Talk:Round Table

Untitled

Why is this disambiguated? Surely it's by far the most common use of the term "Round Table"? Proteus (Talk) 17:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Kuralyov 02:08, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It may be the most common use, but it's not the only one. If you're writing about some current political event, and include a sentence such as "Round table talks were held in order to end the conflict", then you wouldn't like it to link to the Round Table at Camelot, would you? Also not that the Round Table redirects here (this should make wikifying and disambiguating easier). – Kpalion (talk) 20:31, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Garbled Sentence

A sentence in the second section, "In Aragon they were held as early as 1269 in Valencia to as late as 1291 in Catalayud in 1291" is hopelessly garbled. J S Ayer 05:01, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image

Perhaps this image could be used to illustrate the article. Kpalion 23:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks!--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Is the caption for that correct, though? 13th century? because it has a Tudor rose painted in the middle, and that symbol didn't exist until Henry VII's time, the 15th century, right?71.172.180.52 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. The table itself dates to the 13th century, but it was repainted during the Tudor period.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:34, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Unverified statement, possibly a joke?

"Built by Sir Cumference, " with a link to circumference. Seriously, guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.128.30 (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is a children's book involving circles called like "Sir Cumference and the Round Table or something" Its about math and stuff, deserved to be removed :P 12.175.211.37 (talk) 02:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR

User:Cuchullain points out, quite rightly, that the standard spelling of "artifact / artefact" on this article has been with the "i". He/she draws attention the the WP:RETAIN policy, which has: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic (my italics). I can't think of a stronger national tie than those attaching to King Arthur so, to stick with guideline, I propose UK spelling on this occasion.--Old Moonraker (talk) 23:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

ENGVAR also says This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of certain articles; see WP:OWN. The Arthurian legend does not "belong" to any one country or nationality, in fact it is extremely international. This is especially true of the Round Table, which first appears in a Norman-language work and was largely developed by French writers. In these works Arthur is king of the Britons, and thus would not have spoken any variety of English even if he existed. As a non-English subject, no form of the language should be preferred, and we should retain the earliest one used in the article.--Cúchullain ^t/c 00:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Mark Twain excepted, the connection between King Arthur and the U.S.A. justifying the use of American English is what, exactly? --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be justified. Unless there's clearly an exclusively strong tie to one nation or another no variety is more preferable than another, and we just go with the earliest used (in this case, American). Arthur and the Round Table are not "owned" by any specific country, it's a very international legend. But there have been quite a lot of significant Arthurian contributions by Americans in the last two centuries, including Twain, Marion Zimmer Bradley, and Thomas Berger, not to mention the various Hollywood films and television shows, Prince Valiant, etc. There have also been Arthurian works produced in other forms of English as well, such as the Canadian novelist Jack Whyte. Even within the English-speaking world it's very international.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

IIRC the king in Army of Darkness was supposed to be King Arthur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

holy shit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7883874/Historians-locate-King-Arthurs-Round-Table.html Truth And Relative Dissention In Space (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

One chap claims this, someone else said the same a few year ago about the amphitheatre at Caerleon. Let's stay cool about this and see if it gets published and discussed. Most historians don't think there was a real King Arthur anyay. Dougweller (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded. We don't need to devote so much space to what has so far been published only in one newspaper story. If this gains some traction, we can figure out how best to deal with it then.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent archaeological find

I restored the reference to the finding of the Round Table. Chris Gidlow is a scholar and the "Live Interpretation Manager of Historic Royal Palaces", so his credentials shouldn't be in doubt; this isn't just "one person" making a claim.He's an historian of King Arthur who is presenting his evidence about a week from now. Where and how if fits into the Round Table article is less important than the fact that it is there. If true, the find is important to the article, and there is no evidence that Gidlow is a crank making a fantastic claim. There are also several articles now on the find, many of which provide more detail into the research and Gidlow himself.grifterlake (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"Live interpretation Manager": is that the chap who puts the portable audio tours together? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Historic Royal Palaces is "an independent charity that looks after the Tower of London, Hampton Court Palace, the Banqueting House, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace". They have their own article here, sparse that it is. grifterlake (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I removed it again. I think we're going to need more than one newspaper article talking to one guy about this (the other articles that are discussing it appear to just be reproducing the same information, from what I've been able to see anyway). I don't think anyone is saying that Gidlow is "crank making a fantastic claim", but even if he were the foremost authority on the topic it still doesn't mean that whatever he says ought to be plastered into every encyclopedia article on King Arthur.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why Gidlow is quoted as claiming Gildas wrote about Arthur, when Gildas never mentions Arthur (Gildas has posted a blog confirming that he never wrote about Arthur [1]. This link [2] at least has some other commentary in it. There's a documentary on the History Channel Monday the 19th at 9pm. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

English Heritage, consultants to the History Channel documentary, have publicly disassociated themselves from it, according to British Archaeology. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation is wrong!

Why does the link Knights of the Round Table redirect to Round Table?! There was a separate article named Knights of the Round Table, and now it can only be accessed via Google cache: Knights of the Round Table! Either should this two articles merge or the disambiguation should be removed(I don't know how to do that), because it's completely illogical that one whole article (a good article, I must add) remains unreachable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aurelius91 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I redirected Knights of the Round Table to here because it didn't have any sources; it was just largely an uncited list (or a couple of lists) of characters who were "Knights of the Round Table". Otherwise it didn't cover anything not already covered here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And don't you feel a concise table of knights with estimated B&D dates, fiefdoms and roles in the stories is in order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.154.116 (talk) 10:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Citations or no, if you are going to redirect from Knights of the Round Table to this article, this article needs a list or a link to a list of the commonly known knights. This information is verifiable -- even if no citations were initially provided, they can and should be provided over time. I added a link to Matter of Britain since it contains a list, but really the list should be included in this article, or the redirect should be removed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.123.216.4 (talk • contribs)

I tweaked the Wikilink to Matter of Britain#Knights of the Round Table. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

If a cited list of "Knights of the Round Table" is created in the future, we can link to that. Until then, this article is the logical place to direct readers to.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem with starting and maintaining a list of characters who were "Knights of the Round Table" is the scope. Which characters should we include? All characters who have ever been listed as "Knights of the Round Table"? Over all sources there will be hundreds, possibly thousands, many of which are mentioned only in passing in a single source; no two sources will have exactly the same list. Or should we include only those knights that have Wikipedia articles? Unfortunately most of those articles are poorly sourced and probably non-notable (I know, I started a lot, years back) and need to be deleted or merged. The simplest way to go forward would be to find some good secondary sources on the characters and go from there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. However if fellow Wikipedians have started the process, it seems reasonable to build on it rather than start from scratch. For instance, if there are knights with Wikipedia articles with sources (even if they aren't the greatest sources), we can shore up the good ones with additional citations, and slowly eliminate the bad ones. For instance, Lancelot, Galahad, Percival and Tristan are all commonly known and have reasonable (seeming) references. I stumbled across this discussion by looking for a list of the commonly known Knights of the Round Table and it seems a shame that Wikipedia doesn't have one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.56.253 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a list of Knights of the Round Table is not only necessary but also, given the ill-advised absence of a dedicated article for the purpose, the single most important thing that this article needs to have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Knights again

I've re-redirected List of the Knights of the Round Table here for the same reasons as above. It was another unsourced list; most information was trivial, and what strong information it contained really just duplicated what's here. There was also no good way to get to the two other articles of the same title, Knights of the Round Table (film) and Knights of the Round Table (role-playing game), so I've created a dab page at Knights of the Round Table (disambiguation).--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I read your above reasoning for redirection, and completely understand your point-of-view. However, I arrived here in search of the Knights of the Round Table. And I know that if I did, countless others have and will as well. There absolutely deserves to be a page on the Knights of the Round Table (the phrase is so common as to be cliche), and this page is mostly about the table itself.

I have not read the necessary works, but as you say that the main problem is that of which of the numerous knights to add, I propose something along the following lines: Keep this page, but include a section for each of the major Medieval Arthurian works dealing with the Knights of the Round Table, titled for instance, "Knights of the Round Table (Malory)", Knights of the Round Table (Chrétien), etc. Then, once the main works have been hit, a section titled "Other Notable Knights", wherein any or all other Knights included in the cannon of Arthurian literature and/or Matter of Britain may be listed.

Or, a separate section entitled "Knights of the Round Table", with subsections as described above: one subsection titled "Malory", under which it lists those knights included in his works, etc.

As you appear passionate enough about this topic to repeatedly remove the under-cited original, and as you seem to be somewhat knowledgeable on the subject matter (at least more so than I), then perhaps you might be willing to contribute to a fix for this issue?

Alex8541 (talk) 00:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I move that this article be deleted so that no further articles can be redirected to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.121.6.113 (talk) 05:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The article lacks any mention of the real-world Order of the Round Table established by Edward III

It's actually mentioned in Edward III of England's own article and discussed in https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7722/j.ctt1x71zc and elsewhere. It would make use of a separate section, like it's now already with the tournaments and the Winchester RT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.173.114.12 (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)