Y Gododdin has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Seem to have missed logging in, but I have tidied this article to try and bring it in line with others on related subjects. I have added info on John Koch's interpretations as requested by Angus McLellan, but I don't have some of the sources listed, so if it is considered that the quality standards tag is still required in order to reflect some of these, please add it back in. Walgamanus 14:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Having read this carefully, and out loud too to get a better feel for the flow, I am delighted to pass this as a good article. There are a few places in the text where repetition of a word or phrase needs fixing, and there's no article couldn't use more copyediting for grammar and style. I think this is only a very short distance from being a featured article. Perhaps someone can do a better map - I'm no cartographer - but illustrations are hardly essential here. Great work! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps, mention the poetic nature of 363 (three hundred, three score, and three) warriors. The same applies to the mention of 300 (three hundreds) warriors. Reading these as pure numbers, they mean nothing beyond the fact that they are mentioned in a very old story. Reading them poetically suggests that they might be interpreted as a storyteller's way to say "many", and not necessarily to be taken literally. I suppose that the same might be said of the mention of 3 returnees, and of 1 returnee (poetically, "almost no one"). Those reading the same story in different lights will have read different stories. 24.178.228.14 ( talk) 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"The Book of Aneirin begins with the introduction Hwn yw e gododin. aneirin ae cant ("This is the Gododdin; Aneirin sang it"). The first stanza appears to be a reciter's prologue, composed after the death of Aneirin:
Gododin, gomynaf oth blegyt / yg gwyd cant en aryal en emwyt: ..."
But this is not the first stanza of the text in the Book of Aneirin, as given in Ifor Williams' edition (which follows that text) for instance. So what is the source for this? I haven't read Koch's reconstructed text - which is somewhat controversial, by the way - but presume it comes from that. The article as it stands clearly gives the impression that this is the first stanza of the poem(s) as found in the ms., but that is not so (Greddf gwr oed gwas..., given in translation after this supposed first stanza, is the opening stanza in the Book of Aneirin). This is misleading, to say the least. The stanza quoted (650 lines into the original ms. text) may or may not be the original opening stanza, however most scholars would take the view that any attempt at "reconstruction" is at best tentative and can only be posited, not proven. Enaidmawr ( talk) 00:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi regarding the sentence ascriping Y gododdin as the oldest poem from modern day Scotland. This is untrue as there was no scotland (certainly not modern Scotland)in the 6th century indeed as i understand the Scots of this period were ethnic Irish immigrants in the west of what is now scotland. I assert it is a Welsh poem and the counter claim is groundless IMO. So I have reinstated my edit as I beleive it to be correct and I beleive the scottish claim is not neutreal, with all due respect. Regarding the Cumbric language as I have said in cumbric discussion page existence of cumbric is unproven and appears as a euphomism for Welsh or more exactly Old welsh. Why is a speculatively deduced possible lang. or at best a probable defunct dialect of Old Welsh constantly reffered to as a seperate language existing concomitantly with OLd Welsh? Cumbric appears to be a glaring misnomer even by the evaluation of the page's own editors. The presence of the caveats are inadequate to preserve a page that is purely apeculative as the claim being made is unssuportable IMO.I was hoping for a discussion on the cumbric page before I edit that page. It will be a deservedly ruthless edit as the page is all over the place so I'm hoping to engage others before I do so as my intention is not to cause offence. What do the rest think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pencerdd ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC) My apologies forgot to sign the above as Pencerdd ( talk) 17:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)pencerdd
You miss my point Cuchullain "The statement that this may be one of the oldest poems written in what is now Scotland is true" Is indeed true but my point and I think I was quite clear in this is that it cannot be a poem from "MODERN DAY SCOTLAND"! I have removed the "...modern day.." as it is palpable and self evidently untrueand replaced it with "...what is now..."Pencerdd
Start GA reassessment. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have read this article over the last few days. I find it is well written, referenced with good sources, with a through discussion of the poem and its interpretation by scholars and others. The images are correctly captioned and tagged and I have no hesitation in maintaining the Good Article status. An interesting article about a poem with which I was previously unfamiliar. Jezhotwells ( talk) 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the obviously false assertion that Y Gododdin would have been written first in Cumbric. No-one I have encountered even mentions this as a possibility and it is indeed risible. Jarman is quite clear in his work (borrowed from in some lengths in this very article) that Y gododdin is a Welsh poem not only in its present surviving form but in its origins too. neither does he entertain any notion of Cumbric as a language as he reffers to the old north as speaking Welsh as a language. And not some personal agenda driven nonsense of Cumbric. THERE IS NO SUCH LANGUAGE!
As the location of its composition does not have any bearing upon the language of its composition I have also modified the first paragraph. I don't think it important that it be mentioned as the earliest poem composed in what is now Scotland as it is not a work of scottish literature, in fact of course there is no Scottish literature from this period only Welsh. Pencerdd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.86.67 ( talk) 21:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have again removed the reference to Cumbric origins as it is absurd and in my reading unsupported - indeed refuted. I WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO as I now consider the idea that Y Gododdin is derivative of a culture other than Welsh and the persistence of the cymbric agenda despite the realities of attested history and relevant sources(not to mention the paucity and contradictory nature of available evidence for cymbric much of which is linguistically indistinguishable from Welsh and therefore clearly fatal to the aspirations of the Cumbric agenda- whatever that may be in its naked form) to be a claim motivated by racism. I say again A O H Jarman's work (Y Gododdin, Gomer Press LLandysul) refutes this claim. Y Gododdin is not a translated work (I have found no scholarly source that even mentions the possibility of a non Welsh origin; and- as so- I think it appropriate indeed necessary and proper that it is mentioned explicitly as part of Welsh literature in the first paragraph. Indeed much of the scholarly work cited by Jarman relates to the orthographic and philological interpretations of the texts i.e. the developing orthography of the WELSH LANGUAGE from the 6 century onwards as it is revealed by the surviving mediaeval texts. A Welsh language origin is not only presupposed it is demonstrable. I have removed the " what is now Scotland " as it seems more appropriate to contextualize the poem specifically and unproblematically by its actual cultural and ethnic origins and context (i.e. Welsh literature edit) rather than by an arbitrary, historically distant and unrelated geographic/national/ethnic definition which is less relevant and smacks of unsupportable and culturally appropriationist ethnic claims on the poem as indeed some Scottish writers (Kenneth Hurlstone Jackson for example),have ridiculously and aggressively attempted to do in the past. If you feel strongly about it however and as it is technically true but I think irrelevant, and rather hostile to the spirit of the article, then I suggest that it be included in a less prominent position in the text as its position at the end of (capping if you like)the first paragraph appears to invite a more complicated interpretation of national and cultural authorship and ownership than is the case in reality. Pencerdd 174.97.220.205 ( talk) 11:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I am currently translating this article for French Wikipedia, and I wonder why the Edinburgh/Din Eidyn issue should get a whole seven references. Ain't that a bit... excessive? Ælfgar ( talk) 18:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I work this article for the french wikipedia, and I have a problem with certain references. The reference 19 and 56 ("Williams") refers to what book quoted in bibliography ? Idem for "Jackson" (refs 26, 50, 51, 57 and 59), and "Williams (1972)" (52, 53, 55). There are several books of these authors in bibliography, and for William, none of the 1972 (unless it is the first edition of that of the 1980?). Thank you, and sorry for my bad english. -- Harmonia Amanda ( talk) 15:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
In the section (under the heading "poem"), there are a couple of paragraphs dealing with the possibility that the Christian influences are later interpolations.
After mentioning D Simon Evans, professor of Welsh at Lampeter, it then goes on to quote (Steve?) Short. I can find little information about (Steve?) Short, apart from the publication of a translation of Y Gododdin on a "print on demand" publication website. Is this encyclopaedic? I can find no references for any qualifications of his, and his book does not seem do have been published outside "print on demand" sites.
I am new to Wikipedia editing, and will certainly not delete something without other peoples input, but the idea that it can' t be Christian because it is "bloodthirsty" seems- well, very POV- but more importantly, (if I understand Wikipedia correctly!) it seems not to be a quote from a reputable source - not "vanity publishing", as people do not have to pay in advance for such things nowadays, but it seems not to have been taken up by an "advance" publisher and I can find no references to (Mr?) Short's historical or linguistic qualifications anywhere else.
A quote from D Simon Evans could well be appropriate, but in the absence of that, I suppose this is basically a long winded way of saying does anyone think that I should not delete this? (After the sentence referring to D Simon Evans, that is.)( Ceiniog ( talk) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
I’m a bit puzzled by some dates in this article.
In the Analysis and Interpretation section, it says that the poem must predate 638, when the fall of Din Eidyn was recorded in the reign of Oswy king of Bernicia. However, if you follow the link to King Oswy, you find that he became king in 642.
Did Din Eidyn fall in the reign of Oswald (633-642) instead? 163.166.8.27 ( talk) 07:56, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Y Gododdin. 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.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:06, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
Link is dead, but article is available via the Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20010223004725/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/1/hatf.htm#gododdin 80.229.251.36 ( talk) 00:07, 3 December 2023 (UTC)