User talk:Doug Weller/Ancestry of the kings of Britain

Disputed Content
A comment has been made at Articles for deletion/Ancestry of the kings of Britain that a particular version of the content of this page should be left untouched by other editors. The inviolable content is as follows, with my comments:

The Ancestry of the kings of Britain has long attracted historians' interest because the monarchs of Britain trace their lineage from them. It has a close connection with ancestry in the United States of America with the present royalty having long distant relatives who settled in New England.


 * The first sentence is untrue, at least of much of the material that is in this page. The Monarchs of Britain do not trace their ancestry from either the kings of Mercia, nor the Kings of Lindsey, the only two pedigrees given on the page.  As to the ancestry of Woden which is shared by the Wessex pedigree, the Ancestry of the monarchs of Wessex page demonstrates the scholarly consensus that the descent of Cerdic from Woden is fatally flawed.  Therefore none of the content of this page is relevant to the later monarchs of Britain.  The second sentence is a non sequitur (just because some New Englanders are 'connected' with the queen need not imply that they are descended from the royal house of Lindsey).  Further, it is UNDUE, as there are probably more people descended from the house of Wessex who did not settle in New England.  Finally, Ancestry is a magazine for hobbyists, not a scholarly journal. Agricolae (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Geoffrey of Monmouth wrote a legendary chronology of the kings and legendary kings of Britain in the Historia Regum Britanniae c. 1136 CE. The ancestry has also been studied through "genealogies"; lists of names in various manuscripts. Ancestries include the Ancestry of the kings of Wessex and the Ancestry of the kings of Mercia. Scholarly analysis suggests the early part of some versions are largely an invention of the 8th and 9th centuries. They provides lines of names stretching from Godulf Geoting, presumably ruler of a Kingdom before Woden to Eanfrith, Aldfrið or Pybba and onwards. They have variations in a number of Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies.


 * Geoffrey of Monmouth did not write about Anglo-Saxon genealogy. He wrote about British (i.e. the Celtic peoples who predated the Anglo-Saxons on the island) pseudo-history, while the entire remainder of this page is talking about Anglo-Saxons.  The next sentence combines apples and oranges, as the Wessex page is an analysis of the entire body of Anglo-Saxon genealogy from a Wessex perspective, while the unnecessary Mercia page is about one copy of one genealogical document with no analysis of the content.  It looks like the text is being written toward the sole end of allowing links to other pages, as if that were a proxy for notability.  No modern scholar presumes that Godulf Geoting ruled anywhere, nor is he the earliest non-person named in the pedigrees. Agricolae (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Manuscripts include references to names from the Kingdom of Lindsey, a settlement in the northeast of Britain that rose to prominence in the early years of settlement by the Angles. Little is known of the Kingdom and the people are not recorded participating in the wars of the seventh and eighth centuries. The first king generally regarded by history to have been real is Cretta, who led a migration into Mercia and became Creoda.


 * Manuscripts include all kinds of things, of which names from Lindsey represent one of the smallest and among the least studied groups. The comment about Cretta is based on a non-reliable non-scholarly source that just made up the claim to him being the first king (or copied someone else who made it up), since Cretta is only known from a single pedigree and all it says is that he was son of one person and father of another - no other information is given, no geography, no biography, no title - he is just a name between two other names in a pedigree collection that shows evidence of widespread forgery. Agricolae (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The ancestry dates back to times when, as Winston Churchill said, "all the Britons dye their bodies with woad, which produces a blue colour, and this gives them a more terrifying appearance in battle".


 * The page is not even about the Britons Churchill was referring to, the Picts. That people on one part of a pretty big island were painting themselves blue 2000 years ago is neither here nor there - it adds nothing useful, other than decorating the page with a famous author who had nothing to say on the subject. Agricolae (talk) 21:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * None of this stuff is in the article anymore. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 01:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not found in my edition of the ASC ...
This line "An early king on record outside of the legendary genealogies is called Creoda[2] mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry 519...". Swanton says for the 519 entry that "Here Cerdic and Cynric succeeded to the kingdom of the West Saxons and the same year they fought against the Britons at the place they now name Cerdic's Ford." - no mention at all of Creoda in that entry. I'd like to see this Copley work that's being used for the citation ... Note also that the Handbook of British Chronology does NOT list Creoda as a king - merely that he was a son of king Cerdic, and the father of king Cynric. So that's two rather reputable sources that contradict the Copeley source. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * One of the snippets I get when searching the book for Creoda mentions the 519 ASC entry of the Parker mss., but it is not at all clear that it says he appears there. Agricolae (talk) 23:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * KIrby in Earliest English Kings (p. 40) says "The difficulties do not end with Cerdic. Cynric is associated with Cerdic in the Chronicle as his son in all the events in the annals between 495 and 530, and the Chronicle knows nothing of Creoda, who appears in the West Saxon Genealogical Regnal List as the son of Cerdic and father of Cynric. Cynric is credited with a long reign of twenty-six or twenty-seven years, though J. N. L. Myres was tempted to dismiss him as 'a ghost figure' so sparse is the annalistic record for him. The backward extension of West Saxon history to 514 or 495 and the omission from the annals of any information about Creoda appears to have resulted in a distended treatment of the material relating to Cynric to fill the resulting gap." I believe that means - Kirby doesn't see Creoda mentioned in the relevant entries (495-530) for the ASC. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yorke in Kings and Kingdoms agrees that confusion exists and that Creoda isn't in the ASC - p. 131 "However, not all sources agree that Cyrnic was his [Cerdic] son, for in the earliest recorded version of the West Saxon genealogy in the Anglian collection Cynric is given as the son of Creoda the son of Cerdic. Creoda is not mentioned at all in the annalistic version of the origns of Wessex or in the short genealogies included in the Chronicle." Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nor does York in Wessex in the Early Middle Ages state that Creoda was a king ... it's pretty clear we're not looking at a king, but an addition made in some genealogy later than the period. None of the sources I've consulted call Creoda a king of Wessex ... so the claim in this article that Creoda was "an early king on record outside of the legendary genealogies" is quite clearly an extraordinary claim that needs balancing with the mainstream historian view - that he was indeed listed in the legendary genealogies (the listing of him in the 855 ASC is clearly derived from the genealogies) and that he was not a king ... not to mention that he may not have existed! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've changed the text appropriately and put in Yorke's opinion of Crida as possibly being an Ætheling. This issue remains unclear for now, need more info what the manuscript says in that entry. All your stuff is very interesting by the way, feel free to enter any of it that you like in the forthcoming Ancestry of the kings of England page. The more Cynric/Cerdic/Coverup stuff we can add there the better. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Assuming the AfD ends with this article being deleted, then if you create Ancestry of the kings of England with content similar to the material here, it is likely to be speedily deleted, as is any other article you create reusing material from this article. See criterion G4 here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * No, i'm not entering this into some sort of Ancestry of the kings of England page - you need to wait until the AfD resolves for THIS article - my personal opinion is that you don't quite grasp the concept of what makes notability nor how to use secondary sources for writing wikipedia articles. This article has an amazing numbers of problems that if it was kept at AfD would need fixing ... and you should probably spend some time reading some of the basic works on Anglo-Saxon history before plunging into areas you lack the background knowledge of. We don't need to consult the manuscript for what it says ... that's the job of the historians. We deal with what they say and consult them and report their conclusions, we don't make those conclusions ourselves here at wikipedia Ealdgyth - Talk 18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, there are various ways I could substantially alter my way around a G4. I've got all sorts of Progonoplexia up my sleeves. But in respect to you learned gentle-persons, I will continue trying to substantially improve this article and hopefully convince you that it deserves your re-consideration for inclusion. I've done that again tonight and altered all the text that I could see an argument against. If there is anything else that needs attention, please start again here. Thanks for all the help and assistance one and all. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of the Flag
Please can the genealogy of the Union Jack picture be restored. I think it is appropriate for the article. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 00:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Err.... how is it relevant to an article on the ancestry of people to show the progression of the Union Jack? It's useless here and not relevant. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the British flag. It shows how the Ancestry of the kings of Britain relates to all British or British descended peoples. I have put a map for now but would still like a show of support for the flag. Hasn't anyone seen James Bond? Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I am perfectly well aware it's the British flag. What relevance the Union Jack has to sub-Roman Britannia is what needs to be explained. And certainly James Bond has nothing to do with ... early medieval history. "Show of support"? We are writing an encyclopedia, not a patriotic website. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What relevance indeed? James Bond? Show of support? Huh??? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sisam?
Who the heck is "Sisam" in the various footnotes? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Ancestry of the kings of Wessex, which I think is mostly Agricolae's work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Godulf Geoting
I put a on Geot as I can't find him listed in Stenton's book. It's in the external link to an ancient Britannica, but both that and my have been mysteriously removed and I don't consider it particularly reliable anyhow. I go with Stenton and can't find Geot. He lists the five kings before Woden differently to us, and I think we should go with modern sources, so I'm changing that table. Barbara Yorke's list shows those five names listed by their last surnames and included (ing) after Geot in the name of the first one. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 18:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to rename to Ancestry of the British monarchy
This fits better with Wiki-precedents, is not gender-specific and probably better understood. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 22:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait on the end of the AfD. No sense dealing with moving this when it's most probably going to be deleted. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this is for the purpose of the ongoing deletion discussion as part of the argument why it shouldn't be deleted according to all common sense. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Incoherent reference
A citation has been added back that has so little factual information as to be nearly useless. The Genealogist is not a book, it is a journal. Thus the citation should be to the author and title of the article that contains the useful information, not just the journal. Second, there is no vol. 15-16 of The Genealogist. There is volume 15 and there is volume 16. Sometimes libraries choose to bind successive volumes of soft-cover periodicals together, but that doesn't change the fact that the volumes are distinct entities. The publisher of this journal is not "The Association". Obviously, and completely inappropriately, this source has not actually been read, but is instead just being harvested from a Google Books snippet. Lacking full context, these snippets can be deceptive in terms of reflecting the overall conclusions of the article and author in question. One should only cite material one has actually read, and this clearly has not been read, so I am removing it. Agricolae (talk) 02:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making assumptions again Agricolae. I have read it and can track the exact info down again if needed, please replace. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 07:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If needed? Yes, it is needed. Agricolae (talk) 08:20, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The bigger question is why you persist in trying to cover up any note of Crida's doctoring in the historical record and deletion out of history? Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 09:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No cover-up concerning this little bit of obscurity. Note that the text in question, "Creoda has been deleted from some of the genealogies", remains in the article even though it is somewhat POV - who's to say that it hasn't been added to some genealogies, as opposed to being removed from the others.  All I took out was a citation that was so imprecise and inaccurate that it indicated the source being cited had not actually been consulted.  Agricolae (talk) 14:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well there's plenty of other info to get out there about Crida (JW s.a. 627),Crioda (GV 91), Creoda Cynewalding (ASC 'A' s.a. 755, 'BC s.a. 626, Creoda also GC 437, 438, and JW, p. 251), and Creada (HH, IV, 21, s.a. 755). I'll get on to destroying your bogus genealogies with it now and making the Way straight. Deleted text - The Chronicle suggests that Cynegils was a son of Ceola, and a great-grandson of Ceawlin. Second, Creoda apparently has been deleted through a different process from one that deleted Creoda in the Regnal List and 855 genealogy. (That's not the 519 entry you are also running around trying to cover up). Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 16:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I posted a note at Paul's talk page in response to this. Paul, please do not start edit-warring. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't dream of it, I don't like edit warring. I like teaching. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of Geat
Geat has been added to the list unsourced. I have repeated tried a) replacing Geat with the original text Geata Taetwaing, after this was reverted I put a on Geat as unsourced, after this was reverted I sourced the entry  of Geata Taetwaing to the Ramond Wilson Chambers source, after this was reverted I entered the following text in the paragraph referring to the extent of Godulf Geoting's genealogy - "(back further past Geata Taetwaing in Tiberius A Vi (and B. I))", with a source and now this has been removed. I am having to place a factual accuracy tag on the page until Geat is sourced properly because that is not what it says on the original historical source.  Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I would add that the source is a poor copy and that I have tried to put an external link to a Project Gutenburg e-text that reads much easier in the external links. That has also been removed, but you're welcome to look it up at your leisure for easier reference in the article history. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:52, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The whole pedigree has the same source, so it is inappropriate to tag just one name that you wish wasn't in the pedigree. If you can't accept that "Godulf son of Geat" (Godulf Geoting) names Geat, there are logical consequences - "Finn son of Godulf" (Finn Godulfing) doesn't name Godulf, so the whole document is just a list of names of no obvious relationship to each other.  That is obviously not the case - Finn son of Godulf was son of Godulf, and Godulf son of Geat was son of Geat.  Reject both and throw out the whole pedigree, or reject neither.  The table column in question specifically gives the content of the Vespasian pedigree, and that pedigree does not identify Geat's father.  If you want to name Taetwa in the table, then you need another column, and all you are doing is replication material that is already on the Wessex page anyhow.  As to your added text "(back farther . . . ", contrary to your claim that text has not been removed from the article, even though it is cited to an obscure manuscript name instead of the well-known source that these manuscripts represent, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.  And please, please 'Vi' is not the appropriate representation of a roman numeral.  You have been told this three times. Agricolae (talk) 19:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Agricolae, but I couldn't get past the second sentence before you'd made your own translation and assumption about Godulf Geoting's name. Until we can discuss the original sourced names of these people, I can hardly begin discussing these matters. Please provide a source for all your translations and interpretations. I'll go with VI if you like, I can see that's possible from sources, but not Geat, that's WP:OR. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 19:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me add something - that the manuscript designation ends with a Roman numeral is not just 'possible from sources'. Vespasian B VI means something quite specific.  It means that as arranged in the Cotton library, this manuscript was on the bookshelf that had the bust of Vespasian sitting on it, that it was on the second shelf (shelf B) and that it was the 6th (VI) mss from the left on that shelf. This has nothing to do with 'possible from the sources' and everything to do with whether or not one understands the basic common language of the field. Agricolae (talk) 04:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Paul, but it is not original research. Sisam agrees and Stenton agrees and Dumville agrees.  And again, you can't pick and choose.  If your interpretation of the source is that it doesn't give Geot as Godulf's father, then it also doesn't doesn't give Godulf is Finn's father, and whole thing becomes a list of unconnected names.  The patronyms all mean 'son of', or none of them do, you can't pick and choose. Agricolae (talk) 19:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sources please, not assumptions, because I can only see Stenton and he's holding five kings over your four. Which until you source is an unbeatable full house. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 21:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We are not going to resolve this with inappropriate and inaccurate poker analogies. Agricolae (talk) 21:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I hoped it would be a friendlier analogy than fighting a war. We need to resolve it with sources. We both need to be agreeing on naming conventions and use within articles in context and moving forwards. Geat remains unsourced in this article. If you come at me without sources I will call your bluff and just yell assumption. I am sure we can incorporate all points of view though. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this as a personal attack although I am aware it may come across as such. It takes a certain basic understanding of a subject in order to appropriately interpret the conclusions being reached by scholars in the field.  When one continually argues a counterfactial position because of a lack of this basic understanding, there is no way forward.  I have given several sources - they are the same sources that you are misreading. Agricolae (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've told you half a dozen times, I'm not interested in your interpretations and mis-understanding of the subject. It is critically flawed by centuries of Christian dogma. You are misreading Stenton's article on the kings of Lindsey based on the information containted in Vespasian B VI (Lindsey). The listing of names in that manuscript is all I care about publishing. I am not discussing any others. You have brought that other mumbo jumbo into the discussion, unsourced and I am beginning to suspect as part of the previously mentioned cover up to hide the information in that genealogy, and fix deletion discussions of my articles by doctoring them and filling them with a load of bunkum and literary forgery. This is not a personal attack either, I am fully aware that this is the same game has been going on to the records about this family for centuries now. The best defence that I can see, as shown by this most ancient of genealogies, is to overwhelm the opposition with so many articles that some of the truth gets through. As for listing sources, claiming "everyone agrees" without even citing a book or page number is preposterous. Stenton doesn't agree or even mention Geat in that list, puts Godulf Geating at the start and considers Uinta Wodning to be Woden. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX and Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and WP:Competence is required. What you continue to assert about Stenton is not only counter-factual, it is ridiculous.  There are two people listed, Winta son of Woden, and Woden son of Frealaf, and you keep insisting that the person named Woden is not Woden, but that the person explicitly called son of Woden is really Woden. Agricolae (talk) 20:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And you want a source? How about the quote you just added to the Godulf page:  "Ida wæs Sopping, Eoppa Esing, Esa Inging, Inga Angenviting, Angenvit Alocing, Aloe Beonocing, Beonoc Branding, Brand Baldaging, Baldag Vodening, Voden Friowulfing, Friowulf Finning, Finn Godwulfing, Godwulf Geaiing = Ida was the son of Eoppa, Eoppa of Esa, Esa of Inga, Inga of Angenvit, Angenvit of Aloe, Aloe of Beonoc, Beonoc of Brand, Brand of Bseldseg, Baeldaeg of Woden, Woden of Fridowulf, Fridowulf of Finn, Finn of Godwulf, Godfulf of Geat."  So, just like every other Anglo-Saxonist, including Stenton would, this author identifies Woden as Woden, not Woden's son (in this case Baldag Vodening). Agricolae (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, we're agreed then. Remove Geat from the list please. He's not there in either list and if you read extended lists, his name is Geata Taetwaing and his dad was Taetwa Beawing, (it takes me ages to dig these names out of the covered-up article history every time I have to repeat myself about them, so really, please let's remove Geat and replace the original names in Vespasian B VI (Lindsey) just for my ease of use, let alone factual accuracy). Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 22:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, we are not agreed. This whole page should be deleted, but if by chance it is not, the name Geat should be there for the reasons Agricolae has repeatedly given. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 00:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul, you know we are not in agreement and to pretend otherwise is incivil. Geot appears as the father of Godulf in the Lindsey pedigree.  Nobody had yet decided what name to invent for his father when this manuscript was produced. Agricolae (talk) 01:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The source in Stenton shows clearly it doesn't. Where's your source? Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 07:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My sources are Stenton and Sisam and Dumville and now North. They are all in agreement with each other, that the Lindsey pedigree names five people before Woden: Frealaf, Fridowulf, Finn, Godulf and Geat. Now, one of us chooses to interpret Stenton as indicating that Woden Frealafsson is not Woden, but instead Winta Wodensson is Woden, and the other knows that Stenton is identifying Woden with Woden Frealafsson and is including Geot among the five names before Woden.  When two amateurs interpret the words of a scholar differently, the tiebreaker isn't an appeal to math, or simple repetition, but an appeal to the writings of the scholar's colleagues.  Scholars have been named who agree with the latter opinion, but they have simply been dismissed, because 'they disagree with Stenton' - but they don't, they disagree with one interpretation of Stenton, but agree with the other.  If one looks at Sisam, who explicitly addressed the names appearing in the Lindsey pedigree, he gives the name at the top of the pedigree as Geot.  He agrees entirely with one of our views of what Stenton is saying, and he disagrees with what the other is saying.  Then there is Richard North, who in Heathens Gods in Old English Literature says of a later appearance of Geat, "By this time, G[i\ut(a) in the Historia Brittonum or the Lindsey Geot had become WS Geat, eponym of the Goths and Geats", and "In Vespasian B. vi, an extension shows a simplex Geot five places above Woden in the Lindsey regnal list." This last is unfortunate in referring to the pedigree as a regnal list, but in terms of the names given, like Stenton he counts five before Woden, and he is explicit in naming the earliest of them, Geot.  And he clearly states that in this he is following Dumville.  So, now we have Sisam, North and Dumville and one interpretation of Stenton on one side, and on the other side we have the other interpretation of Stenton.  Given this which interpretation of Stenton do you think is more likely to be an accurate representation of what Stenton was actually saying - the one that agrees with all the other scholars, or the one that flies in the face of them? Enough said about 'literary forgeries' and 'factually inaccurate material', then. I want to be clear on this: if one does not have the skills to read the source material accurately, they should take a step back and reconsider their competence to summarize the body of research on Wikipedia.  Agricolae (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gah! You are still not sourcing, you are just throwing names about. I need the books with page numbers with the table or listing for Vespasian B VI (Lindsey) please! I've got Frank Merry Stenton on the first page of "Lindsey and it's kings" (page 127 in "Preparatory to Anglo-Saxon England") backed up by "A hand-book of the English language, for the use of students" By Robert Gordon Latham on page 201. Both end with Godulf/Godwulf and not geat or goet. Now put the correct name back. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT act has just reached the limit of my tolerance. You know what I am referring to when I mention Sisam since you yourself have read the complete, fully referenced discussion at the (since merged) Ancestry of the kings of Wessex page.  I also gave the reference for North, who in turn explicitly credits Dumville for his information.  I even quoted North where he explicitly counts five pre-Woden ancestors ending with Geat, exactly how Stenton counts five pre-Woden.  It is not legitimate behavior to misread (or even lie about) what a source says and then demand a fully referenced refutation of what you just made up.  You have been consistently misreading Stenton, as I have shown repeatedly and now you are outright lying about Latham, who explicitly names Geat in his translation of the Lindsey pedigree, on the very page you are citing.  I am no longer going to enable you in this disruptive behavior. Agricolae (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Still no books or page numbers....*Taps fingers* Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * (since merged)?? What's all this since merged business? You can't introduce a deleted, unavailable discussion about your bunkum as a spectre of authenticity and rule over history with a myth no-one has access to. This has been done before in history by a guy called Constantine. WP:ICANTHEARTHAT if there's nothing to hear!!! Here are my best sources for the lists in a nice, easy to reference, clear as plain daylight format (unfortunately ripped out of the article)   Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "since merged" means that the page has been merged since you read it and that now the material rests at a different namespace, to which you will be redirected when you follow the link given. All the sources are still there, and the full Talk page and edit history is still present under the pre-merger name, so nothing has been deleted and everyone has access to it, including you.  Further, you have explicitly admitted to reading it, you have lifted text intact from it  including references to the Sisam article, and you have edited it  so to now pretend it is all secret and hidden and that you haven't had any chance to see it is extremely dishonest.  And if a couple of sources, one from 1921 and one from 1871, are your best sources, then you might want to reconsider the degree to which your opinions represent modern scholarship - a lot has happened since then. Agricolae (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I went and dug out my copy of Stenton's article "Lindsey and its kings". I find it very interesting that while Stenton on the second page of the article gives the names with phonetic spellings (such as "Uinta Wodning" and "Cueldgils Cretting", etc.) elsewhere in the paper he gives the name in modern spellings - thus "Cweldgils" and "Winta". Thus, it's very clear that the "Uuoden Frealfing" is actually "Woden son of Frealaf", and thus the "Frealfing" is NOT a surname. Context is king here, Paul. When the actual author of the article never again uses the spelling you're trying to insist on past the initial list, it's pretty clear what the actual name would be rendered as in modern English. I'll also note that Stenton uses that great "thorn" letter (ð) in his list, but I notice that Paul's not pushing to use THAT in the article.... rightly because most folks don't know what the heck it is. WP:USEENGLISH is a good guideline here. Further, Stenton does indeed mention "Geot" - it's that "Geoting" thing - and he clearly counts "Geot" as part of the list - Stenton says "With the six names beyond Woden..." the only way you can get "six" there is if you're counting "Geat" as one of them - Woden, Frealaf, Friothulf, Finn, Godulf, and Geot. Lastly, Stenton's article clearly does not establish notability for any of the names past Woden - he says "With the six names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." That pretty clearly shows that there is no scholarly discussion of any of those names. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All very nice, but you are following Agricolae's example of making up your own arguments without sourcing anything. This is WP:OR and I don't have time to read fiction. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 20:16, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? I did indeed source this - Stenton's article "Lindsey and it's kings". Oh, if you want to be a pain in the behind, I can give you the exact bibliographical stuff here: . The specific quotes come from p. 137, with the discussion on the various names taking part on the following pages. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * She did give her source. You are just being disruptive and incivil now. Agricolae (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I want my Woden back!
Several illustrations have been removed from the article. I can agree that the British crest is no longer appropriate. The West Saxon "dragon" flag is highly informative, educational and a totally appropriate accompaniment to the article, so I have replaced that. I also think the archaeological artefact, dated to the time depicting Woden and Christ is highly important and relevant to the article, which discusses Woden and the ancestry of the Anglo-Saxon kings. Archaeology is one of the most valuable auxilliary sciences of history and display of such artefacts brings the past to life in ways that reading can never do. I'd like that replaced please. Paul Bedson ❉ talk ❉ 22:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The dragon flag is a modern creation. There is no evidence of flags being used in Dark Age Britain.  As to the picture of Jesus, who is not in any of these genealogies, why would we show that instead of a relevant image. Agricolae (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The picture of the archaeological artefact shows the triskele, the symbol of Woden. Religious articles from this time period are scarce and a rare glimpse into the art of our ancestors. The image of Christ shows the transition that people living in these times faced. Paul Bedson  ❉ talk ❉ 07:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)