Talk:Gwennan Gorn

Historicity

Hi,
I'm concerned about the possibility of folk-tale or speculation being presented, over and over again, as watertight fact. Do reliable sources really say that Madoc sailed to the New World? Did he really use a magnetic compass? bobrayner (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner - To reply to your concerns, yes it is a folklore that has had much controversy for centuries. As the article shows, many historians have done studies on this. I am just writing up an article on what these historians concluded, showing these references from many sources. As you can see it is a subject of much interest by dozens of historians, Welsh, English, and American alike. Since I wasn't there, as was none of the historians, nobody knows for sure if he used a magnetic compass. There is much speculation of the Vikings and Chinese using a type of magnetic compass before the 12th century, however nobody knows for sure. A source I used that indicated Madoc may have used a crude compass (a bit of lodestone floating on a wooden sticks, such as the Vikings employed) is Ellen Pugh on page 18 of her book Brave His Soul, The story of Prince Madoc of Wales and his discovery of America in 1170. Is it true? I don't know. I am just using the references.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:20, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

If "nobody knows for sure", why do you keep on saying that madoc used a compass? Ellen Pugh's story of Madoc using advanced technology to sail to the Americas (centuries before Columbus, and establishing a tribe of welsh-speakers in the New World) is very much WP:FRINGE. However, this article repeats the compass claim over and over again. There's synthesis too; for instance, does Morison actually say that Madoc used a compass, and if not, why does the article imply that he does? Don't get me wrong - the compass is not the only problem - it's just a good example here. bobrayner (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the article has many other major problems. It's heavily reliant on primary sources presented as if they gave authentic accounts, as well as totally unreliable sources and at least one novel treated as if it's a source for Welsh folklore or historical fact. This is a huge mess of WP:FRINGE.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Better sourced than most articles, including those that are at WP:DYK. You seem to be arguing WP:Truth, which is irrelvant. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:52, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no, we're arguing that many of the sources are unreliable and that the material doesn't accurately represent what they say anyway. The fact that there are other poor articles means nothing about the quality of this one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Specifically which primary sources and unreliable self-published books and novels is Cuchullain talking about? Perhaps they can be replaced with other references if proven they are primary sources and unreliable self-published books and novels. Can you give me specifically which material doesn't accurately represent what they say. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Major edit, or just delete...?

Is this article really necessary? It's about a ship about which nothing is known, and may not have existed. But more importantly it is not - or certainly should not be - about Madoc's voyage. Why? Because we already have a B class (arguably much better) article on Madoc, and that is where the material on the voyage should be. A lot of the material in this article is hypothesis and speculation - and a lot of it is about the voyage, and not the ship. So, we have two articles about the voyage - this one, and Madoc. See Wikipedia:Content forking - this is a textbook example. At the very least, the material about the voyage needs to be removed from this article - it's unnecessary and confusing duplication for readers. Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I'm not at all sure this is a suitable topic for an encyclopedia article, even if we removed and rewrote all the problematic material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Quite. There are huge amounts of duplication, within the article itself as well as with the Madoc article - it looks like an exercise in amassing as many citations as possible in order to create an article on a subject on which there is almost nothing of encyclopedic value to be said. I've added another tag, in the hope it encourages the author and other editors to discuss the issues here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see where the article Madoc talks about his ship being built of stag horns. That's what the article Gwennan Gorn is basically about. Its an article about a special ship built with no iron nails, but with deer horn points. Its a most unusual ship construction method and certainly of encyclopedic value.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

But no-one knows if it ever existed. The story about it being constructed with deer horns can easily be included in the Madoc article, in a sentence or two. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Redirect to Madoc

POV language, and a lot of rubbish sources. The article appears to be a content fork from Madoc and should be redirected, with a mention of the ship in Madoc's article. Hobsbawm's book at [1] mentions this and can be used. Even a lot of that is rubbish, eg "One historian of the late twelfth century recorded that the Gwennan Gorn was constructed from oak trees of Nant Gwynant." Historian? Then why is his book self-published by Trafford? There was no "Zella Armstrong Willem", the 'Willem' seems to be an error, but she was basically a genealogist from what I can see. And as she published a magazine called The Lookout[2], she may be self-published as well. Ah, they were, and she may not even have been a geneaogist, see [3]. Don L. Wulffson has an article which is just a stub, but he isn't an RS, just a writer.[4] [5] may be ok but is a copyvio link. Haven't we discussed the Boren's before? I'm sure we have. Clearly not an acceptable source. Ditto Curran's self-published book. Deacon isn't an RS either, we discussed that. Not every source in "Some historians say Madoc landed in the Florida area with his ship the Gwennan Gorn on his trips from Wales" mentions the Gwennan Gorn. But as I say, redirect, a para in Madoc's article. I'm still on a break. Dougweller (talk) 14:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with this solution. A few passages in Madoc cited the the sources that are actually reliable should suffice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuchullain (talk • contribs) 15:31, 5 June 2013‎

The article is about Madoc's ship with the unique construction of being built using stag horns. Its a unique and noteworthy ship, especially since it was built in the twelfth century. The Madoc article is about a person, Gwennan Gorn is about a ship - two entirely different items. Madoc is about a person that travelled to America; Gwennan Gorn is about a ship that travelled to America. Yes, they both have a common denominator of travelling to America in 1170, however they are two different items. Prince Madoc is a son of king Owain Gwynedd and Gwennan Gorn is about a ship that was constructed without metal nails, using stag horns instead.

I found a couple of book reviews on Deacon's book Madoc and the Discovery of America that seem to show it is a reliable source:

1) Book Review Digest 1967 (vol 63, p. 331) - Bottom line the book review says:An investigation of the claim that Madoc, son of Owain Gwynedd, a Welshman, discovered America in 1170. An exhaustive study of the controversial subject. Recommended for general and American history collections.

2) New York Times Book Review (Arno Press, 1967) Volume 2, page 52 - Bottom line the book review says: The question of who discovered America still inspires partisan passions - sparks fly when Columbus man meets a Verrazzano man, let alone a pro-Viking. Now with exemplary courage, Richard Deacon examines the case for Madoc ab Owain Gwynedd, an obscure Welsh prince. Did Madoc and his followers really sail to the New World in 1170, more than 300 years before Colunbus? If not, who built the mysterious fortifications discovered in the South by early colonists? Was there any truth to the many reports of "Welsh Indians" said to be European in looks and language? Madoc’s trail is blurred, to say the least, but Mr. Deacon pursues it with a scholar’s devotion to detail, painstakingly sifting matter from myth and letting the weight of evidence decide.

I found a book review for Zella Armstrong's book that indicate this is a Reliable Source:

Book Review of "Who Discovered America" by Zella Armstrong.

Journal Title: Daughter of the American Revolution magazine (vol 85, p. 302)

The book review starts:

Did Madoc of Wales discover America in 1170? That is the question which Miss Zella Armstrong sets out to answer in her interesting story of documentary evidence tending to show that Christopher Columbus and Leif Ericson were preceeded to America from the Old World. Bringing together substantial proof of Madoc’s visit to America, the author has rendered real service to America history and written a fascinating account of a little known traveler in the 12th century. Should her version of the discovery of America be accepted, history books may have to be rewritten.

The credibility of this is seriously undermined by the implication that Leif Ericson postdates 1170. Even if his personal historicity is doubted, surely it’s common knowledge that the Norsemen’s western adventures are thought to have occurred nearly two centuries earlier? Or is there some sort of alternate chronology involved as well?—Odysseus1479 06:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

The professor of history at Emory & Henry College, Eugene L. Rasor, doesn’t seem to have a history as a book reviewer. This then would be hearsay, or original research, of an opinion from a professor of a college as a self-published source. Did he put this in some book review published by a reputable publisher that we can take a look at? However, I do have a couple of book reviews from reputable sources that shows Ellen Pugh’s book "Brave His Soul" is an excellent Welsh historical source:

1) Kirkus Reviews published a review of "Brave His Soul" in September 1970:

https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/ellen-pugh/brave-his-soul-the-story-of-prince-madog-of-wal/

Kirkus Reviews have been an authority in book reviews for over 80 years. They provide book reviews to consumers upon publication. This is considered a reputable source by the book review industry. This book review said bottom line:

Thorough annotation, an extraordinary bibliography, and prints of old portraits and maps lend further credibility to a surprisingly absorbing chronicle prepared with great diligence and eschewing undue partisanship.

2 ) Book Review Digest, Volume 67, from 1971:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Z0EOAQAAMAAJ&q=%22Brave+His+Soul%22+pugh+review&dq=%22Brave+His+Soul%22+pugh+review&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gnuIUdWtJpDM0gH55YHwBw&ved=0CEoQ6AEwBA

This book review said bottom line:

"This is a well documented and interesting study. Mrs Pugh presents her evidence in a very objective yet fascinating manner."

This is the book cover front flap on Ellen Pugh’s book "Brave His Soul":

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22738816@N07/8704772592/in/photostream/

If I know the concerns, perhaps I can use a different source (as many items have several sources). Usually if there is one source, there are more for the same item or sentence. I am not using original research, but have found the material in some reference source.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, by a double check, all sources in "Some historians say Madoc landed in the Florida area with his ship on his trips from Wales" mentions Florida. Which ones do not?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

When I read it, it said WSome historians say Madoc landed in the Florida area with his ship the Gwennan Gorn on his trips from Wales." But there are still major problems. What historians? You really need to name them. That's beside the fact that many of your sources don't meet our criteria. Some of your sources are clearly fringe, others such as Oswald William Moosmuller are not reliable sources for this subject. I get the impression that you don't understand the way we use the word 'reliable' - please look (again if necessary) carefully at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. A review can't make Zella Armstrong's self-published work meet our criteria, see WP:SPS. Or indeed Deacon. Nothing is going to make the Boren's reliable sources. Anna Lee Waldo's book is a novel, what's it doing here? No where do you make it clear that the article sourced to the The National Library of Wales Journal, Volume 14 says that the story of Madoc that mentions this ship does not mention America. You are writing about this ship as though it existed - even giving us an image at [6] although there doesn't seem to be a source making this claim. There are about a dozen uses of the word "supposedly", and too many mentions of 'folklore' without citing the folklore - which in some cases doesn't seem to exist. If you are going to use folklore, let the reader know what the folklore is.

And the article is basically about Madoc, not the ship, and the ship is not independent of Madoc, it is only mentioned in connection with Madoc. Dougweller (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The only solution, it seems to me, is to add some reliably sourced text to the Madoc article, and to make this article a redirect. I know that a lot of time and work has been expended on this article, but that doesn't make it worthwhile - in fact, by being so lengthy and apparently well referenced, it is likely to confuse any reader into thinking that the ship actually existed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is effectively a WP:ONEEVENT situation. This legendary ship is not notable independent of the Madoc legend, which is best covered by a single article. Agricolae (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Does " Folklore says Madoc used the 'marvelous director" ?

No, it doesn't, or at least I can't find any folklore that does. This is sourced to the book by the Borens I discussed somewhere, but is reviewed here.http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=13&num=2&id=397[7]. We wouldn't use them to claim the Ark of the Covenent is in Utah, and we shouldn't be using them for this article either. No folklore mentions a "marvelous director", this is a phrase from the Book of Mormon. Even the Borens don't claim it is mentioned in folklore - in fact they don't even seem to be claiming that Willem says Madoc had one, only that he was looking for one. Much of the paragraph on this alleged compass has sources that don't discuss Madoc. Of those that do, one is a random website, one is the book by the librarian Ellen Pugh, and the third is Deacon who from the snippets I can see is simply writing about the possiblity he used a compass (and who isn't a RS). Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Ellen Pugh not a reliable source

From an edit by me in April at Talk:Madoc. n a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 10:46, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Willem

The use of Willem is solely to do with Madoc, not his ship, and is I believe possibly misleading. What the article on Madoc actually says is: "Willem the Minstrel, around 1250 to 1255, identifies himself in his best known work Van den Vos Reinaerde as “Willem, die Madocke makede” (Willem, the author of Madoc). What may be a fragment of this work was found in France in the 17th century. It provides no topographical details relating to North America. It does mention what may be the Sargasso Sea and says that Madoc (not related to Owain in the fragment according to Gwen Williams) discovered an island paradise." None of the sources in that section are reliable sources by our criteria - Armstrong is a self-published author (certainly not a historian), Loker's book seems self-published as Solitude Press seems to publish nothing by other articles (and he has no qualifications in history, "Aleck Loker, educated as a physicist, worked for the U.S. Navy as a scientist and flight test engineer for more than thirty years."). I don't know who John Miles is but reliability is not the default (nor is it clear what he says as I can only see snippets). As to the "literature of Holland", what exactly is this? What reliable source says this is found in the literature of Holland and exactly what literature are we talking about? My guess would be that this is not an independent source is the statement implies, but is the Dutch author Willem. And recall that we have no original copy of Willem. Dougweller (talk) 11:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Repetition; confusion

I'm not going to comment on whether this article should be deleted or not. However, just reading it on its face, it is evident that the authors have gotten bogged down in their sources. There are far too many sources listed - are all of them important and unique? Also, there is a huge amount of repetition. Tell what is known once, in chronological fashion. There is no need to repeat the assertion that Madoc sailed on two journeys over and over again. I would use three paragraphs: 1. State what happened before his first journey (who he was, why he built the ship); 2. Discuss the first voyage; 3. Discuss the second voyage. Simplify. Also, the listing of sources at the bottom should be complete enough so that readers can find these sources. The sources should not be referred to in the text. It is not important to encyclopedia readers where the manuscripts are located. Good luck with the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

But can I point out that this article is not and should not be about the supposed voyages. They are covered at Madoc. This article is specifically about the ship - which may or may not have physically existed. We do not deal with Columbus' voyages at Santa Maria, for example. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it shouldn't be about the alleged voyages - and as you will agree, we know a lot about the real ship (the Santa Maria) and it is very well known, we know next to nothing about this fictional ship - no primary sources, no physical evidence, not enough to fill more than a short paragraph - which is why it shouldn't have its own article. And our policy is that readers should be able to verify sources which is why we need to show what they are being used for and enough detail to find them. Dougweller (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

You say it is a "fictional" ship, and conclude that it is a "fictional" voyage. Ignoring entirely the well documented arrival of the Vikings, you contrast this to the real ship (the Santa Maria)". Be that as it may, these are all your argument and viewpoint, and do not change the fact that there is lots of discussion by published WP:RS about the alleged ship. Q.E.D., that is sufficient to make it notable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Ssilvers that this article has way too many references given the obscurity of the topic - there is a lot of decoration going on, as well as stuffing with irrelevancy. Magnetic compass use by Crusaders is so very much peripheral to the topic of this article, given that there is not the slightest claim in any of the primary evidence that a compass was used. If you remove all of the material that is not specifically about this boat, you don't have much of an article left. I still think it is of insufficient notability independent of Madoc, and the way this article is as much about Madoc as it is about the boat just confirms this. Agricolae (talk) 00:51, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Fringe and Duplication tags

Fringe tag and duplication tag removed since these issues have been cleared up by User:Dougweller plus the improvements I recently made.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Cuchullain - you will have to be specific as to why you are just putting up the tags. Perhaps you could even edit the problems for improvements to the article that you think exist since Dougwell and myself have made major improvements. I see no reason for the tags other than harassment. If there is no specific reasons, then the tags will be removed. I really don't understand what "the problem" is that you speak of, so I don't see how it can be fixed. Please explain "the problem" that you speak of in your edit summaries. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

They aren't cleared up yet at all. I've just started to see what gets left when we remove the unrelated material and the bad sources. I would like to know what Laboratory for Anthropology: Science and Romanticism in the American Southwest, 1846-1930 is doing in the bibliography. I'll work on it more tomorrow. The tags seem correct to me. I still think it belongs in the Madoc article. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the problems are the same as above even as Dougweller has pruned the most egregious material. I would agree that this should be a brief mention in the Madoc article, with appropriate sourcing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

"Laboratory for Anthropology" is not used as a reference. Apparently it was left in by accident in the bibliography during the improvements Dougweller and myself made. I removed it.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose if one wanted to one could reduce the Gwennan Gorn article to a paragraph and put it into the Madoc article. However Gwennan Gorn has enough characteristics to stand as an article in its own right. This would be like reducing Nina, Pinta and the Santa Maria to a paragraph and putting it into the Christopher Columbus article. While I see the ships are mentioned in the Columbus article, they each have an article of their own. These ships did basically the same route from Europe to America as did Madoc’s ship.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

There's a huge difference. No one doubts that Columbus existed as did the ships. Columbus and other contemporaries wrote about them. We know the names of the crew of the Santa Maria and lots of details about all 3 ships. That's why they have their own articles - among other things, the detail would overburden other articles. Here we have a ship for which we have no similar evidence skippered by a person most historians (all today?) don't believe existed, and a scant amount of detail. The nub of the problem seems in part that from the way you write, you are convinced that Madoc and the ship were real, and have apparently been looking for sources without carefully checking them to see if they meet our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources redux

I can't see why the sources for this should be anything other than academic sources that pass our RS criteria. Not even popular writers on history such as Peter Aughton (who doesn't reference his books well)[8]. Aughton seems to be accepting the story as true and speculates on its sails, saying that "The brothers took two ships on their venture, called the Gorit Gwynanl and the Pedr San/. Apart from the names we have no details of these ships but they were probably similar in construction to the open ships of the Vikings, carrying a single square sail and powered by banks of oars to port and starboard." In the article this becomes "Madoc's ship likely had a large single square sail based on British shipbuilding techniques of the twelfth century." But it is just speculation bsed on nothing but the author's guess (and on the basis of Aughton do we remove all the other details he says we don't have but are in the article?). The next sentence says "One historian speculates that the sail had a broad Templar cross on it." But the Borens book, which locates the Ark of the Covenant in Utah[9] clearly fails completely our criteria for sources. And they are clearly not historians, so why are they described as "one historian"? I also see a children's book as a source. I'm at a loss as to why this was considered a reliable source (by our criteria of course). I've removed quite a bit more with detailed explanation in the edit summaries. I still say that a romantic poet is not a reliable source, and repeat that as much as possible we should have academic sources and also we must be specific, not just say "stories" or "folklore" - what stories, what folklore? We do have some reliable sources. Cwrtmawr MS. 530 and Lloyd-Morgan for instance. What else? Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Zella Armstrong redux

To add to the discussion above, one of the sources used by the editor who created this article is [10], the Encyclopedia of Alabama in an article written by a historian. It says "The version of the legend centering on the Mobile connection was popularized by the relentlessly determined preservationist and unreliable amateur historian Hatchett Chandler and the equally unreliable amateur historian Zella Armstrong of Chattanooga in the book Who Discovered America? The Amazing Story of Madoc (1950)." It also does not mention the Gwennan Gorn so I'm removing that section. Dougweller (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)