Talk:Arthur stone
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cornwall, an attempt to improve and expand Wikipedia coverage of Cornwall and all things Cornish. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project member page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
|
See drop-down box for suggested article edit guidelines:
|
||
 |
Arthur stone is part of WikiProject King Arthur, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to King Arthur, the Arthurian era and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
This stone was only named the Arthur stone due to media hype. The archaeologists involved dismissed any connection to Arthur saying "Although Tintagel is often associated with the mysterious and mythical past, we must dismiss any idea that the name on this stone is in any way to be associated with the legendary and literary figure Arthur. Arthur was only associated with Tintagel through the work of Geoffrey of Monmouth in the twelfth century, six hundred years later. As Professor Thomas states, "All this stone shows in the name ARTOGNOU, is the use of this (Celtic) element". Academic works and English heritage now call it the “Tintagel Castle "Artognou" inscription stone.” ENlish Heritage: Photograph of the Tintagel Castle "Artognou" inscription stone To have this article named the Arthur Stone violates NPOV. Furthermore this name causes confusion with various megaliths round the UK have been known as Arthur’s stone for hundreds of years far longer than the inscription. I am going to rename this article Artognou stone and rewrite it unless someone provides an academic reference proving that Arthur = Artognou. --Machenphile 20:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'd support a rewrite, but it should only be renamed if "Artognou stone" is a more common name than "Arthur stone". The reason this stone is notable is because of its connections, tenuous as they may be, to the Arthur legend.--Cúchullain t/c 22:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Arthur stone" is how most readers will look for it; as long as it's a redirect no one will be left behind. The article makes clear that the connection with Arthur is tenuous and hopeful. Will Tintagel Castle "Artognou" inscription stone as a title make us all look frightfully knowledgable? --Wetman 11:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you type in Arthur Stone in google you get 2 refs to this stone and six refs to various megaliths in the first ten hits. To find proper hits on this subject you need to mention Artognou one of the main academic pages on the subject doesn't even mention Arthur at all. What I suggest is we have an Arthur Stone disambugation page here otherwise we have to decide which of the ten odd megaliths called Arthur's Stone is the main one. I would call a new title for this subject Artognou Stone or "Arthur" Stone, Tintagel which indicates it may have nothing to do with a historical Arthur. It appears there is some argument about what part of the inscription reads now as well. Anyway I have started drafting a rewrite and obviously there is a section on the Arthurian connection. --Machenphile 20:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- Sounds good to me, but I think Arthur Stone should be left as a redirect whatever it's titled.--Cúchullain t/c 20:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
