This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Replaced the stub with an article. Created the talk page with banners, guessing at class and priority. Let the assessors of those groups adjust it accordingly. Notuncurious ( talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Most wording changes remain, as they improve. "hegemony" section altered for better wording, challege removed as the statement is accurate and makes clear the result (whatever the intent may have been). Challege to observation re Plummer's xlation of 'Pehthelm' removed - this is correct and sourced: just click on the link. Whithorn was indeed considered a Pictish bishopric in the Chronicon, as that is specifically the term used in the Chronicon, and one can follow the cited reference to see it. It lists the bishops in "The Territory of the Picts", and they are described as such in the cited source. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the time was sufficient for me to read it. 1) Because it is a well-cited article there is pressure to cite "observations"; in strict wiki law, the observations (not facts, as I said) can't be your own (and I'd dispute them if they were), but must be references to a particular writer. 2) This:
is, ,well, just not clear enough about the matter, Surely this,
is clearer, no? As for checking the sources; well, ignoring whether I did or didn't, no comment I left necessitated that. Anyways, I'm just trying to improve the article ... not trying to give you a hard time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3) I still have problems with , without any stated authority. It seems like the article itself is trying to argue that this is wrong and that what these historians do is baseless. It shouldn't. This argument, to which this article has given centre of place, seems against mainstream thought on the matter. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. For the record, the name is translated as that because that's what it looks like the name means in Old English. What authority does an Anglo-Saxonist need to give for that? It also, btw, is supported by another name near the time and place, Pehtwine. Like I said, not trying to give you a hard time ... hope you understand. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no authority, he just says it. I'm not trying to say that it is wrong, only that it is without authority ... perhaps (bad analogy follows) in the same way that the commonly given date for the death of Ninian is AD 432: it is without authority, and should not be presented as a fact; and when it has been previously stated as a fact, it is fairly noted in an encyclopedia article that this is without authority.But 'Pehthelm' is clearly 'helm of the Picts,' as 'Pehtwine,' the name of one of his successors (whom H. H. pp. 125, 126, calls Witwine), is 'friend of the Picts.'
(unindent) "used by most scholars" ... "can easily be cited" ... you seem to want a particular (and not uncontroversial) POV to be a standard of some sort. I went to the trouble of citing sources and fairly presenting what they said. On your argumentations, I suggest that we simply do not translate it, nor describe past translation assertions. Once you fill me in regarding the unknowns that "can easily be cited" and "used by most scholars", can you also explain how "Wehthelm" is translated, or do you plan to ignore that possibility? I think I'm trying to be reasonable here, Deacon. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Replaced the stub with an article. Created the talk page with banners, guessing at class and priority. Let the assessors of those groups adjust it accordingly. Notuncurious ( talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Most wording changes remain, as they improve. "hegemony" section altered for better wording, challege removed as the statement is accurate and makes clear the result (whatever the intent may have been). Challege to observation re Plummer's xlation of 'Pehthelm' removed - this is correct and sourced: just click on the link. Whithorn was indeed considered a Pictish bishopric in the Chronicon, as that is specifically the term used in the Chronicon, and one can follow the cited reference to see it. It lists the bishops in "The Territory of the Picts", and they are described as such in the cited source. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, the time was sufficient for me to read it. 1) Because it is a well-cited article there is pressure to cite "observations"; in strict wiki law, the observations (not facts, as I said) can't be your own (and I'd dispute them if they were), but must be references to a particular writer. 2) This:
is, ,well, just not clear enough about the matter, Surely this,
is clearer, no? As for checking the sources; well, ignoring whether I did or didn't, no comment I left necessitated that. Anyways, I'm just trying to improve the article ... not trying to give you a hard time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
3) I still have problems with , without any stated authority. It seems like the article itself is trying to argue that this is wrong and that what these historians do is baseless. It shouldn't. This argument, to which this article has given centre of place, seems against mainstream thought on the matter. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. For the record, the name is translated as that because that's what it looks like the name means in Old English. What authority does an Anglo-Saxonist need to give for that? It also, btw, is supported by another name near the time and place, Pehtwine. Like I said, not trying to give you a hard time ... hope you understand. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
There is no authority, he just says it. I'm not trying to say that it is wrong, only that it is without authority ... perhaps (bad analogy follows) in the same way that the commonly given date for the death of Ninian is AD 432: it is without authority, and should not be presented as a fact; and when it has been previously stated as a fact, it is fairly noted in an encyclopedia article that this is without authority.But 'Pehthelm' is clearly 'helm of the Picts,' as 'Pehtwine,' the name of one of his successors (whom H. H. pp. 125, 126, calls Witwine), is 'friend of the Picts.'
(unindent) "used by most scholars" ... "can easily be cited" ... you seem to want a particular (and not uncontroversial) POV to be a standard of some sort. I went to the trouble of citing sources and fairly presenting what they said. On your argumentations, I suggest that we simply do not translate it, nor describe past translation assertions. Once you fill me in regarding the unknowns that "can easily be cited" and "used by most scholars", can you also explain how "Wehthelm" is translated, or do you plan to ignore that possibility? I think I'm trying to be reasonable here, Deacon. Regards, Notuncurious ( talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)