Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coelbren Rhodd

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 20:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coelbren Rhodd

[edit]
Coelbren Rhodd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is in fact one of those spurious Welsh texts emanating from Iolo Morganwg, as processed through the similarly fantastical pen of Richard Williams Morgan. References to it are extremely scarce: the only book references are the primary source in Morgan's St. Paul in Britain and two other 19th century citations from the unwary. There are next to no web mentions of it either except a couple of neo-Druidic fora. It would be nice to have an article, but I think that Morgan's book and my personal communication with Ronald Hutton are not going to cut it. Mangoe (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - Spurious texts can nevertheless have historiographic value in their own right for those who might want to research them here. For example, an article I made here - Book of Sothis - about a indisputedly spurious text - and that one doesn't even have any active fan club nowadays! The article should state that they are widely considered spurious or pseudohistorical, though. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the only legitimate secondary source that I have is a personal email from an expert in the field (the above-mentioned Hutton). I agree that it would be nice to keep the article but there's nothing citable to work with. Mangoe (talk) 14:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is your definition of a "secondary source"? Do all sources mentioning it automatically become "primary sources" if they were written before 1900? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two sources in question merely cite it in passing; they do not even admit that Morgan's book is the actual source. The one simply quotes a line; the other is a short description of druidism by someone who apparently didn't realize that his authority was a classic "and did those feet" nutcase. Morgan's book, in which a supposed translation appears, is the only other book which mentions it, and it is the primary source. Google Scholar gives exactly one hit: the first book mentioned here. Ronald Hutton does have a book which discusses some of this material, but not in enough detail to provide a citation for this particular work. If you want the details, you can see the fringe theory noticeboard thread. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your use of non-neutral language like "nutcases" to characterize people by their opinion, shows that you have a distinct point-of-view here, it is one obviously personally hostile to allowing people to research yet another historical topic on wikipedia, forcing them yet again to look elsewhere, if they want to know what it even is. In such circumstances where the bar is artificially raised to an exceptionally high standard, I have found, no amount of secondary sources will ever amount to anything more than "passing mentions", for purposes of passing our own judgement on the entire topic. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Nutcase" here is short for the more technical term of "person who made up a spurious religious history out of his own head." St. Paul in Britain is rubbish; that it isn't cited by modern scholarly works (except as an example of Morganwg's influence) should be evidence enough. Hutton does discuss the work, briefly (Blood and Mistletoe: The History of the Druids in Britain. Yale University Press. 2009. p. 243.), and his assessment of Morgan, if less succinct, comes to essentially the same conclusion. And if you will look up the two references in question yourself, you will see that I have described them accurately; they are sufficient to establish that two people believed (incorrectly) that such a text existed, but as sources about the correct nature of the text, they are inadequate. I would like to write an accurate article; I just don't see how to do it with sources that are acceptable here. Perhaps if we had any article on St. Paul in Britain, we could redirect there. Mangoe (talk) 16:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the minute you start throwing around words like "nutcase", then everything else aside, all of a sudden the real reason we are being asked to delete this information comes out: we are being asked to agree with your assessment that it is the work of "nutcases" and should be therefore deleted on that account. I'm sorry, there are lots of things some people believe in, where I disagree or don't share their opinion, but I am not on wikipedia to paint those I disagree with as "nutcases" just because I don't share their view, and then go out firebrand in hand, seeking to have all references to their material removed from visibility on any pretext. ("Sure there are sources, but they're all not good enough, because they were all written by nutjobs, therefore there are really NO sources to prove it really exists or should be spoken of or explained") I always wonder how some editors can be so blatant about their personal biases in this way. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Til, we can take this to AN/I if you really feel you must continue with the personal attacks. I personally want to preserve articles on this sort of subject, because I think that someone who types in "Coelbren Rhodd" ought to get at least one link that tells the truth about it. If you look at the example below, I wasted a lot of time trying to construct an article on a similar text, but it was deleted anyway because we could never get good sourcing. If I had Hutton's email to me in a book or on a plausibly reliable website, I wouldn't have bothered with this nomination; I would have just rewritten the article. Your example above isn't parallel enough, because even though it isn't cited in the article, a minute's searching for "Book of Sothis" shows works which testify to the scholarly opinion on that specific text, even if you didn't get around to citing any of them. I can reduce this article to the same state and tell the truth, but there's no hope thus far of citing that truth. If you could find something instead of casting inaccurate aspersions on my motive, you could be helping here. Also, it seems to me that in your enthusiasm for denigrating my motives, you are failing to understand the true state of the sources. Morgan, the nutcase, is the primary source; one of the other two sources quotes his "translation", and the other simply drops the name to justify a single statement. If you can come up with something better, then fercryingoutloud, produce it! Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, despite never having heard of the Coelbren Rhodd before you posted it to FTN, I took the google challenge to see what's there. A 1934 secondary source called The Secret of Immortality by Bond and Bartlett gives more than just passing mention, quoting and commenting on the text of the Coelbren Rhodd paragraph by paragraph. There are also sources referring to it as the "Bardic Catechism" from as early as 1857, pushing the date a few years earlier. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: ALso just found that Ol' Iolo himself referred to the text as "Dasgubell Rodd" which yields a number of addutional sources... Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I came across some sources supposedly attributing the catechism's translation to Ab Ithel as well. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's an assumption here that all of these variously named works are in fact the same thing. So far, anything that refers specifically to "Coelbren Rhodd" (or "Colebren Rodd", I found one of those too) includes some of Morgan's text if it does more than drop the name. I'll ask Hutton for more clarification tonight, but my interpretation of his response was that Morgan's text wasn't just a translation of something from Iolo Morganwg, but an elaboration of his own. I would also point out that this is treading out into the waters of original research in a big way, not the least of which problem is that the synthesis of all these potentially disparate documents has cast Morgan's name for the thing into doubt. Mangoe (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify for those who haven't read the fringe theories noticeboard discussion relating to this, Ronald Hutton in a personal communication with Mangoe, has suggested the Coelbren Rhodd was sourced from Taliesin Williams Coelbren y Beirdd, which is an essay written in 1840 about another Coelbren y Beirdd, which is a manuscript in the Iolo Manuscripts that is attributed to Llywelyn Siôn. To add to the confusion, the Coelbren y Beirdd is also the name of the runic alphabet system debeloped by Iolo Morganwg. We could use Hutton's (or anyone with access and ability to translate the essay) confirmation whether Coelbren Rhodd is mentioned in Taleisin Williams essay that won the Abergavenny Eisteddfod in 1838 and was later published in 1840. Hopefully this will figure out what source is primary and which secondary and help to make an article on Coelbren y Beirdd to explain all this. I'd still favour a keep on Rhodd, even if it comes back that Morgan's the primary source. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Morgan calls the "Coelbren Rhodd" is clearly a different translation or close paraphrase of what Ab Ithel had published both in Welsh and English in Barddas beginning p. 225, as "a treatise in the form of a question and answer, by a bard and his disciple, the work of Siôn Cent..." Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 23:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and write a NPOV article.. The questions of authenticity being discussed here belong in the article or its talk p. Assuming it completely fraudulent, which is my view about most such "texts", it still warrants an article. As Paul says, someone might reasonably see a reference to this, perhaps there, and want to see w hat the modern views are. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm coming around to that view too. I have a second inquiry in with Dr. Hutton to see if he can suggest a better name for the article. Mangoe (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is fraudulent and we lack the reliable sources to say it, then it seems inappropriate to have it here. It would be misleading and contrary to the educational mission. We would be putting up content we know to be incorrect. The only way we have pointing out it is spurious is through original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It has been confirmed to be spurious and incorrect by an expert, but the confirmation is through original research. We can't use that as a citation and so the information will remain unverifiable and subject to future challenge. NPOV can never be fulfilled because we can never present the topic neutrally without resorting to original research. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point. But I'm a master at writing NPOV articles without resorting to OR. I've removed the Taliesin Williams source to avoid OR until confirmed otherwise. I also changed the sentence added as a consequence of this discussion to 'Similar material composed by Iolo Morganwg is widely considered spurious or pseudohistorical.' Sourced that to Hutton's book, which does discuss Morganwg's druidic re-incarnation materials under this light. This should knock the OR out of the article and I reckon it's fairly neutral now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add a quote to the source where I have added a tag to confirm it is not a synthesis? i.e that you aren't doing original research by linking his other work to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not-notable. No substantial coverage in relaible independent secondary sources. The sources used are all from the 1800s, old enough to be considered primary sources. Furthermore, all of those mentions are in footnotes, which hardly constututes substantial mention.
Whether the document is genuine or a forgery is immaterial. Forgeries such as the Donation of Constantine or the Protocols of the Elders of Zion have their own articles in WP, but that is because abundant scholarly sourcing exists. Unfortunately, no such sourcing exists to establish notability for the present article, and it remains essentially OR and synth based on primary sources. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not all the sources are 1800s, Bartlett and Bond is 1934. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a rambling, fringey quasi-religious tract of zero value as a reliable source. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • further comment I have not received further replies from Dr. Hutton; I am awaiting arrival of a copy of his book so I can see whether it talks about this in enough detail to be usable to source this article. My assumption at this point is that he doesn't, but that he has researched the issue and didn't see the need to spell everything out. We are in essence repeating some of his research because we don't have direct access to it, but there are no significant inaccuracies in our conclusions. This leads me to contemplate several possible resolutions:
  • merge to stuff inspired by Iolo Morganwg's spurious manuscripts, wherever such an article could be put. I think we could source this to Hutton as it stands now.
  • create St. Paul in Britain and merge to it which I think may have notability issues of its own, though again we could source it to Hutton. I'm doubtful we could source the claim that this text actually originates in this book.
  • merge back to Richard Williams Morgan in lieu of an article on the specific work. Again, I think we would have trouble sourcing that this document originates from him.
  • outright deletion if we can't come up with something better.
My sense is that this article, if we don't find somewhere to talk about it, is just going to get recreated, because we have four sources that characterize it (incorrectly). If one wants to get technical about it, at the moment the key observation— that Morgan's book is not a secondary source— is on the edge of OR. Mangoe (talk) 12:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May I add another suggestion, create a more needed article on the book Barddas, there is ton of secondary sources available for that version, more than for the one in St Paul in Britain. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Barddas, the Iolo Manuscripts, Welsh Manuscripts Society, Coelbren y Beirdd and Raglan Library are all on my to do list. Have a busy weekend but will get started soon and see where it fits in. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:51, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Whether this is a forgery or a fake is neither here nor there. What matters is whether it's had significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. The answer to that is no, as far as I can tell. The cited sources are 1) primary sources because of their age and hence do not qualify as establishing notability and 2) in any event don't contain enough information on the subject to establish it as notable even if they were reliable. I did a search and could find no additional evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Are there any such sources offline? Until we can see evidence that such sources exist, the correct course is delete in my view for failing to meet WP:GNG. --Batard0 (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Coelbren_Rhodd&oldid=1070425821"