoc is disputed, and certainly the voyages are. I've edited the article to add the word 'legendary', a term used by multiple reliable sources, and to remove the bit about "long before Columbus" which is obviously unnecessary as I expect readers to have at least some idea when Columbus sailed, and because again it's pushing a fringe position. Our DYK's shouldn't be promoting fringe positions. It's like saying "according to x, the pyramids were built by aliens", or "according to Y, Atlantis was real." Dougweller (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Reply That it was written is a fact. That you don't like that he said it is your opinion.  Ipse dixit applies in so many ways.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * But I didn't say that. Calling a legendary figure "Prince Madoc" with no qualification is pov. And the whole point of the hook seems to be promoting a fringe position. As I said, why should we do that? What is the rationale for having this as a DYK? Why not say "that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae the Welsh were an ancient people descended from the Trojans." Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Dougweller, I came here after seeing your post on the fringe theories noticeboard. After reading the DYK hook here, I disagree with you that it is problematic or is promoting a fringe position.  The lead in starting with "according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae" makes it clear that the following statement isn't necessarily regarded as fact, but is what was written in that work.  Because the leading clause makes it clear that what follows is only what was written in Cronica Walliae and not necessarily fact, I don't think it is necessary to clarify in the DYK hook that Madoc is a legendary figure.  To add a qualifier like "the legendary" before "Prince Madoc" might imply that Humphrey Llwyd wrote that Madoc was legendary, when the impression I get is that Humphrey Llwyd thought Madoc was factual (if Cronica Walliae actually did describe Madoc as legendary, then adding such a qualifier would be good).  While it is possible that a reader might assume from the hook that there was a real Prince Madoc, I don't think the wording implies that he was real.  The articles Cronica Walliae and Madoc should make it clear that Madoc is a legendary figure, so I don't think it is a problem.  The only change I would make to the hook is to add a comma between "Cronica Walliae" and "Prince Madoc". Calathan (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT1 ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae the Welsh were an ancient people descended from the Trojans?
 * Sounds good to me. I'll withdraw the original hook. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay with me. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 20:00, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Problem solved. Thanks Dougweller for the suggestion.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason I didn't get an edit conflict notice with what I was writing, even though I started it before what ended up above it. I've moved my previous comment to where it goes. Anyway, the alternate hook sounds good to me too. Calathan (talk) 20:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I replied to your withdrawal, Doug, but must not have saved it. That's fine. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT2 ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae the burial place of King Arthur was discovered in 1179?
 * ALT3 ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae the legendary Prince Madoc had already made two trips to America from Wales in the year 1170, long before Columbus?
 * I am withdrawing my ALT3 submission, since there is no reference in the article for this. There should be a verifiable reference source for any of the ALT hooks per Verifiability.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * ALT4 ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Madoc made two trips to New Spain in the year 1170, long before Columbus or Vespucci?
 * ALT5 ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Madoc made two trips to Florida from the country of Wales in the year 1170?
 * ALT6 ... that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae the Britons discovered New Spain in 1170?
 * Withdraw ALT1 and submit ALT2, ALT3, ALT4, ALT5, ALT6.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT7 ... that the Cronica Walliae popularised a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the territory of Spanish America? -- suggested by User:Elaqueate. See ALT9 --Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Doug Coldwell removed the sourced statement that "according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae the Welsh were an ancient people descended from the Trojans?" with the edit summary "c/e". All of the suggested hooks are pushing fringe material. Dougweller (talk) 11:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The alternate hooks relate to what Cronica Walliae says, which was written in 1559.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep. It says that the Welsh were an ancient people descended from the Trojans. I'm happy with that. Or something about Madoc if we make it clear he's considered mythical/legendary. as the sources used in the article say (if that's still there). But not without that. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The hooks do relate to what's in the book, but they're the parts modern historians believe to be mythic. What's the rationale for picking the pseudo-historical parts of a text that we're presenting as historical? Are we pointing out that that the author added dubious material, like Herodotus's gold-digging ants? If so, that should be worded a little better. Alternately, are we trying to give discredited Mediaeval ideas a new shot at gaining modern currency? What's going on here? Why don't we highlight an aspect of the book that scholars agree is accurate? __ E L A Q U E A T E  13:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, that it is a fact that the suggested hooks are in Cronica Walliae. The stories themselves may be debatable by modern scholars, but that is a different issue. The stories themselves may or may not be pushing fringe material, however it is a fact that the suggested hooks are in Llwyd's 1559 manuscript.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Coldwell. That some "modern scholars" and you might disagree does not negate the fact of the utterance.  He wrote it.  Res ipsa loquitur]].  End of story. 7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:42, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Professor Ieuan M. Williams agrees that Llwyd's manuscript I refer to is in fact as I describe in the hooks and is the basis of David Powell's History of Cambria (Wales) published in 1584 from Llwyd's orginal 1559 manuscript.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a fact that he included a claim in his book, centuries ago. So what? The manuscript existed, that's not a reason by itself to quote any specific part of it. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:17, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

How about something like "Did you know...the Cronica Walliae popularised a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the territory of Spanish America?" <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It gives historical context, demonstrates significance, and shows how scholars perceive it today. <span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  15:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Since you don't have the book I am referring to, I'll provide the Preface for you. Here is the cover page and the first page
 * and the other two pages of the Preface. Of course, you are free to submit any alternate hooks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is such an odd response. I did suggest something.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hooks need to be established facts, and they need to be neutral. Interpreting that as "It's verifiable someone said something, who cares if the main claim has any actual validity" is not good enough. If that were the case, we could have (exaggerated to illustrate the point) "Did you know... somebody said it's fun to drink bleach?" "It was said in a book" is not a vitally significant "established fact". Highlighting fringe material is not neutral unless you are pointing out how it's fringe.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  20:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
 * "Highlighting fringe material is not neutral unless you are pointing out how it's fringe." Can we ensconce this in policy for DYKs somewhere? That would be great! jps (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)


 * You have heard of Miracle Mineral Supplement, yes? Somebody genuinely does think it's fun to drink bleach. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Historiography says your hypothesis is wrong. Who said what, when and why does matter.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:20, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, let's talk of historiogaphy. This is a claim that the Welsh found Florida somewhere north of Ireland in the Middle Ages. We can't leave the possibility of misleading readers that we are presenting this as historically accurate, without violating basic neutrality. We should give some indication of how modern historians evaluate this claim. It contains a highly dubious claim, even though it is a fact that someone made this not-established claim.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The hooks are facts since it is according to Cronica Walliae. Rather someone likes what it said is a different issue.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You are over-simplifying. We should not allow DYK to be used to boost fringe positions. Dougweller (talk) 11:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is policy that the fact that someone wrote something in itself is a justification to use it as a hook. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It is policy that Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of pseudohistorical fringe theories. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, ALT4, ALT5, and ALT6 as each of these appears to be highlighting a fringe claim. Per WP:FRINGE, we are not to give undue weight to fringe claims in articles, so why we would give undue weight to a fringe claim in a hook that would be placed on the main page? WP:REDFLAG is also relevant and it appears as though ALT7 may be the only hook that relies on a secondary source. - Location (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm still of the opinion that by stating "according to . . .", it makes it clear that what follows isn't accepted fact but merely something someone stated. I also think that highlighting the fact that Cronica Walliae included legends that we now know are false is interesting, and thus makes a good hook.  I don't think it is at all a violation of WP:FRINGE to highlight those claims in the hook as long as the wording of the hook makes it clear that they are claims of the work, and doesn't imply that they are believed to be true.  While most of the proposed hooks seem alright to me, I think Elaqueate's proposed hook goes even further to make it clear that the material isn't believed to be true, while still being interesting.  To repeat it:
 * ALT8 ... the Cronica Walliae popularised a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the territory of Spanish America? - Strike ALT8, as it has been already submitted twice before.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Is there anything wrong with using that as the hook? Calathan (talk) 22:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Since my suggestion looks possible to some, I'd like to make sure it's more completely supportable. Looking at the sources, the Cronica Walliae, wasn't actually published, so it didn't popularize the story directly (although it helped popularize the story among those who were influencing the politics of the time). So I added the word "helped". The second thing that might be more neutral is linking the second half more to something like specific like this than the term, Spanish America, which is a more vague and general term than the sources used. I think it's still within the appropriate character count.<span style="font-family:Futura, Helvetica, _sans;color:#01110f;font-size:66%;">__ E L A Q U E A T E  00:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * ALT9 ... that the Cronica Walliae helped popularise a legend that the Welsh discovered America in about 1170, a tale used to justify English encroachments on the early colonies of the Spanish Empire?
 * I can support this one. Besides not giving undue weight to a fringe position, it gives the reader some clue as to what this matters. Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's fine, as long as the article can support it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the reference says, the Tudors had inherited a historic claim to the newfound lands in the west, first through King Arthur and then through Prince Madoc. - per inline reference page 29.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 14:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * At the bottom of page 29 it says, Dee marked a passage in a copy of Lhuyd's MS which came into his hands, adding the comment: 'Madoc sonne to prince Owen sayled to the land west of Ireland which afterwards about 400 years was judged to have byn first by the Spaniards (and others) discovered.'--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg Full review needed per DYK criteria. I've struck ALT7 as ALT9 is a preferred revision of it. Earlier hooks have been objected to above, but I'll let the reviewer sort them out rather than strike them myself. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol voting keep.svg This article is new enough, or was when it was submitted, and long enough. The hook facts are well established in the article from sources not available online. They are also established by the lengthy quotations from the source and there are suitable inline citations. The article seems neutral to me. I was unable to establish whether there are any copyright or close paraphrasing issues, but the original work is well out of copyright! Good to go with ALT9, which seems to be acceptable to all. I have struck the other hooks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)