text:
Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd

Untitled
Rydw i'n byw yng Nghwynedd. I live in Gwynedd. And a beautiful part of the world it is too.

For excellent novels about the Welsh princes see "Here Be Dragons", "The Reckoning", "Time and Chance" by Sharon Kay Penman or "The Brothers of Gwynedd" quartet of books - "Sunrise in the West", "the Dragon at Noonday", "the Hounds of Sunset", "Afterglow and Nightfall" by Edith Pargeter. These all chronicle the last century of independent Wales and the extraordinary intricate relationship with the Anglo-Norman crown and nobility that ultimately failed in Edward I's rampaging conquest that saw the end of an 800 year dynasty and Gwynedd become home to the highest concentration of the most formidable mediaeval castles castles of walesin the world.

Etymology
Cunedda = Gwynedd as follows

VOWELS change easily, only consonants have any real permanence "G" = "K" are very similar sounds that often evolve the one into the other, or the other into the one

SO

CuNeDDa = C.N.D(d)

GwyNeDD = G.N.D(d) ~ C.N.D(d) --> Cunedda

Thus, the Kingdom of Gwynedd is just a slightly varient pronunciation of Kingdom of Cunedda

Which makes sense, the Kingdom is named after its founding father

 * Hmmm... Do you have a reliable source for this? It's certainly plausible, but equally it could simply be a convenient coincidence.  I plump for the latter, and my main reason is that I can't see why the sound changes should have affected the place name but not the personal name.  It's also at odds with the derivation from Venedotia (now referenced!).  That, however, looks to me like a latinisation of an original British name. garik 16:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have also read how Cunedda was an origion of Kenneth. Cunedda is pronounced as Kenneth-a. So Gwynedd becomes Kenneth's Land, in much the same way as Glamorgan is Morgan's Country. Many Welsh place names have origions after personal names, witness Merionedd and others.Drachenfyre 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

 * According to the University of Wales Dictionary (Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru), the name Gwynedd is derived from Brythonic *Ueneda and is akin to Goidelic (ancestor of Irish) Fenia (which gives fiana, "war-band" in Old Irish - e.g. Finn and his warriors). Thus the probable meaning is "Land of the Hosts" / "Land of the Warrior Bands", etc. Going further back etymologically the root *uen- is akin to Latin vena- and suggests "to struggle; to desire, to like" (the root of Latin venus, "love", and also venari "to hunt").

 * I've never come across the suggestion that Gwynedd is derived from Cunedda before. Etymological arguments aside, it would be a drastic change in such a short period of time, just a century or two. What is the source of this? So much speculation about things Welsh and Celtic (it's that mist again...) on wikipedia but never referenced! As for Venedotia / Venedocia, it's a perfectly good name which I personally like but which is of course a medieval Latin form of the Welsh Gwynedd, like Mona from Môn and Cambria from Cymru. I find it incredible that an article on wikipedia puts it the other way round! Enaidmawr 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Truthfully I am more like to agree with you reguarding the origion name if the source is from the University of Wales. I am no expert in the study of names, and from everyone I speak to Cunedda was the origion of Gwynedd. And the poster above where he demonstrates the plausability of Cunedda to Gwynedd seems valid. But does it not seem very odd that Kenneth and Gwynedd and even Cunedd (a) have very simular pronouncations? If the University of Wales has documented a different origion for the name then I clearly would defer to them. It just seems an odd coincidence reguarding the pronouncations. I didnt know there was a talk page for wales! Ill be there soon! Drachenfyre 03:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 * The explanation given at the beginning is pseudo-etymological bumbling at its worst, the linguistic equivalent of creationism and various other pseudosciences. Leave etymology to historical linguists, who know what they're talking about (and who tend to know the limits of their knowledge, sources, tools and methods); lay speculations are typically based on superficial, usually misleading similarities and generally incorrect, exceptions being occasional accidents. If any random person could find the origins of words by wild guessing, what would linguistics of the kind you can study at university be for? Do you expect that any random unschooled person can carry out complex and sophisticated (say) biological experiments, too, or perform brain surgery? Obviously not, so why should it be different for etymology?
 * As for Venedotia, Mona and Cambria, Cambria is a medieval Latinisation (if it were genuinely ancient, it should have been Combrogia or similar), but Mona and Venedot- are already attested in antiquity, Mona in Roman sources and Venedot- before 500, so they reflect much older (i. e., ancient British Celtic) forms of the Welsh names, which makes them valuable for the purposes of etymology. They are not as such Celtic, they are Latin, but they are borrowed from Celtic and the Celtic forms were probably very similar. From Latin loanwords in Welsh and cognate words and names in Welsh and Gaulish (and other ancient Celtic languages), Celtologists have derived the (essentially regular) changes that occurred between ancient Celtic and Welsh, which allows one to deduce what the precursor of Gwynedd should have looked like in antiquity and reconstruct a starred (non-attested) form (such as *wened-), and Venedot- indeed seems to fit the bill, although I'm not sure on all the details. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That said, *Weidh-n- doesn't look like a Primitive Irish reconstruction. At all. It doesn't even look like Proto-Celtic. It looks Proto-Indo-European if anything. I wonder if the source really says "Proto-Irish". --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The banner shown as the banner of the "Aberffraw dynasty" is incorrect and I assert is an historical misinterpretation.

All of the images I have ever seen showing the arms of Gwynedd consist of three red leopards on a white field. Occasionally they are shown as three white leopards on a red field but this is almost certainly a mistake caused during printing because at a distance it would be impossible to distinguish those arms from the arms of England - which in medieval Wales was quite a fundamental thing. The arms shown here are those of Owain Glyndwr who proclaimed himself Prince of Wales in 1400 and were never those of a Prince of Wales from the House of Gwynedd/Aberffraw.

Glyndwr was the son of the head of the house of Powys-Fadog. The arms of Powys-Fadog (and of Powys) were a red lion rampant on a yellow field. Glyndwr's mother was the daughter of one of the heirs to the house of Deheubardd whose arms were a yellow lion rampant on a red field. Thus, by heraldic convention, the arms of his mother and father were quartered creating the flag you see here. This is an established heraldic fact. These were not the arms of Llywelyn, Prince of Wales and Lord of Snowdon. His arms were three red leopards on a white banner.

How the arms of Glyndwr then got changed from being the lions rampant as shown here to the lions passant as seen on the modern banner of the English "Prince of Wales" is unclear. James Frankcom

That is sometimes said, but 1. J. Beverley Smith in his book Llywelyn ap Gruffydd gives the four lions banner as the arms of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd. Smith is generally accepted as the leading authority on Llywelyn. 2. David Moore in The Welsh wars of independence (2005), the latest major history of the period 3. Glanmor Williams - another highly respected historian.

What are your sources? Rhion 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Rhion

I have read extensively on this subject, but obviously I concede to these experts if they would show me otherwise, but it is my held belief that it is a simple mistake from the 15th Century that the arms shown are the arms of "the prince of Wales". They are the arms of "a" prince of Wales - Owain Glyndwr. It has long been thought that Llywelyn used the four lions banner and this supposed 'fact' has never been questioned. This does not make sense to me. The arms ARE those of Powys and Deheubardd quartered. It would be a striking and illogical coincidence if the arms of the prince of Gwynedd were the same as the arms of the princes of Powys and Dehuebardd combined. I have not yet found a contemporary description of Llywelyn's arms and the only picture from the 13th Century depicting any arms of Llywelyn of Gwynedd is one where he is shown seated to the left of Henry III and paying homage. In this picture the arms attributed to him are three red leopards on white. I challenge anyone to find documentary evidence of any reference to the four-lions banner as shown here PRIOR to the uprising of Owain Glyndwr. I highly respect J. Beverley Smith's work which I have read - twice - but I would assert that the arms as shown on this page have been attributed to the "Prince of Wales" only since the 15th Century and are infact those of Glyndwr, not Llywelyn. Glyndwr raised "his banner" when he proclaimed himself Prince of Wales in 1400. Before too many Welsh patriots lay this flag on the tombs of the princes of Gwynedd perhaps this issue ought to be resolved. James Frankcom

Hi James

I've been looking into this a bit more - it seems that the original form of the four lions banner showed the lions passant rather than rampant. There are a number of records of the four lions banner before Owain Glyndwr - the earliest seems to be a drawing by Matthew Paris (died 1259) of the arms of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn Fawr, showing them as "quarterly or and gules four lions passant counterchanged" - reproduced in "Walpole Society Publications 14 (1925-6). Following this there are a number of independent references to the four lions being used by others of the family down to Gruffydd's grandson Thomas ap Rhodri (on his seal) and Thomas' son, Owain Lawgoch. There is also a record from 1310 describing them as the arms of Gwynedd. There is a good discussion of this in The Princes and Principalities of Wales by Francis Jones (1969).

Ideally we should have an image showing passant lions, but the image used for "Prince of Wales" won't really do because of the crown. I don't know of any "passant" version I could scan without copyright problems, and I'm certainly not up to creating one. Rhion 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I can look for a copy of those arms online. The same graphics are shared by nearly everyone in these instances. I am ready to concede that I am wrong about Llywelyn's arms. It should be noted though that each othe princes of Gwynedd had their own personal arms. Llywelyn ap Iorwerth had different arms to Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, and Owain Gwynedd had quite different personal arms as well. Perhaps because Llywelyn ap Gruffydd was the last crowned prince of Gwynedd that his arms were retained by his descendants. However I am still yet to be convinced. On a contemporary picture found here Llywelyn is seen seated with his arms behind him. They are not these four lions.

However, is it fair to say, that there is a lot of confusion about the rampant and passant lions? Are the lions rampant the arms of Owain Glyndwr as I described? James Frankcom

 * It may well be that Glyndwr was the first to have the lions rampant. According to Francis Jones, of the princes recorded as using the four lions quartered arms, Dafydd ap Llywelyn and Gruffydd ap Llywelyn are both shown by Matthew Paris as having the lions passant but not guardant. (Dafydd ap Llywelyn also has another coat of arms assigned to him by Paris, so it may be that they had a personal coat of arms as well as the family arms.) Llywelyn ap Gruffydd and Dafydd ap Gruffydd are both described elsewhere as having the lions "passant guardant". (Dafydd incidentally is stated to have used a colour variant, with the substitution of azure for gules). I haven't been able to find a reference as to whether the lions used by Owain Lawgoch were rampant or passant. Francis Jones incidentally refers to a Chetham MS. 6712, a copy of a work composed around 1260, which states that the quarterly shield was originally borne by Iorwerth Drwyndwn, father of Llywelyn the Great.

I see you have removed the crown from the POW arms image - I had the same idea last night but you have done a neater job than I did. This is the one to use I think. Rhion 12:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Rhion, you have enlightened me, and for that I am very grateful indeed. It is nice to be shown why something is the way it is. I would now like to now know why the rampant lions keep popping up and if these are indeed the arms of Owain Glyndwr which have become on occasions confused with those of Ein Llyw Olaf - but that is a debate for a different page. James Frankcom

Hi everybody! I have a theory: what if the three red lions on white were the arms of the kings of Gwynedd, and four lions red on gold counterchanged were the arms assigned to the title "Prince of Wales" (this would explain why they passed from the House of Aberffraw to that of Mathrafal (and now to HRH Charles, Prince of Wales). What do you think? PS: excuse my English, I'm a Frenchman fond of everything about Wales...

I welcome your interest in Wales Tomas de Vernet! The four lions red on gold counterchanged are for the senior line of the Aberffraw dynasty and do not form any part of any other house. Prince Owain Glyn Dwr was himself decended from the Mathrafal and Dinefwr (Powys and Deheubarth) lines, and he adopted the arms but also adapted them showing the lions in a raised rampant fashion. Charles, the English "Prince of Wales,' has his own personal arms and is not entittled to the use of the Aberffraw arms. You will see the Aberffraw arms as an alt flag for Wales though. Drachenfyre 07:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Then WHY is there a picture showing Llywelyn ap Gruffudd's as three red lions rampant on white? And I lso found websites about the Royal Tribes of Wales showing the three red lions rampant on white as the arms of the Aberffraw dynasty (this site in particular[])?...Thomas de Vernet 11:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I just saw your reply to an earlier reply! lol. Sorry for the late reply. I believe the red lions on white field were the personal coat of arms assigned to Gruffydd ap Cynan of the Aberffraw line.... also a direct ancestor to Llywelyn the Great (whose arems are the four lions red on gold counterchanged ). Historically, both can be used to represent Gwynedd.... however it is Llywelyn the Great's arms that have become most identified with the Welsh principality.... and when Owain Glyndwr later adapted them to rampant the association was further solidifed.Drachenfyre (talk) 08:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

"Gogs" and Gwynedd
I have marked the statement with "fact", since it seems quite far-fetched (the simple explanation from Gogledd is much more plausible). In any case, I think this statement belongs in Gwynedd, not here. Edricson 10:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No source has been provided, and I don't think one can be. I've removed the statement. Rhion 15:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

12th-13th century princely titles
I think the subdivision of the list of rulers is a bit misleading, to say the least, although it does mark a change in terminology away from 'king'. If you check the list of documents in David Stephenson's definitive study The Governance of Gwynedd (University of Wales Press, 1984), you will find that 'Prince of North Wales' was actually more common than 'Prince of Aberffraw, Lord of Snowdon' (which don't always occur together, for that matter). When Llywelyn ap Gruffudd became Prince of Wales he used the Latin style 'Prince of Wales, (and) Lord of Snowdon'. In the court poetry of the period various Welsh words for 'king' are commonly used as well, in addition to various permutations of the above titles; Llywelyn ap Gruffudd is referred to as Brenin Cymry/Cymru for instance ('King of the Welsh/of Wales'). My point is that the present wording suggests a formal uniformity of title when in fact that was clearly not the case. Enaidmawr (talk) 22:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I imagine that calling himself King would be treason and require a painful death from the Crown of England. When you say "'Prince of North Wales' was actually more common than 'Prince of Aberffraw, Lord of Snowdon'" do you mean in the cited text, in parlance or in a body of surveyed literature? Pbhj (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I mean in the extensive list, quoting verbatim from contemporary documents, given in Stephenson's book. I'm not trying to argue priority for any one title, just pointing out that the situation is greatly over-simplified in the article and hence rather misleading. As for "king", both Llywelyns were regarded as such by the Welsh (at least witnessing their court poetry), no matter if they were also called "prince" or lord". Brut y Tywysogion calls Llywelyn Fawr "Tywysog Cymru", even though he was not recognised as such by the English Crown; the poets who sang to him use rhi (king), brenin (king), arglwydd (lord), teyrn (king, ruler) tywysog (prince) etc indifferently. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I guess this is where detailed knowledge of the linguistics come in and I don't know the source text, nor old welsh. Llywelyn ap Gruffudd was a Welsh king [of Gwynedd] (wouldn't that be Brenin Cymry too) but was not King of Wales (though I don't doubt someone may have called him that). I might poetically say your are a King of Words, Lord amongst Wikipedians but you're still just a "contributor". In my view a King needs two things, a state over which they are sovereign and a coronation where they are recognised as sovereign King of that same state. Evidence that I'd find convincing would be something like a treaty signed by that person assuming that role, eg Elizabeth II signs Elizabeth R showing her to be sovereign and namely "Queen" [Regina]. Or maybe some lesser French/Irish/Scottish evidence of the use of the term. But I'd be more than happy to see something stating that Llywelyn was recorded variously in court poetry as rhi (king), brenin (king), arglwydd (lord), teyrn (king, ruler) tywysog (prince) cf Stephenson. Pbhj (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Just a couple of points. I'm not trying to say that either of the Llywelyns were de jure "kings" in the modern legalistic sense as given by you above (it should be borne in mind though that Wales was a land of kings and kingdoms - united as a kingdom on at least one occasion, under Gruffudd ap Llywelyn - before the Norman period), merely pointing out the multiplicity and flexibility of titles in that period. As for the court poets, or bards, they should not be compared to modern poets and were not speaking "poetically" as such. These men were the repositors of traditional history and learning with a high place at court. They were men of the world. They were not afraid to counsel or even rebuke kings/princes and often played a leading role in the politics of the day. Some of them were warriors. They were about as far removed from the romantic poet with his head in the clouds as you can get; they chose their words carefully and knew their significance, even allowing for rhetoric. Both Llywelyns had a state with fledgling civil service and diplomatic correspondence, e.g. with the kings of France. Both were crowned and had their regalia, etc. I doubt very much if their common subjects cared to differentiate between "king" and "prince"; such a distinction would have been meaningless to most people. In their choice of titles, the court poets looked to the past, reflected the present, and also, it can be argued, looked to the future. Anyway, all I'm saying is that this diversity - found also in the official documents - should be noted. If I'm somewhat reticent to do so it's because I've almost given up on trying to edit this article as it has become so contentious and suffers from constant edit wars in which I have little wish to become embroiled. Enaidmawr (talk) 23:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm somewhat reticent to do so it's because I've almost given up on trying to edit this article that's a shame I hadn't noticed any edit wars as yet.
 * INCOMPLETE REPLY Anyhow, to say "wales was united as a kingdom" you have to define "Wales". In respect of Llywelyn ap Gruffydd the book "The Second Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England; Containing the Exposition of Many Ancient and Other Statutes." by Sir Edward Coke (printed 1817) recites him as King of Wales, in this manner "Lluellen [sic] was a prince, or King of Wales, who held the fame of the King of England as his superior lord and ought him liege, homage and fealty ...". As with Rhodri Mawr wasn't the first Llywelyn the "King of Britons" [sic], as in Gruffudd Ap Cynan: A Collaborative Biography By K. L. Maund see, eg, page 43, "Hywel Fawr and Gruffydd ap Llywelyn were seen as pan-Welsh figures - there was no stable kingship of Wales." Pbhj (talk) 01:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Llywelyn ap Gruffydd's death
Previous section: Tywysog Llywelyn was offered a bribe; One thousand pounds a year and an estate in England, if he would surrender his nation to Edward. From Garth Celyn Llywelyn wrote a dignified and emotional response setting out his total rejection of the offer. Within a month, Llywelyn, on 11 December 1282, was lured into a trap and executed. The letters preserved in the Lambeth Palace Archives provide a clear picture of the events. Well that's great and all but please give some way we can reference these letters - who wrote them, when, to whom, what manuscript numbers they have in the archive. Also, don't add that to this page, add it to the page about Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. I'm editing this section to reference the page about Llywelyn and to be more open as clearly there's a huge difference of opinion on this.

The thinking elsewhere in this Wiki records that Llywelyn was allowed to keep the title Prince of Wales by the English crown, under the Treaty of Montgomery in 1267 and that in exchange he had to pay homage to the tune of 25000 marks, 3000 marks a year (doesn't add up but that's what it says, query it under [Llywelyn ap Gruffudd]] if you like). He couldn't pay. Rebellion began against Edward I, not from Llywelyn though. Eventually battles loomed - the Archbishop of Canterbury stepped in and negotiated an out for him in 1282, a bribe as you say, if he stepped offered the Crown control of his lands. He didn't take it and was killed by enemy forces. To claim he had a "nation" at this stage is a bit ripe. He certainly controlled the northern regions but geography and selfish ambition (then as now) meant some disenfranchisement between the southern princes and Llywelyn.

Anyway ... this ain't the place for it, see [Llywelyn ap Gruffudd]]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbhj (talk • contribs) 02:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Pbhj (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Roman Britain?
In the infobox it says that the country/nation-state prior to the Kingdom of Gwynedd is the Roman Empire. While I suppose this is true, I believe it should be Roman Britain. This would keep the history of Gwynedd and Wales to a more localized setting while still acknowledging that it was part of the Roman Empire. I didn't want to do it without a discussion first. Any thoughts? Dcs315 (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I tend to agree. For a start the Roman Empire was neither a country or a nation-state. Wales - and Gwynedd - was part of the Roman province of Britannia (slight problem there again, as obviously it was not a country or nation-state either, but at least it is more localised). One of the problems with some wikipedia categories, especially in history and geography, is that they are too rigid, rather arbitary and all too often "revisionist" (prime example: UK bishop stubs which includes early Welsh, Scottish and Anglo-Saxon bishops!). Of course it could be argued as well that Gwynedd emerged from the Celtic tribal structure of Roman and sub-Roman Wales, but that's probably only creating more complications! Enaidmawr (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

 * Howabout detatching the information about the history of the Ordovices under Roman occupation and having a page called Ordovicum civitas as the roman subject-prior to the Kingdom of Gywnedd? James Frankcom (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox border
Hello contributers, I am working with Wikid77 on the info box border. This is a styalistic choice to make the page distinctive. I plan on adding styalistic boxes to the other kingdoms of Wales, and also the Principality of Wales page. For Gwynedd, I chose Imperial Purple as some evidence maintains that Gwynedd maintained the use of latin well into the Dark Ages for writting and titles. This is an styalistic decision, and I feel that the purple backgroud next to the arms and flag of Gwynedd (red/gold) makes the image really pop out. We are still working on the info box, currently the left side extends too far out and it will be brought in some. Any comments or concerns? ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 00:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Administration
We need some help with the boxes containing the lists of cantrefs to make them all equal width. Can anyone do this? James Frankcom (talk)

An error
I can not find what it is that has caused a 'catagory error' to appear above the info box, if anyone catches this before I get home to further work on it I would appreciate it. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for unbiased mediation
Hello! I am an editor contributing to Wikipedia, however I seem to have entered into an edit conflict with another editor who hawks over my edits and reverts them. He orchastrated a campaign against styalized country info boxes, and now has followed me to the Kingdom of Gwynedd page and is editing-out an into image there. I seek others opinions because I feel that these are targeted against any edits that I do. Thank you very much! ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 10:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Lead image
Any objections to me removing the image from the lead section? --Jza84 | Talk  12:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I object ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 12:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Screw it, you win Jza, I quit wikipedia! Its yours. For someoen who claims this is not an issue for you it seems to occupy your time. You have behaived like a cyber bully by hawking over my edits. You and I both know this. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Your comment is duly noted however. --Jza84 | Talk  13:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Rather than just reversing the material can we please respect the work that Drachenfyre has put into the page. Being sorry and noting a withdrawal is just not good enough.   How about attempting to come up with a compromise?  --Snowded (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Erm... I made a proposal, there was one weak unexplained oppose, and one support. Then the opposer asked for it to be removed: there's a consensus and I removed the image per this. OK some points:

 * Per Manual_of_Style:
 * Start an article with a right-aligned lead image.
 * Avoid sandwiching text between two images facing each other.
 * Image size is a matter of preference. Specifying the size of a thumbnail image is not necessary.
 * The image has huge preformatted sizing, warping text in my browser.
 * The image is overbearing, and takes the reader away from the text.
 * The image is in the lead, sandwiching the text between the infobox (which is prohibited by WP:MOS, and is in turn a barrier to achieving GA and FA).
 * The image is anachronistic; it's a picture of modern Wales, not something about the ancient Medieval Kingdom.
 * The image adds no value to the lead or article; it's a misty field, not an image of an artefact or baronial landmark that would be of scholarly interest.

 * What exactly is the reason we're keeping this? "Because my friend likes it" isn't a valid reason to over-ride the Manual of style. In this capacity, I'm going to remove the image again. --Jza84 | Talk  18:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * You [2nd person plural] should know better than to edit-war over a picture. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

There was one oppose, one support. The support made a statement that the picture gave the impression that the Kingdom still existed which is a nonsense and the text makes it clear. On my browser I can see the text. In addition this conversation started on the 13th (TODAY) you cannot claim a consensus based on three opinions in that short a space of time. I disagree with your proposal as I think the picture represents the geography of the area and also provides context. I do think it could be better placed, possibly in the info box. We have also had disagreements before about the degree of conformity that a template should impose. I think you go to far in this, and jump in to quickly to correct what you see as non-conformant behaviour. I am not going to get into an edit war now by reversing, although I would have grounds given the number of periods and the shortness of time. Can I suggest instead that you come up with a suggestion as to a better way of placing the picture (size location) and do something to build bridges back to an editor who is putting one hell of an effort into the content. Oh and please don't dismiss that motivation as "Because a friend likes it" it is about placing importance on content over form. --Snowded (talk) 22:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

 * For what its worth... why not move it further down? While, yes, it did look pretty awkward where it was, I saw no issues with viewing it in my browser.  Why all this hubub over nothing?   Qb  | your 2 cents  14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. I believed it was a straight forward issue myself. I haven't seen any reason why the image should be kept. Sure, I can live with it, but I raised a concern above that it is a little anachronistic. --Jza84 | Talk  23:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The image showing the extent of Gwynedd in 1090 in subsection 2.3.1 (The Norman invasion)
I'd like to ask whether this map is entirely supported by the sources given. My reason for asking this is that my reliable sources for Cheshire at the time of the Domesday Survey (of 1086, only four years previously) show two hundreds of Cheshire as being part of Cheshire, and which were lost from Cheshire and returned to Wales later on (Atiscross and Exestan). Furthermore, the southern part of Dudestan hundred became part of Wales and was known as Maelor Saesneg later on. Now I know that boundaries at this time may have been subject to change and under dispute, and from our standpoint, it may be difficult to disentangle what the situation was, but if anyone could clarify the legitimacy of the map with some specific reliable sources about its boundaries around that region, it would help me revise and expand some aspects of the Hundreds of Cheshire article as well as others about the History of Cheshire and so on. After all, the difference between the two dates is only four years, and so specific reliable sources about boundary changes in between those two years would be probably most relevant. If there aren't any reliable sources justifying the boundaries at that time (1090), then perhaps some comment about the boundaries being disputed needs to be made on the map, or the map redrawn? The sources I used (the Victoria History of the County of Cheshire, and a copy with modern English translation of the Domesday returns for Cheshire) seem quite authoritative on the matter. DDStretch   (talk)  15:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Rhun was the oigional author of the map you see in the 1090's, his oigional source is unknown. However, James Francom has reproduced another simular map based off of other sources such as J.Beverley Smith's "Llywelyn ap Gruffudd" 1998 biography. I was still upset over Azra so did not resond earlier. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A cautionary note: The Doomsday Servay was taken in 1086 as you mention, but at a time in North Wales when the Normans had displaced the Welsh from their land. By 1090, all of Gwynedd was nominally in Chester's hands and it would have served his purposes to have all of this as seen to be successfully under his authority. However, all of this land remained disputed for the next two hundred years. According to historian Professor John Davies, Chester claimed all of north Wales to the Clwyd river, with everything west of the Clwyd intended for his brother Robert. The traditional boundry between Gwynedd and Chester was the Dee river, with Tegeingle (Flintshire), Harwarden, Caergwle, and Maelor as the frontier commotes between the two. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 10:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the response. I accept what you say about the area being under dispute, but that means that, at present, the section is misleading, asd neither the map nor the text makes that as clear as it could; especially as other reliable sources ("The Victoria History of the County of Cheshire" Volume 1, to give one example) suggest otherwise. I think it should be possible to modify both this text as well as the corresponding texts in the verious relevant Cheshire articles to take the disputed issue into account in a way that would clarify the issue, as well as strengthening each of the relevant articles. I do think the map is misleading, as it needs to show areas particularly under dispute, and, as it does not at the moment, give the reliable sources on which it was based, I would say that it would be challenged successfully on this matter if the article was submitted for FA review (and perhaps even GA review, given what we have already discussed here about it.) I don't want this to sound as if I am suggesting it is more of an issue than it is, as I think it would not require large-scale changes to make it clear and to fit in with the other, suitably altered, articles dealing with Cheshire. In the case of the two hundreds that were mentioned in the Domesday returns for Cheshire: Atiscross and Exestan (setting aside the area of Dudestan that became Maelor Saesneg), Atiscross was split into two parts: a hidated and unhidated part, which would suggest that there were differing degrees of dispute or secureness of the Norman occupation of that area. Take a look at Hundreds of Cheshire and see how I have attempted to reconcile this, though a suitable reference from a reliable source to the disputed nature would be appreciated. I suggest that the text and the map be suitably edited to make the disputed nature more clear.  DDStretch    (talk)  11:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

We agree that it should not be made more then it is. I believe that the nuances of the dispute regarding Tegeingle (Flintshire, Atiscross and Exestan), between Gwynedd and Chester is best presented on the page for Perfeddwlad rather then here. In the context of the narration here, it is presented as being in dispute between Chester and Gwynedd with the sentence Earl Hugh claimed the Perfeddwlad up to the Clwyd river (the commotes of Tegeingle and Rhufoniog; the modern counties of Denbighshire Flintshire and Wrexham) as part of Chester, and viewed the restoration of the Aberffraw family in Gwynedd as a threat to his own expansion into Wales.[7] and is sourced accordingly. Any further explination would distract the narration further and in my opinion give undue weight to the dispute here. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I did review my notes and sources, and the map of Wales created by Rhion is accurate in so much as it presents Wales without the influence of the Norman Invasion... so I agree a better map could be presented for the invasion itself. Davies has a great map in my book but getting someone to create a map is difficult. The map presented seems to me to represent 1063-1067, just prior to the Norman invasions. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

What is known is that as late as 1081 Tengeingle is ruled by Edwin ap Gronwy, whose family seems to have been ruling it for some time. Some sources say that Tengeingle was part of Mercia, while others demonstrate it was under Welsh control "... and a passage in the Cheshire Domesday Book says King Edward gave to Gruffudd (ap Llewelyn) all the land that lies beyond the River Dee; this may have been merely an acknowledgement that the Welsh already possessed it and Edward simply quit claiming it on paper. Thus, it is possible that both commotes were then (in the 10th and 11th centuries) under Welsh control" THE ANCESTRY OF EDWIN OF TEGEINGL By Darrell Wolcott http://www.ancientwalesstudies.org/id42.html. Though this is one internet source I can look for others. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I will note in the "government and administration" section the dispute between Gwynedd and Chester regarding Tegingl more forcefully and clearly. The map here created by James Frankom is accutate in so much as it represents Gwynedd as administered by Gwynedd.... but here too we can hi-light those border areas in dispute. I think we did earlier but the various colors began to distract from the main point: listing the cantrefi. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

When I get home today I will attempt to make some fixes to accommodate the debate. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

GA?
I think this is GA ready? I'm willing to nom it if there isn't any concerns. I'm just letting you know also that I haven't ever nomed or written a GA before so I'm pretty clueless. :P   CWii ( Talk  14:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Please see the previous section where I have voiced a concern: the boundaries shown in the map do not correspond with the boundaries I have in some very reliable and authoritative sources, and it needs some discussion and some resolution: ignoring the problem does not seem to be a sensible option here.  DDStretch    (talk)  15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I addressed the map issue above. But the page is lacking and not ready for a nomination at present. I was too distracted by Azra85 to further work on it. Much needs yet to be added. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 10:28, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Thanks for addressing the issue, but it is not really resolved, since it remains unclear and misleading as it now stands. I have responded, above, supplying a way in wich it can be made more clear and thereby improved, as well as making it and the relevant articles dealing wit Cheshire, fit togeter more. I do think some editing of the map is required. I hope you can see that my suggestions do not destroy what is already there which is good, but improves its clarity and accuracy.   DDStretch    (talk)  11:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * I could perhaps help out with the "Dark Ages" (ahem! Early Medieval, pliz) section. I am not an expert, but I do have some books - Maund's Welsh Kings, Dark's Britain and the end of the Roman Empire, maybe others - that might be useful. At the moment the article is rather biased towards the Norman and later periods. But I don't want to step on your toes if you have already got plans for this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * To be honest Angus, I was thinking on nominating a split between the periodes: Early Medieval Gwynedd: foundation to the Mathrafal occupation, and Mideival Gwynedd: restoration of the Aberffraw line with Gruffydd ap Cynan until the foundation of the Principality of Wales with Llywelyn I of Wales (1216). What do you think? ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 11:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

 * There are quite a few issues that need addressing before going for GA, specifically the amount of mis-spelling, deadlinks and the suitability of/lack of context with the images. There's a couple of breaches of WP:HEAD and WP:IMAGE (which could be easily fixed), but I'm also a bit worried on the possible over-reliance on Lloyd as a source, and lack of context in some of the mid-to-late parts of the article too. --Jza84 | Talk  01:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, that's one possibility, but you could also look at whether the sections on Gruffydd ap Cynan, Owain Gwynedd, &c, contain things that should be moved to those articles. If not, then yes, some sort of split - before and after Gruffydd ap Cynan? before and after the Normans? - is going to be necessary. As Jza84 says, it's generally best to have more than one main source. More context will make a split even more probable, even if the summary-style sections can be more ruthlessly summarised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * Angus, I am in favor of breaking the artical between Early Midieval Gwynedd and Midieval Gwynedd myself. There is alot of infomration that I am leaving out from sources such as Davies, Llwyd, and Warner, three sources for most of the information here, amongst a few others. The History of Gwynedd specific for the Norman periode is very importand and this is the best place for it. Early Mideival Gwynedd should be narrated on a different page. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

 * One reason I advocate the split just prior to Gruffydd I ap Cynan is because Gruffydd reestablished the Aberffraw family and essentially refounded Gwynedd. The prior century witnessed Gwynedd largely occupied by usurptions from Powys and from Deheubarth. ♦Drachenfyre♦ · Talk 04:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Assessment
Anyone that would like to argur this article down from Top importance to High, is welcome to do so here.FruitMonkey (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
On my browser, the pronunciation in the introduction isn't showing up correctly. I don't know if anyone could correct this ? CultureDrone (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I could remove it for you, if you like. Pronunciations belong at Wiktionary. — LlywelynII  13:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Gwynedd - Guinevere
It may sound outlandish, but while researching the 6th Century of this area, it seems a bit unusual to locate a name so similar to King Arthur's bride. I know my comment can receive more than a bit of criticism, but please allow me to simply outline the fact that King Arthur was said to rule the area as a "sub-king" between the 5th and 6th centuries. In addition, there are pieces of evidence that may suggest Avalon is in fact the Isle of Man and if proven, this is an interesting geographical location. My apologies in advance if this seems childish. Twillisjr (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gwyn is a common word in Welsh. Lots of things sound like her. That said, the etymology here is entirely different. Sorry. — LlywelynII  13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not childish to be ignorant of things that experts know, and to err based on that lack of knowledge. It is childish to disrespect experts, commit the most basic fallacies gleefully, proudly and obliviously and act like a stubborn, overconfident jerk (those people are a pain in the arse and Wikipedia's bane); but you didn't do anything like that, quite the opposite, so all is well. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Title: Lord of Snowdon
It's not dubious that Lly used it, but we need a cite before we go around claiming anyone else did. Most of them got by with Gwynedd or Cymru in Welsh and Venedotia, Norwallia, or Wallia in English. — LlywelynII  13:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

List of rulers
Moved to list of rulers of Gwynedd: the page was overlong as it was; the section had more than enough content to justify a page; and the section included extraneous genealogy that (while still off topic) at least fits into a ruler article under "pretenders".

The new page could probably use a table and more details about the specific historical titles as they were used, though. — LlywelynII  14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

History
Is lovely, but probably ought to be moved to History of Gwynedd or History of the kingdom of Gwynedd with a much abbreviated version left here hitting the highlights. We have entire sections not on the history of the country itself but basically just pasting in the content of individual biography articles... — LlywelynII  14:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

'Undesirable nose?'
"It later came to light that Hywel Trwyndwn (the bodyguard and brother to Iorweth) was not allowed to claim his inheritance due to his undesirable nose."

Is this a typo/vandalism or is it genuine? If genuine, then as it seems such a bizarre statement, I think it requires a brief parenthetical explanation. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering why an undesirable nose prevents an inheritance.Butcherscross (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 * A combination I guess. It wasn't his bodyguard that had the deformed nose, it was Iorwerth Drwyndwn himself, and apparently he was passed over for the crown after Owain died possibly due to his nose. But his son Llywelyn the Great became king later. This needs fixing.    I've removed the text meanwhile is it had been put between a source and the quote from the source and actually belongs in the next section. Dougweller (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

 * Many thanks for the swift reply and explanation!Butcherscross (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Date confusion
I am getting a little bit confused with the date concerning the establishment of the Kingdom of Gwynedd as I seen the date sometimes form 1216 to 1254, Also I noticed there were conflicting dates between the Deheubarth and this article.This article sates the kingdom of Deheubarth directly was                 d established in 1216 in the creation of the Principality of Wales while the Deheubarth article stated that it ended in 1197 almost 20 years before the creation of the principality of Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.106.142.1 (talk) 09:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Where's the evidence for a Roman-Britain connection? The article goes on to assert, "but they had to abandon their ways". This presupposes a connection where none exists. A more likely explanation would be that there is no actual historical connection and that the changes represents an entirely different tribal confederation with zero connection with Rome.

I'm going to strike out that entire section as OR. 2001:569:FACB:DA00:8D01:2E49:A6E3:2820 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Citations amended
Previously I had been learning about and working on web pages about Welsh history and royalty. I found and read many of the sources necessary to complete the Kingdom of Gwynedd article. Citing Dictionary of national biography and the dictionary of Welsh biography, I found most of the sources necessary to complete the article by amending citations, and some additional books and references from other articles. Currently it's in between being worked on and then completion, with grammar work yet to be double checked. But, the article is now almost complete after a lengthy spell of being neglected. Any questions about my recent research or work, then use talk to chat. Cltjames (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 * All references complete with some proof reading pretty much finished. Although a few books are needed for pages, and a few citations without any references online which might need to be double checked. Otherwise the article seems complete with some good work gone into it. I didn't change it too much, only tailored some paragraphs to include new references including DWB & DNB. Any issues, please talk and we should come to an agreement. And maybe we could consider changing some title headings again - House of Cunedda, house of Aberffraw ?? Cltjames (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Amending article
The article has officially identified the dates of the kingdom, yet there is the issue of the infobox which mentions the government of a monarchy, however, the key individuals are missing some potentially more important people, and also have monarchs after the 1216 date. The infobox should be amended to include such monarchs as Rhodri Mawr, Hywel Dda, Gruffudd ap Llywelyn to name a few and the Princes of Wales - Llywelyn II, Dafydd III should be removed for being out of the timeframe of the Kingdom of Gwynedd. Cltjames (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Houses of Wales
The houses of Wales have been defined but seem to be duplicated between the house of Gwynedd and this page the house of Cunedda, the article is titled kingdom of Gwynedd, which surely would be included into the house of Gwynedd.

Any ideas on how to amend this issue ? Cltjames (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Aberystwyth Castle
The text of this page says Llywelyn built Aberystwyth castle, with in text citation to (Davies, 1987), which is an impeccable source, but also expensive and not readily available. I don't have a copy but I doubt this source verifies that statement exactly. Llywelyn, as I understand it, razed the Norman castle at Tan-y-Castell to the ground and rebuilt that one. He was not the first builder of that castle, nor the first to rebuild it. I think he was the last to do so. The current castle was a new build on a new site by Edward I - a site chosen for its ready access from the sea. So this text needs some adjustment - but it would be useful to know what Davies actually says. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Davies and Lloyd quotes.
On a random search finding the names Lloyd and Davies, both authors have over a dozen quoted mentions each. This search finds as to what is written and said in their books. I would like to ask about consensus about how an article on this topic should be written, please. My opinion is that there doesn't need to be repeated mentions of these 2 authors and quotes from books consistently throughout the article. I believe some sections could be rewritten based on facts from time period in relation to modern literature and not directly quoted. As in, there doesn't need to be roughly 30 mentions of these 2 authors repeatedly, but instead, there should be a better elaboration of medieval sources in modern literature focusing on the Kings of Gwynedd and not Lloyd or Davies book theories throughout the webpage. Any thoughts, please ?? Cltjames (talk) 07:22, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

House of Cunedda?
Sorry, but, the article pages of and the Kingdom of Gwynedd articles have the same redirect. However, these 2 articles should be recognised as different topics. As in, can we please redirect Cunedda to a new article involving a family tree of Welsh monarchs and an introduction to the Kingdoms and royal houses of Wales? That is, the Kingdom of Gwynedd and The House of Cunedda should be separate and not in they're present form as one article. Again... If you have any requests, thoughts or suggestions, please talk: Cltjames (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Kingdom of Gwynedd


text:
Federal Prison Camp, Alderson

The Federal Prison Camp, Alderson (FPC Alderson) is a minimum-security United States federal prison for female inmates in West Virginia. It is operated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, a division of the United States Department of Justice.

FPC Alderson is in two West Virginia counties, near the town of Alderson. A portion of the prison is in unincorporated Monroe County, while the other portion of the prison, including the dormitories, is in unincorporated Summers County. The majority of the prison is in Summers County. Four other area towns, Hinton, Lewisburg, Ronceverte, and White Sulphur Springs, are within commuting distance of FPC Alderson.

History
In the 1920s, there was a shortage of federal prison space for female inmates. Women offenders either were given alternative punishments or were housed alone within all-male institutions. Prison staff and fellow inmates sexually exploited girls and women who were incarcerated in these facilities.

Mabel Walker Willebrandt, then an Assistant U.S. Attorney General, first encouraged establishment of a facility for women. FPC Alderson, which opened on April 30, 1927, as the Federal Industrial Institute for Women, was the first federal women's prison in the United States. It was opened during a reform movement in the 1920s to help reform female offenders.

The first warden, Mary B. Harris, was chosen by Willebrandt. Despite later bureau mythology that Alderson opened its doors with moonshining women from the hills of West Virginia, 174 women had been sent to the facility in the first year of operation before its formal November 14, 1928, opening. The West Virginia location was chosen as it was remote enough from major population centers to reduce potential escapes, while it was reasonably close to the U.S. capital. The vast majority of the women were imprisoned for drug and alcohol charges imposed during the Prohibition era.

Esther Heffernan, a sociology professor at Edgewood College, said that throughout history the inmates included "relatives of famous mobsters and grandmotherly women who embezzled money from banks. You've had a real mixture." Hefferman added that in Alderson, which was a "not undesirable" place to be confined, the isolation from urban life could be stressful for inmates. She said that the inmates, "Coming from the streets of New York and D.C.," were awakened at night by crickets and frogs.

Most of the inmates at FPC Alderson have been convicted of non-violent or white-collar crime. Many are in the drug program and have come from other prisons to attend the program at Alderson.

Facility
FPC Alderson is a 159 acre facility and is the largest employer in the Alderson, West Virginia area. The prison is about a five-hour driving distance from Washington, D.C.

Serving as a model for prison reform at the time, the facility was styled after a boarding school, offering education with no armed guards. The facility followed a reformatory model with no fenced grounds. The prison consisted of primarily work-oriented facilities designed for minor federal offenders. It originally consisted of fourteen cottages built in a horseshoe pattern on two-tiered slopes. The offenders were segregated by race in the cottages and each building contained a kitchen and rooms for about thirty women.

While there is no barbed wire on the fence surrounding the camp, the prisoners have schedules and each one must work. Inmates get holidays off except those who work in the powerhouse and kitchen. From its beginning, Alderson's staff members have maintained a focus on vocational training and personal growth experiences, with craft-shop activities an integral part of vocational training.

Free time is spent walking around the sidewalk that is set between the two dorms as this is within bounds for the inmates. Since 2004 inmates are no longer free to roam the entire campus and are restricted in areas of the prison. They also play recreational activities such as volleyball.

John Benish, the former co-manager of the Alderson Hospitality House, a hospitality establishment where families of Alderson inmates stay when visiting, said that FPC Alderson is "built like a college campus. There is lot of property, a lot of greenery and there is no barbed wire around."

The Alderson facility includes two dormitories with 500 inmates each. Inmates live in two-person cubicles instead of traditional barred prison cells, and sleep in bunk beds. The cubicles are 5 x, separated by cinder-blocks.

The prison was nicknamed "Camp Cupcake" by members of the news media when Martha Stewart was sentenced to a five-month term there and was referred to as "Yale" by Stewart herself. Local residents have also referred to it as "the college campus."

By 2004, according to Alexandra Marks of The Independent, the operating model for Alderson followed "a punitive rather than a rehabilitative model". As of 2004, most prisoners at Alderson were convicted of recreational drug-related offenses. Prisoners are not permitted to patronize Alderson-area businesses.

The facility allows weekend visits, but special hours are available for holidays. In prior years the families of inmates were allowed past visiting rooms only on Thanksgiving Day when they could also share in a holiday feast for $1.75.

FPC Alderson was one of six federal and state prisons participating in the Paws4prisons service dog training program. This program allowed inmates the opportunity to interact and work with dogs. This included an academic curriculum where inmates first learned how to train "shelter-rescue dogs" and then progressed to developing highly trained assistance dogs.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Federal Prison Camp, Alderson


text:
User talk:0101NGpcn

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

ClockworkTroll 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:0101NGpcn


text:
User talk:Goldfinch~enwiki

ClockworkTroll 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Josiah Article
Hi. I have a couple of comments about your addition to the Josiah article.

1) I would dispute the assertion that "most" recent critical scholarship has seen the account of the finding of the book of the law as a legend rather than a contemporary account. Some of the biggest names in American historical-critical scholarship (Halpern, Friedman, Cross, etc.) see it as Josianic with exilic editing.  In fact a Josianic Deuteronomy is something of an axiom in American critical schools.  I understand that there is a big divide between current American and European trends in higher criticism; the article should reflect this.  As it stands it seems to give more credence to the European schools if only because it gives their views the last word.

2) Your edits would be a bit confusing to the uninitiated as you refer to the scroll discovered by Hilkiah as "an early version of the torah." By this I assume you mean Deuteronomy but as it stands it seems to suggest the entire Pentateuch; this should be clarified.

Best,--Rob117 (talk) 06:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Goldfinch. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Goldfinch~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Goldfinch~enwiki


text:
User talk:0101WONGpl

Welcome to the Wikipedia
Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

 * First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
 * When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
 * Remember to use a neutral point of view!
 * If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

 * Policy Library
 * Utilities
 * Cite your sources
 * Verifiability
 * Wikiquette
 * Civility
 * Conflict resolution
 * Brilliant prose
 * Pages needing attention
 * Peer review
 * Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
 * Village pump
 * Boilerplate text

ClockworkTroll 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:0101WONGpl


text:
User talk:Tetra-Assassin

ClockworkTroll 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Tetra-Assassin


text:
User:Martg76

Places where I have lived:
 * Vienna, Austria from 1976 to 2002 and from 2005 to 2007
 * Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA from 2002 to early 2005, and in 2008/2009.
 * Bologna, Italy, in late 2007 and early 2008

I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

title: User:Martg76


text:
Carl Gustaf Mannerheim

Carl Gustaf Mannerheim may refer to:

 * Carl Gustaf Mannerheim (naturalist) (1797–1854), Finnish entomologist and governor
 * Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (1867–1951), soldier, statesman, and President of Finland; grandson of the entomologist

title: Carl Gustaf Mannerheim


text:
Shiranui-ryū

Shiranui-ryū (不知火流) is a traditional school of Japanese martial arts. It was created by Kawakami Gensai in the 1860s, following his study of swordsmanship under the instructor Todoroki Buhē. Shiranui-ryū was characterized by high speed. Kawakami Gensai was its only practitioner as he was executed in 1872.

Fictional Portrayal
In the manga and anime Rurouni Kenshin, the sword style of Himura Kenshin (himself loosely based on Kawakami Gensai), the Hiten Mitsurugi-ryū (飛天御剣流, lit. "Flying Heaven's Honorable Sword Style") is loosely based on Shiranui-ryū; both styles are characterized by high-speed attacks.

title: Shiranui-ryū


text:
Little Brown Jug (college football trophy)

The Little Brown Jug is a trophy contested between the Michigan Wolverines football team of the University of Michigan and the Minnesota Golden Gophers football team of the University of Minnesota. The Little Brown Jug is an earthenware jug that serves as a trophy awarded to the winner of the game. It is one of the oldest and most played rivalries in American college football, dating to 1892. The Little Brown Jug is the most regularly exchanged rivalry trophy in college football, the oldest trophy game in FBS college football, and the second oldest rivalry trophy overall, next to the 1899 Territorial Cup (which did not become a travelling/exchange trophy until 2001), contested between Arizona and Arizona State (which did not become a four-year college until 1925).

Both universities are founding members of the Big Ten Conference. As a result of the Big Ten not playing a complete round-robin schedule, Michigan and Minnesota occasionally did not play. In 2011, with the conference's initiation of divisional play, Michigan and Minnesota were both placed in the Big Ten's Legends division under the new two-division alignment. However, when the conference expanded again three years later, the teams were split into opposite divisions (Michigan in the East, Minnesota in the West). The conference stated there will be only one protected crossover matchup under the new alignment (Indiana vs. Purdue for the Old Oaken Bucket), meaning the rivalry will not be contested every year.

With the addition of UCLA, USC,  Oregon and  Washington to the Big Ten Conference in 2024, the fate of this continued rivalry is up in the air, as Michigan and Minnesota were not classified as Protected Opponents, and are currently not scheduled for both a home and away game against each other in 2024 and 2025.

Michigan is the current holder of the jug with a 52–10 victory on October 7, 2023. Through the end of the 2023 season, Michigan leads the series, 77–25–3.

Pre-Brown Jug
The teams met for the first time in 1892 in Minneapolis, with Minnesota prevailing 14–6. Michigan and Minnesota played five more games over the next decade, Michigan winning four of those five.

1903 game
The earthenware jug, originally used by Michigan coach Fielding H. Yost, is painted with the victories of each team. The name most likely originates in the 1869 song of the same name by Joseph Winner.

After Yost took over coaching the Wolverines in 1901, the team went on to win 28 straight games. In the meantime, Minnesota assembled one of the best teams in school history, so Gopher fans were excited about possibly ending the Wolverines' streak.

When Yost and the team came into Minneapolis for the 1903 game, student manager Thomas B. Roberts was told to purchase something to carry water. Yost was somewhat concerned that Gopher fans might contaminate his water supply. Roberts purchased a five-gallon jug for 30¢ from a local variety store in Dinkytown. The jug itself is known as a Red Wing Pottery "five gallon beehive jug", and was made in Red Wing, Minnesota.

Twenty thousand fans watched the matchup between the two teams in an overflowing Northrop Field. Minnesota held the fabled "point-a-minute" squad to just one touchdown, but hadn't yet managed to score a touchdown of their own. Finally, late in the second half, the Gophers reached the endzone to tie the game at 6. As clouds from an impending storm hung overhead, pandemonium struck when Minnesota fans stormed the field in celebration. Eventually the game had to be called with two minutes remaining. The Wolverines walked off the field, leaving the jug behind in the locker room of the University of Minnesota Armory.

The next day custodian Oscar Munson brought the jug to L. J. Cooke, head of the Minnesota athletics department, and declared in a thick Scandinavian accent: "Yost left his yug." Exactly how Munson came to possess the jug is a bit of a mystery. Some accounts say that Munson purposely stole the jug in the chaos that ended the game, although most believe it was accidentally left behind. Thomas Roberts, writing in 1956, stated that the jug had served its purpose, so he intentionally left it sitting on the field.

Still, Cooke and Munson were excited to have this little bit of memorabilia, proceeding to paint it brown (it had originally been putty-colored and currently is painted half blue, which is Michigan's color) and commemorate the day by writing "Michigan Jug –; Captured by Oscar, October 31, 1903" on the side along with the score "Michigan 6, Minnesota 6". Of course, in the spirit of the moment, Minnesota's score was written many times larger than that of Michigan.

When the two schools met in football again in 1909, Cooke and the Minnesota team captain decided that playing for the jug "might be material to build up a fine tradition between the two institutions." When presented with this idea, Yost and Michigan's captain agreed, and the jug thus became the traveling trophy it is today. Michigan took home the jug in 1909 and 1910. Minnesota and Michigan met up again in 1919 after Michigan rejoined the Big Ten Conference, marking the first year that Minnesota won the jug outright.

Other notable games
"The Battle of Giants" occurred in 1940, with undefeated Minnesota facing undefeated Michigan on November 9, 1940. Minnesota won 7–6. Minnesota went on to go 8–0 and win the national championship.

In 1977, Minnesota stunned #1 Michigan 16–0; it was the only loss of the regular season for the Wolverines as they advanced to (and lost) the 1978 Rose Bowl to the Washington Huskies 27-20.

In 1986, Minnesota was regarded as an easy victory for #2 Michigan as a 25-point underdog. With two minutes to go and the game tied at 17, Minnesota quarterback Rickey Foggie scrambled to put Chip Lohmiller in position to kick the winning field goal. The Gophers took home the Little Brown Jug from Michigan for the first time since 1977. Similarly, it was Michigan's only loss in the regular season on their way to losing the 1987 Rose Bowl.

The 2003 game was one of the most highly anticipated Michigan–Minnesota matchups in years. This was the 100th Anniversary of the 1903 game. The Little Brown Jug was featured on the cover of the Michigan Football Media Guide. Minnesota was ranked #17 and Michigan was ranked #20 with the game at Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Down 28–7, Michigan put together a comeback in the fourth quarter to win 38–35. Michigan advanced to (and lost) the 2004 Rose Bowl. The next season, in another highly anticipated game, #14 Michigan came back again in the fourth quarter to defeat #13 Minnesota 27–24. Michigan advanced to (and lost) the 2005 Rose Bowl. In 2013, the 2003 game was singled out as one of the biggest setbacks to the Gopher football team rebuilding since their last Big Ten Championship in 1967.

Michigan has dominated the series since 1968, during which Minnesota has held the jug only four times. On October 8, 2005, Minnesota claimed the jug for the first time since 1986, defeating Michigan 23–20 on a last second field goal in Ann Arbor, Michigan. The Wolverines grabbed the trophy right back the next year on September 30, with a 28–14 victory in Minneapolis.

Michigan won all 12 meetings with Minnesota at the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, which the Gophers shared with the Minnesota Twins and Minnesota Vikings from 1982 through 2008. To date, Michigan has not lost a road game against the Gophers since 1977 and have won the last 17 games between the teams in Minnesota. The Gophers last defeated Michigan 30–14 in 2014, ending a six-game win streak by Michigan.

Game results
Note: Michigan and Minnesota played twice in 1926 (on October 16 in Ann Arbor and on November 20 in Minneapolis) due to conference scheduling issues for Minnesota.


text:
Eli Heckscher

Eli Filip Heckscher (24 November 1879 – 23 December 1952) was a Swedish political economist and economic historian who was a professor at the Stockholm School of Economics.

He is known for the Heckscher–Ohlin theorem, an influential model of international trade that predicts that capital-abundant countries export capital-intensive goods, while labor-abundant countries export the labor-intensive goods.

Biography
Heckscher was born in Stockholm, son of the Jewish Danish-born businessman Isidor Heckscher and his spouse Rosa Meyer, and completed his secondary education there in 1896. He conducted higher studies at Uppsala University (from 1897) and Gothenburg University College (in 1898), completing his PhD in Uppsala in 1907. He was professor of Political economy and Statistics at the Stockholm School of Economics from 1909 until 1919, when he exchanged that chair for a research professorship in economic history, finally retiring as emeritus professor in 1945. In 1929 Heckscher founded the Institute for Economic and Business History Research as a key step in his effort to create the field of economic history in Sweden, and make it a policy-oriented science. He advanced his agenda by recruiting two other scholars, historian Bertil Boëthius (1885–1974) and economist Arthur Montgomery. Thereby the "Stockholm School" emerged and achieved a voice in government planning.

Prior to World War I, Heckscher was a social conservative who advocated for an interventionist state. During World War I, his attitudes shifted, as he became a proponent of economic liberalism and a staunch opponent of state interventionism.

Heckscher is well-known for his 1935 book Mercantilism, which was translated into several languages. He is also known for multi-volume An Economic History of Sweden.

Heckscher's most important work, though, is his 1919 article “The Effect of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income." In this article, Heckscher provided a model explaining patterns in international trade now known as the (Heckscher–Ohlin model). Heckscher's "The Effect of Foreign Trade on the Distribution of Income" was groundbreaking but originally gained little attention for several reasons. First, Hecksher published the article in the Swedish journal Ekonomisk Tidskrift in Swedish, a language with comparatively less international access. Second, even those reading Swedish and following Hecksher may have overlooked this particular article at first since Heckscher was so prolific (he published 1148 articles and books). Finally, Heckscher was a Jew which was a factor because, just as the significance of the article became apparent beyond Sweden, the rise of anti-Semitism globally and Nazism bans on Jewish authors arguably delayed its greater recognition until after World War II. Heckscher's famous former student Bertil Ohlin at the Stockholm School of Economics (who himself succeeded Heckscher as professor there), significantly expanded on Hecksher's theory, giving it more support and a wider audience. Ohlin won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1977 long after Heckscher's death.

Heckscher was a member of the American Philosophical Society.

Heckscher–Ohlin theorem
The Heckscher–Ohlin Theorem, which is concluded from the Heckscher–Ohlin model of international trade, states: trade between countries is in proportion to their relative amounts of capital and labor. In countries with an abundance of capital, wage rates tend to be high; therefore, labor-intensive products, e.g. textiles, simple electronics, etc., are more costly to produce internally. In contrast, capital-intensive products, e.g. automobiles, chemicals, etc., are less costly to produce internally. Countries with large amounts of capital will export capital-intensive products and import labor-intensive products with the proceeds. Countries with high amounts of labor will do the reverse.

The following conditions must be true:
 * The major factors of production, namely labor and capital, are not available in the same proportion in both countries.
 * The two goods produced either require more capital or more labor.
 * Labor and capital do not move between the two countries.
 * There are no costs associated with transporting the goods between countries.
 * The citizens of the two trading countries have the same needs.

The theory does not depend on total amounts of capital or labor, but on the amounts per worker. This allows small countries to trade with large countries by specializing in production of products that use the factors which are more available than its trading partner. The key assumption is that capital and labor are not available in the same proportions in the two countries. That leads to specialization, which in turn benefits the country's economic welfare. The greater the difference between the two countries, the greater the gain from specialization.

Personal life
Eli Heckscher's son was Gunnar Heckscher (1909–1987), a political scientist and the leader of what would later become the Swedish Moderate Party 1961–1965. His grandson is the Social Democratic politician Sten Heckscher.

title: Eli Heckscher


text:
Claudine Auger

Claudine Auger (born Claudine Oger; 26 April 1941 – 18 December 2019) was a French actress best known for her role as a Bond girl, Dominique "Domino" Derval, in the James Bond film Thunderball (1965). She earned the title of Miss France Monde 1958 (the French representative to the Miss World beauty pageant) and went on to finish as the first runner-up in the 1958 Miss World contest.

Early life
Auger was born in Paris, France. She attended St. Joan of Arc College and later the Conservatoire de Paris, where she performed dramatic roles. She made her film debut when she was still in school.

Career
Jean Cocteau cast Auger in an uncredited role as a tall ballerina in Testament of Orpheus (1960). When she was 18, she married the 43-year-old writer-director Pierre Gaspard-Huit, and he cast her in several films, including Le Masque de fer (1962) and Kali Yug: Goddess of Vengeance (1963). In 1966 she co-starred in the World War II drama Triple Cross with Yul Brynner and Christopher Plummer.

The most immediate byproduct of Claudine's stardom was a semi-nude Playboy spread.

Thunderball launched Auger into a successful European movie career, but did little for her otherwise in the United States. She did, however, star in a Danny Thomas special called The Road to Lebanon with Bing Crosby, which was shown on NBC on 20 April 1966.

Auger co-starred with another Bond girl, Ursula Andress, in the Italian comedy Anyone Can Play (1968). She starred with two future Bond girls, Barbara Bouchet and Barbara Bach, in Black Belly of the Tarantula (1971), a giallo mystery. She had some roles in European films such as Triple Cross (1966, reuniting her with her James Bond director Terence Young), and The Killing Game (1967). She filmed scenes for The Eiger Sanction (1975), only to have her entire performance cut from the movie.

Auger appeared in the British television series The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, in "The Three Gables" (1994), as Isadora Klein, in one of the last episodes of the series.

Personal life and death
In 1959, she married writer-director Pierre Gaspard-Huit. They later divorced.

She married British businessman Peter Brent in the 1980s. The couple had one child, Jessica Claudine Brent. Peter Brent died in August 2008.

Auger died in Paris on 18 December 2019 following a lengthy illness.

title: Claudine Auger


text:
User talk:0101CHANyw

Dear all groupmates ,

I am originally 0101CHANwy, but don't know why I just can't login for several days. So I just change my login name to 0101CHANyw. Sorry about the late login. hope to have a nice work with you all !

title: User talk:0101CHANyw


text:
User talk:Scareduck

ClockworkTroll 14:51, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Scareduck