Talk:Cynllibiwg

This article contains no valid references, and several statements that are uninformed and incorrect. I have put in a few fact-tags, and the tagged statements will be deleted if they remain unreferenced. . . .LinguisticDemographer 20:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware there is no evidence that Cynllibiwg was a kingdom and I've never heard it referred to as such. It is also wrong to describe it as corresponding to Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, which was a much wider geographical area (but never a kingdom in itself). As LinguisticDemographer notes, all this is unsourced. Fact-tags could readily be multiplied. Whence all these facts? I think only a decent academic printed source should be accepted and the article revised drastically. Enaidmawr 18:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

From the website referenced here : "A study of Wales in the twelfth century soon shows that there were four competing Welsh 'kingdoms' striving for dominance in this isolated, mountainous and generally poor region, viz Gwynedd, Deheubarth, Powys and Cynllibiwg." Funny no scholars of medieval Welsh history mention it. But hold on, the reason is that it "was only recently rediscovered" (presumably by the author of the website). Enaidmawr 19:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to get any info there is on Cynllibiwg other than the reference in Nennius, who wrote in the ninth century (not the sixth as stated here) and who doesn't say what it was or where it was, merely referring to it as the location of one of the "wonders of Wales". If there is no other reference to it, then this article probably needs deletion. . . .LinguisticDemographer 18:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost every sentence in this article could be prefaced with "According to P. M. Remfrew" and concluded with "however this is not accepted by other historians of early and medieval Wales." Where is the proof that any reputable scholar other than the author of the website given here (and placed here by the website owner, it would appear) and the book referenced at Rhwng Gwy a Hafren (ditto) supports this theory? This should be merged with Rhwng Gwy a Hafren and critically edited to sort fact from theory. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as Original research as per wikipedia policy: "If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then — whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not — it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research". Enaidmawr (talk) 19:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're being a bit dismissive of Remfry, he has published about Cynllibiwg in reliable journals eg British Archaeology and the Transactions of the Radnorshire Society. He is also not the "re-discoverer" of Cynllibiwg as that is Bruce Coplestone-Crow. The citing of Calcebuef from Doomsday is a bit of a jump of faith but Kenthlebiac from the Red Book of the Exchequer is pretty convincing as references from the 11C after Nennius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Enaidmawr - On the Rhwng Gwy ac Hafren page you say that Remfry's viewpoint has been rejected by Welsh historians, I'd be interested in any references you have to specific repudiations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 14:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See my comment on Talk:Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. Enaidmawr (talk) 21:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Remfry is undoubtedly an expert on the castles of Wales. Another article cites his M. Phil. thesis, on a related subject to this article. Technically, this may be WP:OR, but it is the research of a reliable historian. It thus desrves respect. If there are articles, as some one states, can they be cited? If others disagree with this interpretation, can their writings be cited? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed merging this into Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:56, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with this "but is not accepted as such by the great majority of historians." I'm still waiting for an example of an historian refuting the theory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.195.39 (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem with giving this kind of weight to new and largely unaccepted (or not yet accepted) theories on Wikipedia. Including them with no caveat makes them appear that they have a great level of acceptance in mainstream history than they really do, and including them with a caveat requires a credible expert to have actually weighed in against them. Personally I would have preferred that Cynllibiwg be deleted or merged elsewhere barring much better sources than we currently have; the line you mention was the compromise provided so that the article be kept at all.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge results

I have expanded the cut down article slightly. Contrary to the narrative that I put it was not restoring deleted text. If the middle 'c' in Calcebuef was aspirated, 'lc' could represent a Welsh 'll', so that the name is not as remote as it might appear.

The question is of status and extent. David Hill ('Mercians:The dwellers on the boundary' in M.P. Brown and C.A. Farr, Mercia, an Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Europe (leicester University Press 2001), 174 plots Cynllibiwg on a map of Wales captioned, 'Regions named by 1100'. However he has used a different typeface from that used for kingdoms, probably suggesting he considered it to be a commote. Arwystli, Builth, and Cedweli have the same typography. Associated maps show the area as part of Powys in the 8th century, but not under Rhodri Mawr. My own suggestion, based on Early Welsh genealogical tracts is that Arwystli, Cedewain, and Gwrtheyrnion had their own dynasties from about the 9th century and should therefore be regarded as having some independence, though no doubt dominated by one or other of their neighbours. In this context, English hegemony (indicated by kings attending the English court) should not be ruled out. I appreciate that such views are antipathetic to Welsh national sentiments, but they have no place in objective history. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

You raise some valid points. I'm here late in the day so I'll be brief.

The name. I'm happy with Nennius but am not at all convinced by the Calcebuef of the Domesday Book, on purely linguistic grounds. If the 'c' is aspirated that gives Calchebuef which suggests Calch ('lime[stone]') as the first element (I'll pass on the second!). A source for the Red Book of the Exchequer name Kenthlebiac would be useful (unlike Nennius, not many of us have it on our shelves!). And even if the later references are genuine, unless they refer to it as a "kingdom" the "kingdom of Cynllibiwg" theory is not advanced one bit. I've read Remfry's website article and he avoids that difficulty. Nennius refers to it as a regione, a word which can be interpreted a number of ways.

Extent and staus. Brief answer: we simply don't know. Like Wendy Davies, Brown and Carr, noted by you, follow the standard practice of referring to it as "a region named by 1100" (based on Nennius). As for the local dynasty argument, Wales was a patchwork of local dynasties/lordships. Some had a degree of independence, others were pretty much integrated in the larger kingdoms or tied to them (Arwystli was such in relation to Powys but also had ties with Gwynedd). If you take the "local dynasty" line too far you'll find that practically all the cantrefs of Gwynedd proper could be decribed as being ruled by local dynasties - lordship was hereditary, of course. As for fealty of individual lordships, that tends to be a matter of real politik. The local lords of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren had to survive under the very noses of the Marcher Lords, for instance, but certainly showed their mettle in the reign of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. But as I said, it's getting on a bit, so I'll leave it there. I'm afraid I remain totally unconvinced by the medieval kingdom of Cynllibiwg hypothesis, as you've probably noticed! Enaidmawr (talk) 00:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Remfry's case is built on slender (rather than non-existent) foundations. See also British Archaeology 1998 and Hull University site - I cannot get into the original webpage. It certainly existed, but it is unclear what it was, which is why I used the word "polity" in the article on Elystan Glodrydd. The Red Book may be available on line at ancestry.com, but I cannot get inot the text, not having a subscription. It was publihsed in 1896 ed. H. Hall in the series Rerum Britannicarum medii aevi scriptores ; 99. I will try to look this up. The Hull website identified Calcebuef as mentioned in (or perhaps after) the Archenfield section section of the Herefordshire Domesday Book, and says that Coplestone-Crow made the identification; I think this refers to a book on Herefordshire place-names. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The first article is clearly the basis for the first draft of the Cynllibiwg article here (verbatim in some places!). Remfry states: "Throughout the 12th century there were four principal competing Welsh `kingdoms' - and of these, one has only recently been recognised by modern research. The four were Gwynedd in the north and north-west, Deheubarth, arguably the most powerful of the four in the centre-west and south, Powys, lying roughly between Shrewsbury, Chester and Aberystwyth, and south of Powys, the newly-recognised Cynllibiwg, lying between Shrewsbury, Aberystwyth and the River Wye." Note: "and of these, one has only recently been recognised by modern research" and "the newly-recognised Cynllibiwg". Researched and recognised by who? Well, by Coplestone-Crow and Remfry, of course. Believe me, if Remfry's article had been accepted and published by a learned journal such as the Welsh History Review his argument would have been torn to shreds by the reviewer - assuming it would have been accepted in the first place. Their theory is based on the three sources already discussed above. As far as I know it is nowhere referred to as a kingdom - even Remfry won't say that as such (check the article). We can not refer to it as a "kingdom" or even a "polity" here on wikipedia, no matter what we may think of it, when it is clearly not accepted as such by mainstream historians. All we have is a place name: there are no 'foundations', just a great deal of imagination and determination to prove a hypothesis. Their argument, and that's all it is, is just not academically valid. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this ultimately depends on what the Red Book actually says, which neither of us have yet seen. The Hull university site (cited above) appears to have a quotation. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been in a library and extracted the evidence cited by Remfry, which I have quoted in full. It is evident that text (copied from somewhere else into the Red Book of Exchequer) was either already corrupt, or carelessly copied. I still consider that Remfry has built his theory out of very thin evidence, and I have tried to express that uncertainty in what I have written. The Hull website cited appears to reproduce Thorn & Thorn's notes on DB Herefs. I have made the best of this that I can without going down the path that Remfry did. You have convinced me that the evidence does not support it being a kingdom, and I have thus used the word 'lordship', which (I hope) does not beg the question of its status. I hope that (subject to any typos being corrected) this can be the end of the matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: the transaltion in the block quote is mine. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Remfry 2K9

Remfry's theory falls afoul of FRINGE, which states that "In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Nothing against him, but we can't reference his personal website, which only references (and sells) his own self-published books, as evidence that this theory is notable. Any non-reliable source needs to stay out.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is excessively harsh. This, which sets out his thinking in "Discovering the lost kingdom of Radnor", describes him as "an independent historian, author of The Castles of Radnorshire (Logaston, 1997) and of many booklets on castles." The fact that the Council for British Archaeology publishes his articles in a well-known publication surely gives him some respectability. It's also ref'd here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

PS: I've now reinstated the info, with the legit Remfry ref above. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Cuchullain regarding FRINGE. This isn't an inflammatory fringe, but it is fringe nonetheless. If Remfry is talking about castles and archaelogy, well and good, as that is his area of expertise. And that seems to be the focus of the links provided: archaeology, excavations, castles, that kind of thing. The anecdotal exception where he publishes an article on political history (eg, Remfry's 1994 A political hstory of Abbey Cwmhir) may be interesting reading due to Remfry's knowledge of archaeology, but it doesn't qualify Remfry as a reliable source on the topic of general history – his might be a reference in support of reliable source's thesis, but he is not a reliable source in support of his own thesis, as he is out of his area of expertise. Nor does the Council for British Archaeology count as a scholarly publication outside of its own area of expertise. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I didn't mean to knock Remfry; this is not the kind of daft nonsense we often think of when we think of something as "fringe". But this is a novel idea that hasn't gotten traction outside of Remfry's own writing. As such it's disingenuous for it to be discussed here, especially if we're just quoting his own self-published sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think we have the authority to cherry pick like that. A report published in a reliable source meets criteria for inclusion - we shouldn't be adding our own opinions as to whether it was legitimate for that source to have published it. If other reliable sources criticise Remfry's work, we should of course quote them as well - but I haven't seen anything that does, only the opinions of editors here. Sorry, but they don't count, however well qualified they may be. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't spin what I said into an interpretation like that. It is a response to your specific example, so if it is cherry-picked, it is yourself that picked the cherry. As for 'other reliable sources' being critical of Remfry's work (in political history, which is the specific example that you cite), the criterion regarding inclusion of potentially "fringe" theories is to have those criticisms in hand before including the theory so that they can be included, so as not to give undue prominence. Note that this applies to Remfry's theory, and not to whether or not Cynllibiwg existed in some form; the existence of Cynllibiwg is not the point here, only Remfry's theory that Rhwng Gwy a Hafren was a kingdom known as Cynllibiwg. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear that there is no consensus to delete after our rewrite and Ghmyrtle's introduction of a proper cite for Remfry. As such I've withdrawn the AfD in favor of finding a non-deletion-related solution. Here are my suggestions: If we keep it as its own article, it should be moved to Cinlipiuc, the version found in the Historia Brittonum; this form more common on Google Books as well as on the standard Google search when Wikipedia mirrors are discounted. We also need to cite a reliable source connecting "Kenthlebiac" from the Red Book of the Exchequer to Cinlipiuc; it seems reasonable, and it seems that the Red Book's editor made the connection, but somehow I don't have a copy in my personal library to check it with. However, I think the best move will be to merge the content elsewhere. If the Kenthlebiac-Cinlipiuc connection comes through the logical place would be Rhwng Gwy a Hafren. I will work on improving that article's treatment of the subject based on what's been done here, and if others agree we can complete the merge and redirect. Another option would be to redirect to Historia Brittonum, which contains the only certain reference to Cinlipiuc. Thoughts?-- Cúchullain ^t/c 16:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been busy over on cy: of late - 25,000 articles at last! - so I've just seen this. I think I've said just about all I have to say about Cynllibiwg and Mr Remfry's theories above. As for the name, the Cinlipiuc of the H.B. is clearly a Latinised form of the Welsh name, the standard rendering of which, in Welsh and English sources alike (few as they are, but including Wendy Davies), is Cynllibiwg. Other than that, I'm not too concerned about the article's fate as long as we make clear that Remfry's medieval kingdom theory is just that, a theory, and pretty much his alone: almost counts as 'OR'. Besides, I'm off to Morocco for seven weeks from tomorrow so this debate will be part of wikipedia history by the time I return, no doubt. I'll be back about a week before Christmas. I expect to find at least 50 new articles on Early Medieval Wales by that time, or heads will roll... :-) Enaidmawr (talk) 21:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

However little you may like Paul Remfry's theories, British Archaeology is a WP:RS, though a popular (rather than academic one). His publisher Logaston Press is a small but reputable publisher of local history of the Welsh border area. Both the Red Book and Domesday Book are precisely cited. People like Cúchullain are seeking certainty where there is none. There just are no more sources on the history of mid-Wales in the 11th century and before. We have a historical vaccum. This means that Remfry's view is worthy of at least as much respect as any other historian, at least until an academic historian comes up with a better theory as to what the names refer to. The fact that the topic is ignored in earlier histories is hardly surprising: there was noting to comment on until Remfry propounded his theory. Both Kenthlebiac and Cinlipiuc come from Latin sources that have mangled Welsh names, so that a reconstructed Welsh name is probably to be preferred. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose merger to Rhwng Gwy a Hafren because we cannot be sure whether Remfry is correct as to its extent: it might as easily be just two or three of the later Welsh states in the area, rather than all of them: it is impossible to know, but for me to propound that theory is WP:OR. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't object to Remfry, or even his theories per se, I just object to giving weight to a theory that has gotten negligible scholarly coverage. At any rate, I have rewritten the section Cynllibiwg section at Rhwng Gwy a Hafren to include the information here. Discussing it there doesn't imply that Cynllibiwg represented all or most of Rhwng Gwy a Hafren, but if the Red Book reference can be trusted it was certainly located within that region. I'd like to complete the merge, but if others want Cynllibiwg to keep its own page, that's fine. Based on Peter and Enaid's comments re Cilipiuc I have changed some of the wording in the article, and reworded a few things for the sake of clarity. However, I removed the Gerald of Wales reference, as him not mentioning the word could mean any number of things; it's not our place to speculate.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as a general point, I think it's important in articles on entities like this not only to set out what is known about them, but also what is not known - not to ignore what others speculate, but to set out those speculations and explain what the uncertainties are. After all, Google will lead many people to the more speculative sites (like EBK), and it should be the role of WP to inform those readers who then move on to here, and in effect say, "look, we know what those sites say, and we don't want you to add more stuff from them, but this is what the scholarly consensus is." Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and using 'scholarly consensus' has its own ambiguities. If Cynllibiwg isn't mentioned in scholarly works, then they must not have thought it was worth mentioning, so let's not mention it – just the sort of conclusion to be avoided. On the other hand, their lack of mention is not irrelevant to the issue, and absent compelling information and/or argument, it seems to be a caution to tread lightly, but not a caution to avoid the topic completely. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The lack of scholarly discussion in works before the 1990s proves nothing, because the issue had not been raised. The two allusions had not been linked. I consider that the level of detail both here and in Rhwng Gwy a Hafren is appropriate, and would suggest that we do not need to spend more time on the question, until it is addressed by some other scholar, with a substantive no arguement. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The actual words in the 1251 MS in <the Red Book of the Exchequer (vol 2 p762> are "In tempore Rys filii Oen[died 1078]vocata fuit [Inter Sabrina et Wayam] Kenthlebiac. That seems to me quite excplicit. I'd be interested to read any comments. Dai Hawkins, Nantmel (dafydd@post.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.84.53 (talk) 16:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)