Talk:Ariconium

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Expanded article, June 2009[edit]

Replaced the stub with an article. Took a guess at the appropriate banners. Notuncurious (talk) 01:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! You state: "Etymologies asserting that Ariconium is the origin of the name of the Celtic-speaking people of the post-Roman kingdom of Ergyng are fanciful. There seems to be a phonetic connection between the names Ariconium and Ergyng, but asserting that Ergyng is a derivative of the name of an abandoned iron working site and minor Roman station lacks credible foundation." Do you have a reference for that view, or is it your own research? There are citations which express a contrary view, such as [1], [2], [3], [4]... etc. At the very most, I think the article should explain that the derivation of Ergyng and Archenfield from Ariconium is questioned, or doubtful - but I'm not sure what the doubts are, as the sources I've seen, without exception, make a link between them, Ergyng's boundaries later withdrawing to the area west of the Wye which excluded Ariconium. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
As a more general point, I'm concerned that most of the references are from the 19th century - they need to be backed up - or refuted - by more recent sources. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, thanks for the response. Yes, I did consult the links you mention (and quite a few more). None of them do more than make a bare assertion or repeat someone else's bare assertion. I, too, think that there is probably some connection between Ergyng and Ariconium, but I don't know what it is; certainly to assert that the name Ergyng descends from Ariconium ought to have an acceptable provenance (citing reliable sources), which I have not yet seen. The similarity of Ariconium to Viriconium/Uriconium is curious. I also think that Ergyng probably once included the site of Ariconium, but that does not mean that Ergyng is a derivative of Ariconium ... perhaps it's the other way around.
A circumstantial notice (not a refutation) ... all of the information about the site characterises a drudge-work industrial site prior to the Romans, built at a place advantageous for furnaces and not a good defensible location (it's on the side of a hill), and a massive abandoned slag-pile of industrial waste after 360 AD ... hardly a place after which a people would name themselves, or after which they would be named by others. Could people have supposed a significant history because it was huge and overgrown, not knowning that its size was due to industrial waste?
As for using "old sources", note that newer references were also used in the article, and quite a few were left out as adding nothing new. Newer sources are sometimes needed, but not always (though they should be checked, which I did); and when they seem to add little or nothing, I'm inclined to use the more long-standing sources. As for backing them up or refuting them via newer sources, I disagree with the implication that "newer" brings quality ... sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. The quality of the back-up or refutation is of interest, though. There's a lot of garbage out there, new as well as old (eg, some Arthurian stuff, or sites on pre- and post-Roman British history).
Have I eased your concerns? If not, let's collaborate further, or go ahead and adjust the article as you think it should be (I expect that I'll be fine with it). My own interests are in the research and the knowing, and a wikipedia article is a byproduct rather than an objective; I feel that I learned what I could, but I'd be pleased to learn more. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
PS - re my " ... lacks credible foundation." and your question about having a reference for it: its an observation that assertions of the etymological derivation of Ergyng from Ariconium are bare assertions made without any use of reliable sources (repeating someone else's bare assertion does not qualify as a reliable source) ... ie, the assertions are lacking in credible foundation. I hope that qualifies as an observation, rather than as a point of view. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I've made an attempt at re-editing it, aiming to keep your citations while also removing some of the assertions which seem to me to be not fully justified, and adding other citations especially on the etymology. (Apologies for not keeping to your citation style.) We need to remember that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." On that basis, some of your sources are difficult to check, and the more recent citations (2002 and 2005) don't fully support your arguments, in my view. Anyway, see what you think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Ghmyrtle, your changes are to the good, and the final product is an overall improvement. Your efforts and positive results are appreciatively noted. We seem to be everywhere agreeable, and even where we don't agree, we agree nevertheless (we both think "I'm right"). I'll not change your text or references, but will soon fit the citations into the style used elsewhere in the article. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
That's good - thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Images[edit]

I noted that there are some images at Commons that could be used for this article perhaps, dunno. --:bdk: 21:23, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ariconium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)