Talk:Madoc

Altered source

Dunno why I'm editing something that needs merging, but the link in "Several local guest houses and pubs are called Prince Madoc in his memory. However, according to http://www.birch.net/~gbyron/kin/wales/page6.html " is dead. The "Porthmadog named after Madocks, not Madoc" thing is fairly well-established, but if you want a source, http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/historyhunters/locations/pages/4_2_the_cob.shtml will do. That paragraph is still a little confusing, though. Are the local pubs local to Wales, to Porthmadog, or to North America? I presume not the last, but haven't changed the wording there because I am not sure, although I altered quite a lot of the rest of the paragraph. -- Telsa 08:44, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both merge notices on the Madog ap Owain Gwynedd and this page say the other is going to end as the ultimate home of the information. Which is it?

Third trip

• Our article says, and stated he was never to return to Wales again. What words in the reference would make one believe or even think this?
• Our article also says, Although the folklore tradition acknowledges that no witness ever returned from the second colonial expedition to report this, the story continues that Madoc's colonists travelled up the vast river systems of North America, raising structures and encountering friendly and unfriendly tribes of Native Americans... How could this have been known then if it had not been reported back to Wales and England in a third trip by witnesses? Those events only happened after the second trip.--LordGorval (talk) 19:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  @LordGorval but there were zero trips.Doug Weller talk 20:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Letter

Adding this for future reference, I'm respecting other editor's wishes for it not to be included in the main article.. however, it is still important enough to keep a log of.

"These presents may certify all presons whatever, that in the year 1660, being an inhabitant of Virginia, and Chaplain to Major General Bennet, of Mansoman county, the said Major Bennet and Sir William Berkeley sent two ships to Port Royal, now called South Carolina, which is sixty leagues to the Southward of Cape-fair, and I was sent therewith to be their Minister. Upon the 8th of April we set out from Virginia, and arrived at the harbour's mouth of port Roal the 19th of the same month, where we waited for the rest of the fleet that was to sail from Barbadoes and Bermuda with one Mr.West, who was to be Deputy Govenor of the said place. As soon as the fleet came in, the smallest vessels that were with us sailed up the river to a place called the Oyster Point. There I continued about eight months, all of which time being almost starved for want of provisions, I, and five more, travelled through the wilderness, till we came to the Tuscorara Country. There the Tuscorara Indians took us prisoners, because we told them that we were bound to Roanock. That night they carried us to their town, and shut us up close to our no small dread. The next day they entered into consultation about us, which after it was over their interpreter told us that we must prepare ourselves to die next morning. Whereupon being very much dejected, and speaking to this effect in the British tongue, - "Have I escaped so many dangers, and must I now be knocked on the head like a dog!" then presently an Indian came to me, which afterwards appeared to be a War Captain belonging to the Sachem of the Doegs, (whole original I find must needs be from the Old Britons,) and took me up by the middle, and told min in the British language, "You shall not die," and thereupon went to the Emperor of Tulcorara, and agreed for my ransom, and the men that were with me. They then welcomed us very civilly and cordially for four months; during which time I had the opportunity of conversing with them familiarly in the British language, and did preach to them three times in the week in the same language; and they would confer with me about any thing that was difficult therein; and at our departure, they abundantly supplied us with whatever was necessary to our support and well-doing. Thy are settled upon Pontigo River, not far from Cape Atros. This is a brief recital of my travels among the Doeg Indians. - Morgan Jone, the son of John Jones, of Basaleg, near Newport, in the county of Monmouth. I am ready to conduct any Welshman, or others, to the country. New York, March 10th, 1685-6."

Hereford Journal - Wednesday, 4 May 1791

Hogyncymru (talk) 04:47, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

References

This article is about a legend, reverting to last good version that presents it as such

In this series of edits the article has been changed from an account of a legend, in roughly chronological order from its minimal historical root, to a garbled account of pseudohistory as retailed by various legend-manufacturers all the way to the present day. New sources have been inserted, most of them failing to meet criteria for reliability. At this edit I have reverted these changes. I will have a look through to see if any of the new sources are of any value for the article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Slow down Richard, if you read carefully then you'd see I virtually changed a few paragraphs that were referenced, the article is a complete mess and I conducted a tidyup, and I am going to revert what was done in goodfaith, please done do an edit war, if you have any concerns, talk is the place Cltjames (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge: I was going to waste my time going through the article with a fine toothcomb like I did with my copy edit, but it's a complete waste of time. PLEASE LOOK CAREFULLY OR FORGET ABOUT A REVERT, YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY WHAT NEEDS TO BE REVERTED AS ALL I DID WAS RESTSRUCTED AND ADDED A FEW PARAGRAPHS. Cltjames (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Passing through. Not into history, but if the infobox is a new addition Talk:Madoc/Archive 1#Infobox appears to suggest there was consensus not to have one as it does make Madoc/Madog look more like a real person. But the mass-revert may be too drastic undoing all of Cltjames' work, especially without some agreement for it or obvious issues, but at the same time it was a big re-write so some errors could slip in (for any editor), but in apparent good faith. DankJae 20:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks for the research @DankJae:, I will remove the infobox. But as to the rest of the work I conducted, it was all in good faith. And I challenge @Richard Keatinge: to act appropriately and go through the article with a fine toothcomb as I did to find any weaknesses. Otherwise, the article has been improved, not vandalised, not made worse. Cltjames (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Keatinge:, please don't revert again... Please read Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary & if you have any contentions with my suggestion, please don't start an edit war and identify where in the article the text was altered incorrectly, or more so what exactly needs to be reverted, and if you can do this, then I will be happy to cooperate. Otherwise, please don't start an edit war, this wasn't fun in the Talk:House of Aberffraw article, and to reiterate, I virtually changed nothing, it was a tidyup and grammar which I conducted with an addition involving one extra source from the LA Times and a few more to backup the article, which is a reliable source. Cltjames (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Madoc revert for discussion, I want to avoid the complete mess we saw in the Aberffraw and King of Wales articles last year, and I've also lodged a formal complaint about those reverts too. To those involved in the Wales articles or Madoc, @DankJae:, @Sirfurboy:, @Doug Weller:, or Kentucky @StefenTower: please add to discussion regarding Madoc, as I pose the question: Is the article better now than before? And should there be a revert, or can we all agree a copyedit was overdue! Cltjames (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames, all I will say is that King of Wales was a somewhat justified revert, you added "Kingdom of Cambria" etc?? that seemed a bit too much into pseudo-history. However, I still express my openess to List of legendary rulers of Wales as at least that has "legendary" in the title, so a bit more obvious. DankJae 22:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, done. I did an overall check for the past hour and finally published the article for legendary rulers. Although, I wanted to find more book sources, I've been too busy studying and this is all I can come up with for now. Please check it @DankJae:, thanks for your help. Cltjames (talk) 23:07, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cltjames Sorry but I think your version is problematic. Among other things, I'm afraid that your English isn't nearly as good as that in the version being reverted to, and there are sourcing problems. I should have spent more time looking at your edits earlier. Doug Weller talk 07:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller the article is a complete mess, and bullet points were a good idea. Were they not? Then my addition of the Moon-eyed people under the ==American settlement could be a good additon, please tell me why not, because there is a direct connection between the Moon Eyed People and Madog's settlers, and the LA Times is reliable and the article completely missed that connection. Then, the expansion of his family was a good addition, and the voyages story expanded was better. Also, the bottom is a complete mess with too many unnecessary sources and bare ISBN. I really don't see the counterargument !!?? Cltjames (talk) 08:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Dana Olson's book on the Moon-eyed people is self-published, can't be used. Your American settlement section was virtually unsourced and the one source, the LATimes, made is clear the giants claim is debunked, which you didn't mention. Doug Weller talk 09:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Also note another revert will be your 4th, ie you can be blocked. Doug Weller talk 09:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Doug Weller What about a tipyup, references, sources & bullet points? What about the family background and voyages sections I rewrote?? These are fair points to make. Cltjames (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I have concerns about your edits, Cltjames, although I can see the good faith and intent behind them. But really, and I am sure we have been here before, one concern has to be the sourcing you are relying on. This comment edit conflicted with Doug Weller who has pointed out the self published work. Additionally historical articles, and those include articles about historical legends, should never be using newspapers as sources. That is an obvious red flag here. Let's begin with identifying the best sources, and proceed from there. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Advert tag add by User:Cltjames

How is that justified? "Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. " \"flags the issue of an article that reads like an advertisement. For example, such articles may tell users to buy a company's product, provide price lists, give links to online sellers, use unencyclopedic or meaningless buzzwords, be filled with peacock language and read like the website of the article's topic or a press release touting its virtues, rather than that of a neutrally-written encyclopedia article about the topic. Advertisements are by no means limited to commercial topics and indeed are often seen for all manner of others, such as "noble causes", religious/spiritual leaders, sports teams, gaming clans and so forth. If the article's main problem is not advertising per se, then you can change the tag to something more appropriate, such as COI or Peacock or POV check . Pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic may be tagged for speedy deletion under section G11 of the criteria using db-g11 or db-spam To address the issue, rewrite the article from a neutral point of view – which is not just about the wording and tone, but also what the article covers and what it does not cover. Wikipedia articles should represent fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Removing all promotional language is a good start, but depending on what is left, may only be a surface treatment. See what you can salvage, but often editors strip out all but the most basic content, leaving it in a stub state. If you want to build a solid article, explore the existence of independent sources for the topic, and build it from the ground up."

Can you be specific about how the tag meets the above? Otherwise it should be removed. Doug Weller talk 10:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)