Talk:King Arthur - Wikipedia
6 people in discussion
 | King Arthur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2009. | |||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
I believe that during the Dark Ages there was a King Arthur. It’s just that the Dark Ages are pretty much lost to history except a record that states a man named Arthur was a great warrior thus showing he was real just during a time where history draws a blank. 75.97.52.227 (talk) 03:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Hi ip. Is this a question or a statement? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 06:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
- When the Romans left Britain people were illiterate for several hundred years. There's no written history from this time frame. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- The Dark Ages never really existed. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (731) is our oldest detailed source on Anglo-Saxon history, and the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (c. 530s) gives at least a biased Christian look of political life in Sub-Roman Britain. There is no real indication of a loss of literacy, and nearby Ireland was producing Hiberno-Latin texts by the 6th century. Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Yep, and none of these sources mention Arthur.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- The Dark Ages never really existed. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (731) is our oldest detailed source on Anglo-Saxon history, and the De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae (c. 530s) gives at least a biased Christian look of political life in Sub-Roman Britain. There is no real indication of a loss of literacy, and nearby Ireland was producing Hiberno-Latin texts by the 6th century. Dimadick (talk) 06:15, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- When the Romans left Britain people were illiterate for several hundred years. There's no written history from this time frame. 24.51.192.49 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- King Arthur Dragoon o Noonan was Augustus Ceasar son of Mary mother of Jesus and Julius Ceasar aka Gladius Dragoon hence why he invaded England twice. 2605:B100:B28:4A9D:0:B:24A2:4501 (talk) 23:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Morris's" is incorrect; simply delete the second s. I have already ctrl+f checked the page and the only instance of this error is under "historicity", several paragraphs down. 2A02:C7F:662E:5000:8D2:23BF:C2C7:205C (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Not done: My reading of MOS:POSS is that Morris's is correct.
For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's
RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Shouldn't the kingdom of Wessex be mentioned in this article, at least briefly? 76.190.213.189 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
- No. Wessex did not exist until long after the time when Arthur is supposed to have lived. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Eine nervende Person 213.183.85.37 (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In the Beliefs in the return of Arthur, it seems odd for it to start as "That King Arthur never died..." would it be better to have it changed to "The Belief that King Arthur never died..."? Napalm Fire (talk) 15:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I think it is clear in the context. I am also concerned that the change would imply that people believed the legend literally, which is not necessarily correct. I have changed the section heading for that reason. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)Reply