Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 1 December 2012

The contents of the Ancestry of the kings of Wessex page were merged into Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies on 25 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

please remove the links that redirect the user back to this page. it is quite annoying.

Merger

I have merged much text from Ancestry of the kings of Wessex into this page. Please see Talk:Ancestry of the kings of Wessex#Different merger for my rationale. Agricolae (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Misleading verses Original Text

The original text of the genealogies has been removed as misleading. Why is this? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The table was unnecessary detail and does not belong in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The true text is misleading and unnecessary! This does not begin resolving or explaining the question of disputed factual accuracy on this page, it doesn't even start... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you are being less than honest again. This article is about a body of genealogical material that includes the Anglian collection, Bede, Nennius, AEthelweard, the Chronicle and an Essex pedigree of unknown derivation. To insert text that there is an 'original source' for this body of material, some of which predates, some of which is completely independent of, and some of which shares a common source with but is not derived from your favorite source, is what is misleading. The list of names is not misleading - it is simply an unnecessary duplication, as the names in the different manuscripts are already summarized in the existing text and thus a second accounting of the same information is redundant. Agricolae (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and Paul, the source you have cited for the names does not contain that information, and those bs you are putting in the middle of the names aren't bs, they are thorns. Agricolae (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

You have quoted manuscripts and then made up your own names, claiming them as the source. These are unreliable, factually innacurrate, completely false, fabricated hoodoo. Please put the disputed tag back until resolved. I am also putting an NPOV on it as you appear to be only one source, along with a good chunk of imagination. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, please quote a manuscript name from the current version of the article that you believe to be made up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The name forms used are those found in the cited sources, which as per Misplaced Pages policy is a scholarly secondary sources in each case. It does draw heavily (although not exclusively) from one source, but it is a source that represents the modern scholarly consensus. To be a violation of NPOV, there would need to be an alternative POV that should be given due weight, but is not. Agricolae (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the NPOV tag. The discussion above does not name any specific instance of an NPOV violation in this article. To put the tag back, a specific example of a problematic passage should be provided. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Geat is not mentioned in Anglian Collection V Lindsey. The list ends with Godulf Geoting and no Geat is mentioned. Frank Stenton also says Five names of god in the list on page 127 of the online version of the book. An alternative, offline version has been suggested to say Six names on page 137, but in this case, I suggest we should go for the readable, and hence more reliable, online version. Stenton, F. M. (Frank Merry) (1970). Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England: Being the Collected Papers of Frank Merry Stenton : Edited by Doris Mary Stenton. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–. ISBN 978-0-19-822314-6. Retrieved 1 December 2012. If there is a typo, we should go with the latest version, which is mine, presumably corrected and published in 1970, as a pose to the 1969 version that you are using. 1969 was a big year. Lots of changes. 6 kings presumably became 5 as the church lost it's grip on the information and the sources got less biased analysis.

This reading of 5 can be clearly demonstrated as an error to be attributed to the offline content through comparison of the actual data as provided by the full names can be found in the authentic versions in Vespasian B VI, Tiberius A. VI and B. I, Parker version, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge 183 and Anglo-Saxon chronicle.Thomas Warton; Richard Price (1871). History of English Poetry from the Twelfth to the Close of the Sixteenth Century: With a Pref. by Richard Price, and Notes Variorum. Edited by W. Carew Hazlitt. With New Notes and Other Additions ... With Indexes of Names and Subjects. Reeves and Turner. pp. 71–. Retrieved 27 November 2012.

Richard North also exposes that the original text with brackets, he reads Geot(ing) at position number 5, as Godulf(ing)'s father in his list on page 134 of this book Richard North (11 December 1997). Heathen Gods in Old English Literature. Cambridge University Press. pp. 134–. ISBN 978-0-521-55183-0. Retrieved 1 December 2012.

North says "When the West Saxons transcribed Geot as WS Geat, this figure took up a standard position in their royal genealogy". He is arguing here that the Anglo-Saxons adapted the Geot mentioned in Vespasian Lindsey into Geat as part of "politically motivated attempts to connect the Anglo-Saxon kings with the Goths and Lombards." He even notes that the Historia Brittonum presents Geta as "the son of god (fuit, ut aiunt, filius dei), although it is also made clear that Geta was not thereby God of gods, 'but one of their idols which they themselves used to worship' (sed unis est ab idolis eorum, quod ipsi colebant). Asser states Geata whom the pagans quite recently worshipped as a god", making this alternate name also worthy of mention as the historical source name.

Now I know I've lost some other sources along with recent deletion discussions, but here's a new one on the topic, highlighting the invention of Geat as part of biased propoganda on the part of the Anglo-Saxon kings trying to imitate the gothic roots being claimed by the Carolingian dynasty.

Malcolm Godden; Michael Lapidge (31 May 1991). The Cambridge Companion to Old English Literature. Cambridge University Press. pp. 95–. ISBN 978-0-521-37794-2. Retrieved 1 December 2012.

This scholarly, recent, comprehensive, Cambridge University source also notes the five ancestors added to the genealogies around 892 in the ASC; Scyld, Scef, Beaw, Heremond and Hwala. He gives the suggestion of Scyld being related to Danish Scydlings, which is equally as valid a statement to be covered as the selective concentration on Geat, and this one particulary spelling of his name.

As responsible historical encyclopedia editors, we should be analysing sources with exceptional scrutiny to pick up on POV and factually wayward arguments and I suggest work is done on this page to accommodate a comprehensive view of the data. A good encyclopedia should give full coverage, accurate reflection of historical sources as per WP:COMMONNAME (with alternates if notable), and awareness of bias and notable arguments about it. As far as I can see, we are currently simply reflecting and promulgating the POV and specific fantasy of some dark-age King. Until this is resolved, I would re-request the NPOV and disputed tags replaced on this article for the reasons mentioned. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 16:00, 1 December 2012 (UTC)