Talk:Owain Glyndŵr

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Help identifying "he" and "Henry"[edit]

In the section "The Revolt, 1400-15", starting with the sentence "His young protégé..." I can't tell for certain who 'his', 'he', and 'Henry' refers to. I think we need to use Hotspur, Monmouth, and Henry IV here to keep it clear, but I'm not the one to do this correctly. Any help?

Hardship after the revolt[edit]

I am wondering if the documented hardship after the revolt is as bad as it was made out. My theory is that most of the documents were from the English side, and the Welsh documents made by the higher ends of society which would more likely see the effects.

I wager that many of the English settlers in the towns left back for England during the years of the uprising which was the main cause of hardship and "grass growing in town centres" because populations in these areas was so low, whereas if 75% of the Welsh population at the time was "barefoot peasants" then any economic impact would be negligable on the poorest but self sufficient individuals.

This is in considerable contrast to today, where the poorest always seem to suffer first because of the absence of self sufficiency and dependance on society. I understand that the high echeleons of welsh society felt the pinch just as much as the English however, but I feel that widespread hardship of the Welsh as a whole is incorrect, beyond anti-welsh policies of the English.

'Owen Glendower' as the name of the historical person[edit]

In this edit TG11TG15 removed "and anglicised as Owen Glendower" from the lead paragraph, with the edit summary 'I would argue that "Owen Glendower" is the anglicised variant that appears in Shakespeare's play and as a result is a fictional character and not the historical person' . This is incorrect, 'Owen Glendower' has been widely used to refer to the historical figure, including in reliable sources. The sources cited in the article include:

  • Lloyd, J. E. (1931). Owen Glendower. Oxford University Press.
  • Tout, T.F. (1901). "Glendower, Owen (1359?–1416?), Welsh rebel" . In Stephen, Leslie; Lee, Sidney (eds.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 21. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

The Oxford Dictionary of Biography article is titled "Glyn Dŵr, Owain [Owen Glendower]".[1](paywall) The current Encyclopedia Britanica article starts "Owain Glyn Dŵr, also spelled Owen Glendower".[2](paywall) The article in the 8th edition of the Encyclopedia Britanica (1860) starts "Glendower, or Glyndwr, Owen".[3] Other sources confirm the use of this spelling for the historical person.[4][5][6] I think there has been general move away from the Anglicised names in academic sources in recent decades, but it seems clear that the usual spelling in older sources was Glendower. In view of the frequent naming disputes above I will hold off restoring the phrase for a few days to allow for discussion, but another editor may choose to restore it. Verbcatcher (talk) 05:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would agree, when the Owen Glendower name explanation was moved, I amended the sentence with brackets explaining the importance of the anglicized naming of Glyndwr. Who's to say Shakespeare didn't use the name Glendower based on how his name was being pronounced during this period and it was it wasn't Shakespeare who named him so but used an English-language consensus. To conclude, his anglicized name is important and needs to prioritized in the introduction. Cltjames (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree, put it back in the lead. English, variants excluded, has two ways of spelling this name: Owen Glendower (long since assimilated from a foreign origin) and Owain Glendŵr (a foreign word). What has been happening in recent times is a trend to revert the usual way a foreign word enters another language, which is initially to be a direct copy of the foreign word and then over time to have that foreign word altered to fit more neatly, assimilated, into English, usually by dropping foreign macrons and awkward spellings. Now the word is going backwards and is being used as a foreign word again. This trend is happening everywhere, usually for clear well meaning political reasons. We should simply follow RSSs. In this case, IMO Owain Glendŵr has a reasonably significant majority, allowing it to be the name in the article title, but use of Owen Glendower is still significant enough to have it noted as an alternative in the lead. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it should be put back as it was. An alternative to consider going forward might be "traditionally/historically anglicised", but I'm not sure whether or not this is accurate/supported by sourcing. Jr8825Talk 19:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support "traditionally anglicised" or "historically anglicised". It's significant enough for the lede, but we should show that it's not really current usage. Ham II (talk) 11:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just looking now at the new introduction for his naming in various languages I think it might be better to revert to using coding and not just wording... e.g. Latinised as, Anglicised as ... This is not as effective as using the correct coding, Latin: Principus (English: Owen. Also not too sure about ==Rebellion Weakens as a title, maybe change it to Faltered, or Ends or something ? Cltjames (talk) 12:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Latin title isn't necessary, it was used as a legal/ecclesiastical language throughout much of medieval Europe. For an English-language encyclopedia, the only translations crucial enough for the lead are common/local vernacular versions and the English translation if appropriate. You won't see Latin in the leads of other European monarchs (e.g. Henry V of England). I haven't looked closely at the other changes. Jr8825Talk 14:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"The rebellion falters" sounds good to me. Note that we use sentence case (not capitalisation) for section titles, per MOS:HEADCAPS. Jr8825Talk 14:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for noting historical works as "Owen Glendower". I would however, still maintain that the anglicised variation is incorrect in a historical context. The first recorded use of the variant seems to be the Holinshed's Chronicles (1577), over 150 years after Glyndwr's senedd in 1404. It could be true that these chronicles as well as Shakespeare play popularised this spelling, before a return to the original Welsh spelling in more recent times. Based on this reasoning I would argue that the anglicised version should not be in the introductory paragraph, but should be referred to later on. TG11TG15 (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extent of support in wales[edit]

This article does not specify how much support Owain actually had across the population of Wales (that presumably contained people of other origins). Neither does it explain the extent of Wales at that time (borders change). FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@FreeFlow99: The article has a section in 6.9.1. 'As a Welsh Icon' explaining his popularity, and maybe if you could find references to support the inclusion more information about the support he received then it could be double checked. And again about the border changes, I've read about Glyndwr's plan to open the borders further into England in one of the sourced books, that's something I could look into myself, or again if you have a referenced citation then we could work with that too. Also if you look at Owain Glyndŵr#Tripartite indenture and the year of the French, the section includes the proposed planning of an independent Wales with Mortimer and Percy sharing the lands of England and Wales. Cltjames (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the last native Welshman to hold the 'Prince of Wales' Title[edit]

When regarding 'native' we must look very closely to origins of a family name, in the case of the Tudor dynasty, it was a Welsh one. Originating from Penmynydd, Ynys Môn, Tewdŵr were once allies of Owain Glyndŵr in his uprise against the English crown; the red dragon that Henry VII flew on the battlefields (most noticeably on the field of Bosworth where he was known to have carried it), carrying the dragon, is of course akin to carrying a torch towards a beacon (which is the throne of the Brittons which was written in ancient Welsh manuscripts, which we, today refer to as the 'Mabinogion'. If you're looking for evidence to the Tudor dynasty being Welsh, well, there it is in black and white, the symbolism which was all around England and Wales until the death of Elizabeth I.. and after this, the dragon was promptly removed from the royal coat of arms.. and with the end of the Tudor dynasty, so to was Wales' representation in the Realm of England and Wales and therefore-after became simply an English region. This means that Although the 'Prince of Wales' title was taken by English forces after the death of Glyndŵr, it was reclaimed upon the birth of Arthur Tudor in 1486 (notice the name 'Arthur' being of significance, named after King Arthur), although because he died young and childless, the title was passed onto Henry VIII who was the last native Welshman to hold such title, a title in which its native connotation ended upon the death of his father and with VIII's crowning in 1509. Burrow, Colin (2000). "The Sixteenth Century". In Kinney, Arthur (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to English Literature, 1500–1600. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-58758-1.

IMHO what is needed is not one's own opinion, the result of WP:OR or a synthesis of sources but a reliable source that specifically discusses {not a passing mention) who was the last native Welshman to hold the title 'Prince of Wales' Title.SovalValtos (talk) 10:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

A new editor is attempting to make substantial changes to the page, without attempting to seek agreement from other editors. Further discussion here, please. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that in this edit [7] marked Minor IagoHughes added as a ref a blog from a novelist [8] which I was about to revert when it was done for me by User:Ghmyrtle. Perhaps they need reining in by an admin?SovalValtos (talk) 09:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The editor's activities have been reported at WP:AN/EW. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to add Glyndwr's achievement of forming the first Welsh parliament, his specific birth place of birth, and his title as Prince of Wales under his name alongside lord of Glyndyfyrdwy and of Cynllaith Owain. I would also like to edit his predecessor as Prince of Wales to Llywelyn ap Gruffudd as he was the last independent Welsh Prince of Wales before him, not Owain Lawgoch. Again I would also like to add that Glyndwr was the last native Welshman to hold the title Prince of Wales. I would like to consult with other editors first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IagoHughes (talkcontribs) 11:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why don't you begin with using the talk page to write a draft with the references in place to gather a consensus. My immediate thoughts would be that Lawgoch was never officially crowned as the Prince of Wales, in fact Dafydd ap Gruffydd would be the final native Prince of the House of Aberffraw, but the topic of native Prince is hotly contested, referring to Tudors of Penmynydd and the House of Tudor. And as for a first ever parliament, this is true, but similar gatherings had occurred since the era of the Kingdom of Gwynedd only under a different premise as royal gatherings of Princes and Lords. Maybe simply adding a sentence could work, but please show references. Cltjames (talk) 04:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just noting that IagoHughes is currently blocked from editing, for edit-warring. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lead changes[edit]

Several newer editors have made large additions to the lead, which is currently far too long. Please see the guidance on leads at the link above, and in particular MOS:LEADLENGTH. I'll try tidying it up/cutting it soon if nobody else gets round to it first. Jr8825Talk 04:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried rectifying the article mostly on the lead area by adding a heading "History" based on the description.
Thank you in advance. Magotech (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jr8825 Ok, your right. I'm a bit busy these few days but would like to try and tidy the article towards the end of the week... Please have patience. Cltjames (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jr8825 I've amended the intro, I hope it is acceptable now. Do you think it's missing anything? Cltjames (talk) 18:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry I've been busy recently so haven't looked. I do have Davies' 1997 book on loan from the library and will at some point get round to it. From a quick glance, although I think the lead is better than it was, honestly I think it could do with a broader rewrite. It doesn't really give a good summary of Glyndwr's life, focuses too much on folklore/popular conceptions (although this is important, it should probably only be ~1/4 (a rough guesstimate) of the total lead size (i.e. a summary of his legacy). There are some bits I think can be written better, and saying "the aim of the war" is a bit redundant/anachronistic/simplistic, as the rebellion didn't take develop a clearly national spirit/extent until ~1403 (3 years into it); it was better I think to simply say "against English rule". Thanks for your effort though, and I agree this article needs more of a collaborative long-term effort (it'll be much easier to summarise the lead once the article body is properly cleaned up and sourced). Jr8825Talk 02:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jr8825 I feel the information provided should suffice to describe Glyndwr in the introduction, as in it doesnt need to be deleted. However, if you have ideas about expanding information to with his lifetime then please add to what is already existing. Cltjames (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jr8825 I've made a new effort at fully describing Glyndwr's life, that is I added a new paragraph. Please don't delete, read it over and talk to me about grammar, improvements etc. Cltjames (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping and for your effort. I haven't taken a look at it yet as I haven't been active much on-wiki over recent weeks, but will offer feedback when I have the time. Best, Jr8825Talk 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I remodeled the introduction, but frankly would like to find some time to edit the whole article, the writing is accurate but seems poor. For the time being it is acceptable, hopefully, this is satisfactory. Cltjames (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Random update consensus[edit]

I recently messaged @AirshipJungleman29: about the random changes to the article, please see User talk:AirshipJungleman29#Owain Glyndwr for the chat. I'd like to create a consensus to make sure the correct changes are made to this article, Glyndŵr is dear to my family and I and I wish to find the best option for this article... Please talk ! Cltjames (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The link to the specific changes can be found here. It was a while ago, but I believe the issues were resolved with removing unnecessary duplication of content, smoothening of lists into prose, the eradication of short sections per MOS:OVERSECTION, removal of trivia and popular culture information per MOS:TRIVIA and MOS:POPCULTURE, and more. Please ping me if you have any questions about my so-called "random changes". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This edit [9] introduces talk of apartheid, a modern concept, and creates a link to the crime of apartheid page, which is unnecessary editorialising of this, and raises significant NPOV concerns. The subject is historical, and until a source review is completed, I do not believe the term "apartheid" should be used at all, but even if it is used in some nuanced form in line with the one source that uses that says the penal laws were "effectively" like apartheid, it is certainly quite wrong to wikilink the term to crimes of apartheid. That raises a significant WP:NPOV concern for the whole article. Rather than revert the edit a second time, I shall add an appropriate template. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term is inappropriate here but if used it should be handled with care. The quality of the source should be examined as should be what the source actually says, something which is often lost in transferring to a WP article. I cannot read either source BTW. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]