Talk:Pehthelm

Replaced stub

Replaced the stub with an article. Created the talk page with banners, guessing at class and priority. Let the assessors of those groups adjust it accordingly. Notuncurious (talk) 02:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Issues addressed

Most wording changes remain, as they improve. "hegemony" section altered for better wording, challege removed as the statement is accurate and makes clear the result (whatever the intent may have been). Challege to observation re Plummer's xlation of 'Pehthelm' removed - this is correct and sourced: just click on the link. Whithorn was indeed considered a Pictish bishopric in the Chronicon, as that is specifically the term used in the Chronicon, and one can follow the cited reference to see it. It lists the bishops in "The Territory of the Picts", and they are described as such in the cited source. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Some problems remained. Whithorn wasn't in Pictish territory, except that for some reason it was thought to be by English writers in the 12th century, creating the "myth" of the "Galwegian Picts". Historical truth may be at the bottom of this myth, but this cannot be shown and is against the consensus of modern historians. The political interpretations I mentioned on your talk page need to be attributed to someone, obviously, as they are not verifiable facts. I also fixed the section where you give WP:UNDUE weight to a certain argument, certainly undue as modern historians (as your text admitted) largely ignore it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, I just dropped the line to which you (for some reason) object, re JDI. Whether or not a hegemony resulted is not a matter of quoting sources, it is a matter of observation (however, whether or not a hegemony was intended is a debatable subject). Also, the article never said that Galloway was Pictish, only that it was considered as such in the source cited. As to that topic, it resembles other areas where the lack of "facts" has created authoritative proponents of "truth", when the truth is simply that we do not have facts. Ah well, at least it is less disruptive than the arguements surrounding Arthuriana and other similar such.

Your review is emphatically appreciated and to the good, but if I seem a bit edgy here it is because, clearly, you didn't bother to check any sources cited (although they were all available on-line) before making your points, and since this was done within only a few minutes of the article's creation, it left a transitory impression. At any rate, sorry to sound edgy. Challenges are to the good of the article, and please believe that your challenges, in particular, are well-regarded here. Best regards, Notuncurious (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the time was sufficient for me to read it. 1) Because it is a well-cited article there is pressure to cite "observations"; in strict wiki law, the observations (not facts, as I said) can't be your own (and I'd dispute them if they were), but must be references to a particular writer. 2) This:

By the twelfth century when the Chronicon was written the compiler of the list seems to have assumed it as Trumwine's domain, as the bishops of Whithorn were by then the only bishops in Pictish territory as it was known to the Northumbrians.

is, ,well, just not clear enough about the matter, Surely this,

By the twelfth century when the Chronicon was written the compiler of the list seems to have assumed it as Trumwine's domain, as in the 12th century Galloway was commonly described as "Pictish" in northern English sources.

is clearer, no? As for checking the sources; well, ignoring whether I did or didn't, no comment I left necessitated that. Anyways, I'm just trying to improve the article ... not trying to give you a hard time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:35, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

3) I still have problems with , without any stated authority. It seems like the article itself is trying to argue that this is wrong and that what these historians do is baseless. It shouldn't. This argument, to which this article has given centre of place, seems against mainstream thought on the matter. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. For the record, the name is translated as that because that's what it looks like the name means in Old English. What authority does an Anglo-Saxonist need to give for that? It also, btw, is supported by another name near the time and place, Pehtwine. Like I said, not trying to give you a hard time ... hope you understand. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, we seem to be on the same general track, and the minor misunderstanding of each other's positions and intents is of no consequence. I never thought you were trying to give me a hard time.

Re without any stated authority, that is indeed an accurate description of what Plummer says (quoting):

But 'Pehthelm' is clearly 'helm of the Picts,' as 'Pehtwine,' the name of one of his successors (whom H. H. pp. 125, 126, calls Witwine), is 'friend of the Picts.'

There is no authority, he just says it. I'm not trying to say that it is wrong, only that it is without authority ... perhaps (bad analogy follows) in the same way that the commonly given date for the death of Ninian is AD 432: it is without authority, and should not be presented as a fact; and when it has been previously stated as a fact, it is fairly noted in an encyclopedia article that this is without authority.

And the same point applies to Pehtwine. It's not authoritative, its personal POV and poorly done (pejoratively put: I think it sounds like this, so let's simply call it this). It's apocryphal, and how is it different than asserting something to be true simply because no one knowns one way or the other? My own POV is that this kind of thing is more appropriate to works that cater to the popular market, where rigour can be abandoned so as to promote pet theories and "interesting observations".

When I wrote the article, I was certainly aware of the previous article incarnation where it was stated and presented as a fact that Pehthelm means 'Helm of the Picts', and was aware of how that became part of the article to begin with (btw, that's where I started to misunderstand your position here) ... I realise that it was just a stub copied from elsewhere, yet it smacked of OR presented as factual information, and was now being defended.

I neither have nor had any intent to make this issue prominent, and I don't see it as now being prominent; however, I'm not sure where else to put it (actually, my original point in this section was to show, using an image, that the AS 'w' might be mistaken for a Latin 'p', as applied to Pehthelm, and thus yielding forms like Wehthelm).

? Perhaps we can mull over this point and revisit it in the not-distant future? With some time to think it over, I may become more reasonable and see it your way (and I might have the same hopes regarding yourself :-). In the interim, I have no objections if you remove without stated authority, if that is the sticking point. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 23:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

If you present an argument and say without authority for one side, that is a negative slant. Now if you were publishing your own article in, say, the Innes Review, you'd be free to do that. But this is wiki. It's perhaps just a matter of getting used to "suppressing your own opinions" when editing. It took ages for me to start doing this myself properly, so I understand where you are coming from. Anyway, as I see it, it's just good Old English. These English names consist of two elements, generic suffixes like -wine, -helm, -ulf, etc, and added ones. Peht means "Pict", so Pethhelm means "defender of the Picts". It's not certain, of course, but there's no pressure to cite old English dictionaries produced in the 8th century, for these simply didn't exist. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Deacon, as opposed to the OR assertion of a definitive translation, as was previously the case? And would you mention how this fits in with the possible spelling of the name as "Wehthelm"? How does that fit into the translation, or is that something to be spoken of never?

However, I've thought it over as well, and I think that the best course for both Pehthelm and Pehtwine is to omit the translation entirely, and go with my original intent, which was simply to note the various forms of the name, along with the image showing that AS 'w' might be erroniously transcribed as Latin 'p' ... now no one's toes will feel stepped on. Sound good? Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The definitive translation, a term only you have used, is the one used by most scholars and can be easily cited. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "used by most scholars" ... "can easily be cited" ... you seem to want a particular (and not uncontroversial) POV to be a standard of some sort. I went to the trouble of citing sources and fairly presenting what they said. On your argumentations, I suggest that we simply do not translate it, nor describe past translation assertions. Once you fill me in regarding the unknowns that "can easily be cited" and "used by most scholars", can you also explain how "Wehthelm" is translated, or do you plan to ignore that possibility? I think I'm trying to be reasonable here, Deacon. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 02:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The way you deal with it is to describe the scholarship accurately, which also requires knowing it of course and using editorial judgment about weight. I assumed we were in agreement that most scholars offer the "Helm of the Picts" translation when they even translate it, since you wrote words to that effect in the original article, so you present that as it is: the most widely use translation, and then discuss other translations. I think you gave undue weight in the original version, but it is ok now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)