User:Doug Weller/Talk:Godulf Geoting

Folcwald

The cited source does not make Godwulf a Folcwald. - he refers to a pedigree that rather than making Finn son of Godulf son of Geat instead makes Finn son of Folcwald son of Geat, i.e. identifies the Finn in the pedigree with the heroic Finn of legend, who is Folcwalda's son, and hence replaces the name of his father. Perhaps this would be more clear in the original publication rather than in a Google scan of a badly formatted reprinting of the Project Gutenberg transcript of the original book. Agricolae (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

See the word "original" there. That is the opposite of the word "fake". It reads perfectly well and is a full copy for everyone to see. I've changed the text of the article on your advice though, to read an exact quote so you won't misinterpret and get confused by those myths and legends of yours again.

Raymond Wilson Chambers mentions Godulf Geating at the end of a line saying "Godulf Geating The Fodepald or Folcpald". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It does read perfectly well in the original book, published in 1921, on page 200 about a third of the way down the page. There as part of his section on the pedigrees from "Woden to Geat" the author has a three-column tabular layout of the pedigrees in Vespasian, CCCC and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, and ends there with "Godulf Geating". The author then starts a paragraph of commentary with a sentence that begins "The Fodepald or Folcpald who, in the Historia Brittonum, appears . . . ." The author is not calling Godulf Goeting "the Folcwald". Now, perhaps you might want to reconsider the talk of me misinterpreting things and getting confused, don't you think? Agricolae (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for the help. That is really useful, as is upping the quality of the sources constantly to keep ahead. I've added the following to the page to clarify the point raised in the deletion discussion regarding inspiration, I think it reads really nice now, but let me know if you spot any problems.

Discussing a genealogy of Hors and Hengist consistent with one by Bede (H. E. I. 15), Hector Munro Chadwick notes that it differs from other Anglian collection manuscripts, saying "The exception is that the name of Finn's father is here given as Folczvald (al. Fodcpald) instead of Godwulf. But this is a mistake which could only have been made by some one familiar with English traditions; for Finn the son of Folcwalda was a well-known figure in English heroic poetry." Raymond Wilson Chambers discussed the concept of a "Folcpald" or "Fodepald". He mused; "It is not possible that Godwulf was a traditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and that Folcwalda was a title which, since it alliterated conveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?"

Stenton on Godulf

Stonton does not call Godulf a king as you have claimed elsewhere [1]. What he says of Godulf is the following: ". . . the ninth-century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting, . . . " and "the list runs . . . Godulf Geoting. With the five names beyond Woden this paper is not directly concerned." (Godulf being one of those five names) In other words he is a mythological name with whom the author has nothing to say. Sterling proof of notability, that. Agricolae (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

He wrote a book called "The Kings of Lindsey", it's on the cover. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He wrote an article called "The Kings of Lindsey", but that doesn't mean that every single name in that article can just be assumed to have been a King of Lindsey. Agricolae (talk) 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Which names weren't legendary kings in that list then? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Not for us to decide - he calls them "mythological names", so we don't get to put words in his mouth. Agricolae (talk) 00:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me add something that I think some will not like. You ask which names in that pedigree were not kings. I would ask the counter-question. Which names in that pedigree do we know were kings? The answer is just one - the Ealdfrith at the bottom of the pedigree. Nobody else in it can safely be assumed to have been king, because Ealdfrith might have succeeded his grandfather or uncle or even a distant cousin - we know that in both Mercia and Wessex, there was succession by lines that were only distantly linked to the previous kings. With those pedigrees we have the ASC to tell us which names in the lineages are those of kings and which were not. For the Lindsey pedigree, all bets are off. Agricolae (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Howcome his article isn't called "Mythological names of Lindsey" if I am the one putting words in his mouth? He has obviously assumed that through his use of the plural. Do you understand the concept of plurality? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Assumed what? That every single one of the mythological names was of a king? No. He didn't, we shouldn't. And once you admit that one name in the list might not have been a king, you have to accept that we have no way of knowing who was and who wasn't (except for Ealdfrith - every other pedigree ended with a king, so at least for that one name we can be reasonably certain). Agricolae (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He assumed the list was made up of more than one legendary king. Seems reasonable. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:04, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So you tell me, other than Ealdferth, who is the other king in the list? - you can't do it, because nobody can, because they are just names completely devoid of historical context and unknown to history except for this pedigree. You either pick a name at random and without the slightest bit of evidence or logic behind it arbitrarily decide that person was a king, or you honestly admit that there is no basis to call any other specific individual in the pedigree a king. Agricolae (talk) 19:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not calling any of them Kings. They're all Legendary kings. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, they are not legendary kings! Where in that pedigree does it say 'this one is a king' - it doesn't, ever. They are portrayed as one thing and one thing only, as ancestors of the last person in the list. Describing them as anything other than names appearing in Ealdfrith's pedigree is unsupported by the evidence, and dishonest. Agricolae (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A legend is a pedigree. You just can't say Pedigreed King in English, so we use Legend, which in Latin means "things to read". If you look the word "legend" up in a dictionary,[2] you'll see it has three forms of meaning, listed in the third form, the word can mean

• a. An inscription or a title on an object, such as a coin.
• b. An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart.

In this case the "title" of the "object" is "Geoting" of "Godulf". This is why the title, usename, patronymic, original text needs replacing, not falsifications. This also explains why the status of this category of king restored to Legendary king.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Figure 1. a coin from Offa

Figure 2. Scatterplot of relevant data.

A legendary king is a king about whom there are legends. Godulf wasn't a king, and there is not the slightest shred of evidence that there were any legends. That means you don't have to coin a new term, because he is described quite simply - "a name in a pedigree".

Regarding the definition, you are just having me on, aren't you? You can't possibly think that definition refers to what you are describing, can you? See Figure 1 to the side. The text around the outside of the coin reading OFFA REX - that is what definition 'a' is calling a legend. The text I have added to the the bottom of the image naming and describing the figure, that is another usage of the same definition 'a' - the legend for the figure, the 'figure legend', the title on an object. Then there is Figure 2. The little rainbow bar in the upper left that indicates what the color spectrum represents - that is what definition 'b' is referring to. None of these definitions have anything to do with someone's byname. Agricolae (talk) 02:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Godulf Geoting is an inscription on a manuscript, so I suggest legendary is an appropriate title. To be clearer, the dictionary also goes by a second form, I should have noticed and pointed out earlier (sorry) - One that inspires legends. This is perhaps where the article needs more work in connection to Beowulf and other legends he inspired. I'm working on that right now as it happens with Snorri Sturlsson's Langfedgetal, where he mentions Gudolf being the Danish form of Godulf, gotta get all the original sources and stuff in place and make it squeaky clean first or I suspect you'll shout at me. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

So back to inventing our own definitions? The Magna Carta is also an inscription on a manuscript, that doesn't make it a legend. Godulf never inspired a legend. Agricolae (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec - reply to Paul's definitions of "legend") I get this for the first definition of "legend" at dictionary.com - "a nonhistorical or unverifiable story handed down by tradition from earlier times and popularly accepted as historical." The second definition listed is "the body of stories of this kind, especially as they relate to a particular people, group, or clan: the winning of the West in American legend." the two definitions listed above are the THIRD and FOURTH definitions given. Obviously, the first two definitions are much more often encountered - which in this case is correct. A legendary king is one who is only known through legends, or nonhistorical or unverifiable story". It has nothing to do with "pedigreed king"... yikes. I've never even heard of any sort of usage like that and I"ve been researching genealogy for 30 years - and studying medieval history for about 25 years. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed someone can keep up with us. Thanks for your assistance. I don't think it applies to those points particularly well yet, although one professor seems to have made up his own little legend, that's not great. The connection to Beowulf and others needs improving, will have to do tomorrow. On point 3) in your dictionary it says "an inscription, especially on a coat of arms, on a monument, under a picture, or the like." In my version is says "object, such as a coin", I would argue that titled nobility given in a list format such as a genalogy is a) an object similar to a coin. b) especially similar to a coat of arms, and that the dictionary put this to emphasize the use of the terminology "legend" to equate with expressions of nobility or title. c) A in inscription in a royal genealogy is like "a monument" or "under a picture" and henceforth a legend. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, while it is frequently misused to refer to anything not historical (pre-history or pseudo-history), to be legendary, there needs to be a legend - a story, not just a name amidst dozens of names. Agricolae (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily, check dictionary argument above. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is tripe. Look up pedigree. Look up coin. You will find nothing in these definitions that allow an analogy. It is pointless to use definitions for reference when you redefine any other word necessary in order to force the definition to be applicable, in a twisted sort of way, to something completely irrelevant to it. What makes a legend on a coin a legend is that is says what the coin is. The same with an inscription on a monument - "this monument is to commemorate the Battle of the Pig". A pedigree, a list of names - it is the object. A line of text at the bottom saying "This is the ancestry of the Kings of Lindsey" (or the legend that John of Worcester used, "Genealogia Lindisfarorum"), that would be the legend - the description of the pedigree is the legend, not the pedigree itself. That being said, you are mixing apples and oranges. The term 'legendary' refers to a legend, but not this definition of legend. Legendary does not describe the legend on a coin, nor does it describe the title of a figure or object. It refers to the other kind of legend, the unverifiable story. Agricolae (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not redefining it. I am merely trying to explain how Stenton has defined it in source "The Kings of Lindsey". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

When you come up with a definition that has never, ever been used before, as you are doing when you apply the word legend to a genealogical tree, then you are indeed redefining it. You are coming up with entirely novel and entirely incorrect definitions of what legend means, and then suggesting that is how Stenton was using the word, just so that you can in turn use Stenton as a source for your completely unsupportable conclusions. It is an elaborate game of begging the question, with accuracy, Stenton and the English language all as victims. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I haven't made anything up. I've just pointed out that Stenton has made up a legend about him being a King or mythological name (god - I go with god after scrutinizing text) and that Chambers made up a legend about him being a King of Frisia. This is what sources say, let's stick to them. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are making up definitions for legend, legendary, and now mythological. Stenton neither said nor implied that these were gods - that too you are making up. 'Sticking to what sources say' loses all meaning when you redefine their words to match your pre-determined interpretation. Agricolae (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we are talking apples and oranges on this one, but am concerned you are reducing them to names in order to negate notability rule over them being mythological people or mythological figures, which have left a big impact on the historical record. Any arguments with that? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not the one who called them 'names' - that was Stenton. These people are not mythological people or mythological figures, and they have not left a big impact on anything. There is no notability to negate. Agricolae (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A name of a "figure" is implied by his title of the article. I would hope notability is judged by sources rather than your opinion. I'll go and try to improve them with the Langfedgetal connection anyhow. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability is determined by the criteria established on Wikipedia for WP:NOTABILITY. You don't get to make up criteria for notability, make up characteristics of the individual to match your made-up criteria, and then demand sources to prove that what you just made up is wrong. The title of an article implies one thing - what title the author chooses to give his article (and maybe not even that - I have had articles get renamed by the editor). Agricolae (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Picture

Beowulf is mentioned in the text. The picture removed was a perfect illustration of the field in which the topic is discussed. Please replace. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Beowulf the poem is shoehorned into the text, not Beowulf the man, who is illustrated. Still, it is not even Beowulf the poem that is relevant to Godulf. An illustration of Beowulf, the legendary man, cannot legitimately be justified by the fact that the poem Beowulf, happens to recount the Fight at Finnsburg, which involved the legendary king Finn, son of Folcwald, whom most scholars consider to have been distinct from the Finn of the pedigree who was son of the subject of this page. It is like a game of free-association gone wild. Agricolae (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hector Munro Chadwick has clarified the connection above. Hopefully this will explain why it needs a replacement please. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He has done nothing of the sort. There is no connection. Agricolae (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

He considered it possible that he could be an ancient king, like in epic poetry. He explained the connection. The picture is of a legendary ancient king in epic poetry. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

So on a page for Isabel Martínez de Perón you would put an image of Ron Reagan because both were presidents of nations in the Americas? It doesn't work that way - an illustration about Beowulf is appropriate for a page about Beowulf, not any page about any old legend let alone a page about someone who is just a name in a pedigree, whom someone speculated may have been a legendary figure but whom most others concluded was just made up by the pedigree artisans. The claim itself is a bold-faced lie. In the cited text Chadwick says Godulf is confused with Folcwalda by someone familiar with Finn son of Folcwalda, a king in epic poetry - Finn is the epic hero, not his father Folcwalda and certainly not the guy Folcwalda has been confused with. Agricolae (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It sets the scene for an ancient legendary king that might have inspired Beowulf. I might have to go write some more stuff about it to explain. What claim is a lie? I'm not following the sentence that starts "Godulf is confused" but suggest you read that citation again, it explains that Folcwalda is a title similar to King or Count. I'll maybe try a page on that too, for further tuition. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:46, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

The claim that is a lie is that Chadwick "considered it possible that he could be an ancient king, like in epic poetry" What Chadwick said is that a pedigree maker may have confused become confused and replaced the name of Godulf with that of the father of an individual from epic poetry. That in no way suggests that Godulf was a king nor that he has anything to do with epic poetry. Further, you had better reread the citation, as it never says anything about Folcwalda being a title. And you are just making things up when you suggest he was "an ancient legendary king that might have inspired Beowulf." Please stop making things up. Agricolae (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still confused following you on this one, what I am referring to is this bit of text in the article, "He mused; "Is it not possible that Godwulf was a traditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and that Folcwalda was a title which, since it alliterated conveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?" He's saying here that a) Folcwalda was possibly a title. b) The title Folcwalda was possibly supplanted and used as a proper name in epic poems. c) Godwulf was possibly a historic king. All clear? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And Chadwick NEVER SAID THAT! All clear? Agricolae (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouting won't make it go away. He said "Is it not possible that Godwulf was a traditional, probably historic, king of the Frisians, father of Finn, and that Folcwalda was a title which, since it alliterated conveniently, in the end supplanted the proper name in epic poetry?" Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouting can't make it go away because CHADWICK NEVER SAID IT! Who knows, though. Maybe it will get your attention. The text you are quoting is not found anywhere in Chadwick's entire body of work, not once. While I would have thought the difference in spelling would have made this obvious, Chadwick and Chambers are NOT THE SAME PERSON! Agricolae (talk) 03:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't realised I got the author wrong, they're all just a big bunch of professors to me and I can get them very muddled up. I'll improve my referencing. Someone notable suggested he might have been real though and I think he's got a valid point. He's even created his own little legend about Godulf there; about him being a King of the Frisians.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Osborn reference

I have concerns with the Osborn reference, to which I do not have ready access - the title of her thesis suggests that she is summarizing the work of others. Therefor, it is unclear to me whether the conclusion that Godulf = God- -wulf should be attributed to her, rather than whatever research she is summarizing at that point. (Not that I am questioning the derivation, which is patently obvious to anyone who knows anything about Anglo-Saxon names.) Agricolae (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I dug out the text and two things are clear - the author is, in fact, summarizing someone else's views, and so this should not be attributed to her. Without seeing the original study, it is hard to say what is actually being said. Google Books strikes again. Agricolae (talk) 00:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll bow to you on this one point. Good work. Keep it up. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Surnames

The surnames of the lists have been deleted. The reason given is that they are patronymic and hence not surnames. I disagree completely with this argument. My surname is patronymic, many surnames are, I still use mine. This is no reason to delete them, we cannot delete all patronymic names from Wikipedia, it would be absurd. This is distortion of the sources, please can we replace with the originals and stop the literary forgery? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Surnames, as opposed to patronymics or use names, did not exist at the time. They aren't neccessary when you're giving the descents - it's patently obvious what the patronymics would be. Patronymics would be used if we were trying to distinguish two different Godulf's in a list. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

What's a use name? I wasn't aware of a difference between that and a surname. It is important information whatever, the way those patronymics is expressed in sources, and at the time is of use and note. I have "son", they had "ing". We should have an article explaining why specifically that was and until we do, I'd suggest the original sources are used and not forged with personal opinions. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, a 'Use name' is not the same as a patronymic, not at all, but now you have gone and created a redirect. Please slow down! and understand before you edit. Agricolae (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Plus, I think that we should use the names that people would have been notable for at the time. If Godulf Geoting was to stride on into some legendary chieftan's banquet hall in some dark age castle, he would be announced as "Godulf Geoting", not just "Here's Godulf". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no "at the time" that he would have existed in - he is made up. No banquet halls, no chieftains, nothing but a single pedigree in which someone used the name Godulf to bridge from Finn to Geat. Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it's late and I should have said "patronym" not "patronymic" - but the point is still the same. There are not what we consider "surnames" until the 12th or 13th century. Calling "Geoting" in "Godulf Geoting" a surname is wrong. It's quite likely that he would have been introduced as "Godulf" - the only time "Geoting" would have been used is if there were more than two Godulf's needing to be distinguished. In this time period, personal names were not as restricted to a few names - most folks had somewhat unique names because of the pattern of naming used - combining parts of various names into a new name. As for use name - look it up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:09, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find much on it and have better things to research. Did a REDIRECT to Patronymic for now. I think in the case of legendary nobility a surname should stand in this instance. Legendary nobility would have used patronymic surnames in their titles, as the sources prove. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, this is wrong - unless these legendary kings lived beyond the 13th century (and in Wales and Cornwall in some cases, the 19th century), they would not have used surnames of any type. These patronyms exist solely for the sake of stringing names together in a pedigree, and provide no further information than to name their father, and since we go right ahead and name their father, there is no benefit to the duplication of listing the patronyms too. Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stenton speaks of Uinta Wodning being Woden, you need to read this again thoroughly to see he compares Genealogia Lindisfarorum with Vespasian B Vi and notes that his article "is not concerned with the five names beyond Woden" (because he is discussing GL, not V). Those five names beyond Woden are Uuoden Frealafing, Frealaf Friodulfing, Friodulf Finning, Finn Godulfing and Godulf Geoting. Uinta Wodning being Woden of the Genealogia Lindisfarorum. This is why it's so important their surnames, use names, titles they were known by, whatever, the original source, and secondary sourced text is replaced. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please read your sources correctly. Stenton never refers to Winta as Woden, not once, not ever, nor would he because Stenton knew what he was talking about. And they AREN'T surnames. Agricolae (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

He gives a list, he says he is not concerned with the five names past Woden. The sixth name is Uinta Wodning. I am surprised I have to explain this. You just have to Count. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Five names past Woden. Past, as in beyond, not on the near side of - Frealaf, Frioþulf, Finn, Godulf and Geat - Five. You don't have to count, you have to understand what you are talking about and not try to force your interpretations onto authors who knew better. Agricolae (talk) 02:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stenton doesn't mention Geat. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Stenton doesn't have to mention Geat explicitly, because he mentions Godulf son of Geat, making it clear to almost anyone reading it that Geat is the name of the father of Godulf. If you say "the Queen's eldest son" you have not just named one person of unknown parentage - theQueenseldestson. You have named the Queen and her son. I am not arguing this anymore. The individual in the list named Woden - that is Woden. The individual in the list named Winta Wodensson, that is not Woden but Woden's son. That is all there is to it. Agricolae (talk) 03:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

He isn't using your first name terminology Agricolae. There was no Geat, you have made an incorrect assumption, which we all do, but this one is funny to me because it sounds like goat. Stenton doesn't mention Geata Taetwaing because then his list would be incorrect and he'd have published a mathematical mistake. Cambridge University doesn't let mistakes like that get published. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are just wrong, and no matter how many times you repeat it, you will still be wrong. He doesn't mention Geata Taetwaing, as such, because his source doesn't call this man Geat Tetwasson. It refers to him as Geot (no patronym given) when indicating that Godulf was his son. There is no math mistake. Woden is Woden. As an aside, though, I am sorry to disabuse you but 1) Cambridge University is not a monolithic infallible entity that controls all global publishing. Books are edited and published by humans and humans make mistakes all the time. 2) Cambridge University did not publish the cited book, Oxford did. 3) Oxford did not originally publish Stenton's paper - they reprinted it almost 30 years after it was first published by Clarendon Press. 4) Clarendon Press is not an infallible entity - this work was edited by Henry Wilson Carless Davies (a human) as one article in a tribute book. 5) Tribute books are usually compiled by invitation only, and it is the expectation that the author, a recognized expert in the field, will do his or her own fact checking. The only editing done by the editor is usually formatting and grammar. 6) The editing that matters, then, was done by Stenton, a human, so, it is entirely possible that a mistake could, under these circumstances, have been published. But that is not what happened. Stenton is not the one who counted incorrectly, the pedigree lists five names before Woden, and Uuoden is Woden. Agricolae (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul - can you kindly quit treating us like idiots - believe it or not, we all know what a goat is. There is no need to link to it ... nor do we need to know what mathematical means. And oddly enough, we're familiar with Cambridge University. The constant linking of things on talk pages is very annoying and treats the other folks in the conversation like we don't know what those words mean. When those words are basic words you learn in primary school, it feels like a subtle form of telling us we're stupid. Why else would you be linking common terms in conversation? Please stop it. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, sorry, points taken, it's late. Stenton was published by Oxford University anyhow. We all make mistakes, i'll try and be clearer pointing the ones I spot. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

'Legendary'

The above discussion highlights the central problem with this page - the entire page is predicated on the supposition that there ever was a legendary Godulf Geating. There isn't the slightest shred of evidence that he ever existed, that the maker of the pedigree didn't just pick a name that he thought would sound cool as the father of Finn. I don't mean that he existed as a real man - I mean that there ever was even a legend about a man of this name. Let me give you a specific example from real life. I knew a genealogist who out of frustration over his inability to extend his family pedigree took ancestor Martin Peck and made a pedigree that named his father 'Woody Wood Peck' (a cultural reference). What you are doing would be like saying that Woody Wood Peck was a legendary man - he wasn't, he was made to order when the pedigree was concocted. The same is the case for Godulf, as far as we know, and so thinking about it (not him) as anything but a name invented by the ancestry artisan is misplaced. Agricolae (talk) 00:44, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a legendary Godulf Geoting in various genealogies. The maker of the pedigree, or someone made him up. The article isn't about your mate round the corner, it's about a legendary king or god, like King Puru. Now more has been written about him in the Puranas admittedly, but his legend should be of note here with relevant scholarly discussion about what this pre-eminent figure has inspired in literature and various fields of history through the ages. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:12, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it isn't about a legendary king or god - he never was a king and he never was a god. He didn't inspire literature, he wasn't inspired by literature. All he ever was was a name in a pedigree, ever. Agricolae (talk) 01:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That's rampant assumption again Agricolae. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And your evidence that he was a king? You have none. Your evidence that there was ever a legend about him? You have none. The evidence is on my side, or rather, I am stating the null hypothesis and you have no evidence to challenge this, because you have no evidence at all, because there is none. You have been making this stuff up and then pretending it is real - it's not. Agricolae (talk) 02:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My evidence that he was a legendary king is the legend in Vespasian B Vi. See dictionary for use of word legend. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Quote the text wherein Vespasian B vi (that is a roman numeral, not the nickname for someone name Violet) says that he was king. You can't because it doesn't. Quote for me the text wherein Vespasian B vi says that he is known from legend or appeared in a legend or was legendary. You can't because it doesn't. Vespasian B vi is a pedigree, nothing more. Godulf is a name in that pedigree, nothing more. Agricolae (talk) 03:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And I suggest a pedigree implies the nobility needed to meet the dictionary definition of the word Legend as being similar in use to that under a coat of arms. The use of a patronymic here gives the notion of title.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 04:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

In other words, no, you cannot produce the slightest bit of evidence that he was a king, or that there is any legend that relates to him. Agricolae (talk) 04:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I cannot produce any evidence that he was a "King". That is incorrect terminology. I can produce a "legend", by the dictionary definition of "An explanatory table" (i.e. a genealogy of "nobility") in V that shows him to be part of that "legend". Not by the primary definition of that word admittedly, but still applicable. I suggest Stenton is calling them Legendary kings on that basis and we adopt his terminology. Perhaps Legendary nobility might be more accurate, but I couldn't find it in sources. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Figure 3. A pie chart with a legend indicating what the colors represent

Figure 4. A pedigree with a legend to explain the abbreviations and different lines used

If only that definition didn't continue after that part you have lifted out of context, "An explanatory table or list of the symbols appearing on a map or chart." An explanatory table of the symbols appearing on a map or chart. Look at the figure to the right (Fig 3), where the little inset box contains a table showing what the colors mean - that is what this is referring to. Can this apply to a family tree? yes, but not the way you are using it. Figure 4 is a pedigree that contains a legend. It is the part in the upper right corner that tells you what the abbreviations and different line types represent - that is the legend for this pedigree. We should not adopt this terminology because it is entirely inapplicable to the situation, as Stenton would have well known. Legendary "nobility" is no more accurate because, again, they are just names in a pedigree and you know nothing more about them. Agricolae (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I know Latin, in which the word "legend" means "things to read". The pie charts are all very nice, but they didn't have Microsoft Excel in the dark ages. I'll let others who know more speak for me on this in relation to pedigrees and family history. The following source describes how a legend or key is used when comipiling family trees. These initial genealogies were part of a much larger genealogy in V, of which this list of legendary kings had legendary descendants, for which the list served as the "key" or "legend" for. Making them legendary ancestors at the very least. Robin L. Bennett (20 September 2011). The Practical Guide to the Genetic Family History. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-1-118-20981-3. Retrieved 25 November 2012. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:31, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about Modern English, (which, like Excel, did not exist in the dark ages) not Latin. The reference provided is describing the legend or key exactly as I am using it and completely different than what you were trying to twist it into. So, what do you do now? Make things up. Creating an alternative reality where a family tree is actually the legend to a larger collection of material, just so you can in turn call it a legend and then misuse the word legendary to apply to names in the pedigree is just another pointless exercise in begging the question. You have the whole scholarly process backwards - you derive hypothetical conclusions based on the evidence you have, you don't derive hypothetical evidence based on the conclusions you wish to reach. Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're not happy with Stenton's definition of them as Legendary kings, they could be a Noble Legendary ancestors or perhaps Legendary ancestor deity. Take your pick. They pass notability either way. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are mis-attributing your opinions to Stenton, and you have no more evidence that they were noble or deities than you have that they were royal. Agricolae (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is how the opinions are directly attributed to Stenton, none of my own work - a) Artice title - "Lindsey and its Kings" b) He says "No one would learn from the Historia Ecclesiastica that Lindsey was ruled by kings of no less noble ancestry that Ecgfrith and Aethelred themselves." c) He also says "the ninth century text carries the descent beyond Woden through a set of mythological names to Godulf Geoting. This shows us clearly that Stenton is referring to the names in the pedigree after Woden as "Kings" (albeit better described a Legendary for now) and he is classing the 5 names before as "mythological", and as ancestors of Woden, they are logically Gods by that definition. Those five names do not include any Geat or Goet. Hope you follow. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You are still putting words in Stenton's mouth. How does "Lindsey and its Kings" allow any conclusion to be reached about any individual in a source he is using for the article? How does reference to 'mythological names' clearly show anything about kings? And not everything mythological is a deity, logically or otherwise. You are distorting Stenton to match your preconceptions of what you need him to have said. Woden, Frealaf, Frithwulf, Finn, Godulf, Geot - five names farther than Woden. Agricolae (talk) 19:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, now we can compare. I've got "Uinta Wodning, Uuoden Freealafing, Frealaf Friodulfing, Friodulf Finning, Finn Goduulfing, Godulf Geoting" in Stenton. You'll see you are referring to their use names. Mythological names doesn't say they were kings. It says they were Gods. Some professors would probably have called them God-Kings, but I lost that red link in round 1. I have a top agent investigating the Serbian press that might turn up some results and restore that terminology oneday. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't even know what 'use names' means - you just learned the expression from Ealdgyth a couple of days ago and you misunderstood what she said. The people you list are Winta son of Woden, Woden son of Frealaf, Frealaf son of Friodulf, Friodulf son of Finn, Finn son of Godulf and Godulf son of Geat. Woden is Woden, and the five names beyond Woden are Frealaf, Friodulf, Finn, Godulf and Geat. If you simply insist on playing WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT I can't help you. "Mythological names" doesn't say they were Gods. Yours is not a reasonable reading of "mythological names" - there are all kinds of non-Gods who appear in myths. I will not discuss things that you simply make up. Agricolae (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

That leaves you with only four names after Woden and Stenton says five. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, that is five names if you count them all (as above), rather than pretending the fifth isn't there. You are saying that the person named Woden was not Woden just because you refuse to accept the name the pedigree gives Godulf's father. Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

His last name was Taetwaing and his first name was Geata, we should not be calling him Geat, like we don't know his last name for some reason. I think it's important information we are dealing with here. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:24, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

There was no such thing as a 'last name' or surname in 10th century Dark Age Britain when the pedigree in the Chronicle was concocted. It calls him Geat son of Taetwa. "Son of Taetwa" is just identifying his father, it is not a last name or a surname or any other kind of personal name. Further, at the time of the creation of the Lindsey pedigree in the late 8th or early 9th century, he wasn't Geat Taetwa's son. He was just Geat. It wasn't until a century later that someone decided to invent a name to give his father. Agricolae (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem really picky about this, but I will interject the point that these names are highly important in the study of philology, where patronymics and their development can assist with the study of ethnography and the migrations of peoples. The development of -son, -ov, -ing, -ung as patronymic suffixes is important for the study of family history and ancestry, especially this far back. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The only way you can use this argument to establish the notability of Godulf Geoting is if you can find a secondary source making this argument specifically with regard to Godulf Geoting, and you have not introduced such a source. Paul, do you really not understand the arguments that are being made here? You have enough edits on Wikipedia that it's hard for me to believe you are misunderstanding almost every argument that has been here and in the related AfDs. Do you genuinely not see the numerous problems that have been pointed out to you with these articles? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I am trying to make arguments Mike, but my comments are being deleted from this discussion page. This one was just cut from the discussion - "That leaves you with only four names after Woden and Stenton says five." I am not sure by who, but I cannot have this. Please investigate. Particularly Agricolae's math. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:50, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, that was just an edit conflict accident - you should understand that, having done the same thing earlier this week, so don't pretend that you haven't been able to make yourself clear because of single slip that was fixed within 9 minutes. Agricolae (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You must excuse me. I've been visiting my dying Gran in hospital today, Joan Bedson from the Guest family originally from Glamorgan area in Wales, she had some nobility in her family, a Lady of some sort. The Bedson name apparently having descended from the clan McDuff, who had a famous Earl once that knew Robert the Bruce. Irrelevant info perhaps, but highlighting the personal importance of the subject for me right now, and everyone's family trivia as a subject for which the origins of should be notable. On topic, I've sectionalised the page, redone it in light of all our discussions. Even given you some new sources to play with that generally correlate and explain some of the "assumptions" and my "extreme focus" on Genealogy Lindsey, which I propose becomes a section within Vespasian B VI according to your naming convention. Hector has a go at teaching us about the word Geat, and questions how these assumptions have happened appropriately. You're not the first to have missed the difference in the very ancient (but probably original) manuscript Stenton is discussing. I should have taken a wider view at the start before creating the article entirely focussing on that perhaps. Nevertheless, the original Lindsey names need replacing in the correct section now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have introduced Stenton, thoroughly, count his named gods, count his named kings. It's simple. As is a bit of biology. A 'name' cannot have babies, reproduce or be an ancestor, you have to be a being. All sources are very clear on this so please stop changing the subject to a name. This is not brain surgery. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 13:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It obviously isn't simple because Stenton names no gods - zero, and Stenton doesn't call them kings, and Stenton says the source gives us five names past Woden, and when one counts these after figuring out that Woden is, in fact, the person in the list named Woden and not his son, the list of five additional names ends with Geat. No, a 'name' cannot have babies, but these are made-up names, and a made-up name can be put above another made-up name in a pedigree. There is not a single source that refers to Godulf as anything but a name in a pedigree, except perhaps the speculations of Chambers who tries to equate him with a person of a distinct name in a legend about Finn. Agricolae (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Where's Woden

It is not necessary to count names.

Uinta Wodning is emphatically NOT! Woden. The -ing ending given in a pedigree format means 'son of'. Thus Uinta Wodning means Winta, son of Woden, or Winta Wodensson if you prefer.

The next name in the pedigree is Uuoden Frealafing. It is rare when something is this obvious, but what would you call the first two vowels in that name - a U, then another U. Two of them, right there in a row, doubled, doubled Us, a double U, a double-u. How else, other than two successive Us, can one write a double-u? ===> 'W'. UUoden IS Woden - it isn't just an alternative name for the god, or a nickname, or something where you have to made a deduction - in the script of the manuscript that says precisely 'Woden'. It troubles me that this has to be explained. Agricolae (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Your explanations are based on your own interpretations and assumptions. I have provided a sourced argument. Please reply using sourced content and not your own. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

My explanation is based on the English language. I am not going to provide evidence for what a double-u looks like. A minimum knowledge is necessary to conduct basic conversation, and that doesn't go so low as having to explain the letters in the language we are using. Agricolae (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

And to clarify what sources say, you claim Genealogia Lindisfarorum says Winta, Vespasian B Vi (Mercia) says Weothulgeot was the son of Woden. The Winta you claim is one Stenton desribes as the first real "King of Lindsey" that his article is primarily concerned with is Cretta Uintung (aka Creoda aka Crida aka Cryda) and his descendants. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Which means that Winta is not Woden - there you have it. For Stenton, we have talked about this before. Just because Tolkien named his book The Hobbit does not mean that every character named in it must have been a hobbit. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Now we're getting there. Stenton divides his kings into Legendary ones and non-legendary ones on the basis of royal descent (should be Godly descent) from Woden. His interpretation of Cretta Uintung as a "real" king is open to much question, through the logic we've discussed about the simple naming of his article. It is however the focus of where I should be concentrating my research to improve our coverage. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we are not getting anywhere because you are making things up again - injecting your own interpretations into Stenton's article. Agricolae (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, have a think about it. Do some numbers and you might inject the same interpretation. There is a rich history in those last names, their usage and relation to the word Folcpald that needs further looking into. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 03:56, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, your behavior on this page -- especially regarding the laughable claim that "legendary" means "appearing in a table" -- is truly appalling. Phiwum (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nennius

There are two problems with the text from Historia Brittonum. The first is that it is being misread - the text that was there read:

He tells a legend of various figures having royal descent from a mythological son of god called Godwulf of Geat, saying "In the meantime, three vessels, exiled from Germany, arrived in Britain. They were commanded by Hersa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils was the son of Witta ; Witta of Wecta ; Wecta of Woden ; Woden of Frithowald ; Frithowald of Frithuwulf ; Frithuwulf of Finn ; Finn of Godwulf ; Godwulf of Geat, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God."

This is misparsing the text - there is no Godulf of Geat, and Geat is the son of the god. Note, the meaning of the whole string is set up at the start: "They were commanded by Hersa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils was the son of Witta";... It then continues, "... Witta of Wecta; ...." This is not just a name of a man called Witta "of Wecta", dropped without context into the middle of a list, it is a continuation of what came before - Wihtgils was the son of Witta; Witta [was the son] of Wecta. The list then continues to the end, "... Godulf [was the son] of Geat, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God." It is Geat who is the son of the non-omnipotent God.

The second problem is that this pedigree directly contradicts what the article then proceeds to quote Chadwick as saying that the Historia says - that it gives Finn the father Folcwald, son of Geat. Sisam said the same thing, that Historia Brittorum calls Finn son of Folcwald. One of two things are happening here - either there are multiple copies of HB, and the ones to which Sisam and Chadwick were referring contain different information than the one being cited here (which, dating from 1848 is not exactly going to have benefited from modern scholarly analysis), or else the editor of this work has 'corrected' the pedigree based on that found in the ASC, Asser and the Anglian collection. Either way, we have a problem that needs resolved. Agricolae (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleting original text

More sourced text is going missing. Thought I'd open another discussion for Agricolae to explain why.

This time it's this bit of text:

He (Chadwick) tells a legend of various figures having royal descent from a mythological son of god called Godwulf of Geat, saying "In the meantime, three vessels, exiled from Germany, arrived in Britain. They were commanded by Hersa and Hengist, brothers, and sons of Wihtgils. Wihtgils was the son of Witta ; Witta of Wecta ; Wecta of Woden ; Woden of Frithowald ; Frithowald of Frithuwulf ; Frithuwulf of Finn ; Finn of Godwulf ; Godwulf of Geat, who, as they say, was the son of a god, not of the omnipotent God."[5]

Why are you removing the mythological legend (albeit a load of made up literary forgery) that you have been demanding of me all weekend? It's there. It's mostly a direct quote for goodness sake. The scale of what you are doing here is amazing me. All sorts of unsourced text is appearing in the article. You are going to get my article deleted by inserting all this made up baloney. This is not fair. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:11, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Already explained. And no, I am not inserting all this made-up baloney. I am taking it out and leaving what little is actually supported by the sources. (Except that last part on the Edda, where I drew directly from your source, which is made-up baloney, but made up by Snorri, and you thought it was good enough to use so you can't rightly complain.) Agricolae (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Agricolae, but if you can't argue with sourced content, there is no argument to be had. I cannot waste time arguing with someone who cannot even count up to five. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Paul, I don't even know to what you are referring here. You have built a house of cards around your own misreading of a source - two sources now, Stenton and the Historia Brittonum. I have explained that to you, for each misreading. Don't pretend that your unwillingness to hear these explanations has anything to do with math skills. Agricolae (talk) 14:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Nennius and the ASC

The addition about Nennius annotating the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle couldn't be more wrong. The source does not say that Nennius, who wrote about 830, was annotating the chronicle of 855 - he was probably already dead before that entry was ever written. The citation has given the book an incorrect title, just some name someone both clueless and lazy at Google Books decided to put on it. (This is not the first time this has come up. One needs to do more than a superficial gaze at Google Books to determine the correct bibliographical information. Getting the title right is very important, maybe not for Google Books, but for Wikipedia.) The idea itself, that Nennius placed the name Folcwald in this generation rather than Godulf, is already in the article in the next section. And to top it all off, there is a conflict already in the article where scholars are quoted as saying completely conflicting things about what Nennius said. - see the the Nennius section above on this Talk page. The text cannot remain. Agricolae (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Paul, it is not sufficient to just make it say that the ASC has been annotated with the words Nennius, Folcbald or Folcpald. It is meaningless nonsense, conveying no information whatsoever. It makes it sound like this was in a manuscript of the ASC, when it was just in the appendix to some guy's book. Agricolae (talk) 20:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of THE FULL WIKI

Seriously? You are now going to cite a Wikipedia pseudo-mirror of your own made-up information as a source for information? Stop. Just stop. Agricolae (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Godulf as a deity

He wasn't one. You don't have a single source that calls him one. Please stop making things up. Agricolae (talk) 20:26, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Price does. Tolkien can take care of the myths. Thanks for the help making him sparkle at the start. We have a really punchy, nice looking article now, it is starting to make a great read. Just need to get the factual accuracy correct on the Vespasian B VI (Lindsey) genealogical names and it'll be gtg. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:36, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Price doesn't. Price only mentions Godulf twice, and in neither instance calls him a deity. Tolkien doesn't either. The only thing this page will be any time soon is good to go away. Agricolae (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He calls every god in those lists of his "their deities". We should have pages on each one really. They all meet notability now. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't, we shouldn't and they don't. Your desire for it to be so is insufficient bases for concluding that it is. Agricolae (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

[3] Page 71. (perhaps best I speak with page numbers alone from now on to save argument). Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And nowhere on that page does he refer to Godulf as a deity, individually or collectively - in fact, his opinion was that they are real people, but then he was writing in 1871 and historians are less credulous now. Agricolae (talk) 22:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think Price's preface is prior to 1871 - see p. 8 where there is a note that the "Mr Price's Preface" is "also attached to the ed. of 1841 without any palpable improvements or changes." - Yes, looks like World Cat entry we're dealing with almost 200 year old scholarship here. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

"their" is a possessive form of the subject word "deities" applying to the object (their names in a list). Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that patronizing and incivil grammar pointer. It is too bad you didn't notice that "their" does not apply to the names in the list (although the incautious use of pronouns and adjectives in that paragraph-long sentence would make many a reader's head spin). Agricolae (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's leave aside the whole issue of the typographical conventions of a previous age... any time you encounter texts/sources with "ʃ" in place of "s" you know you're dealing with outdated scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes

The edit summary line was too short to describe, so:

Removed incorrect and unnecessarily vague information from lead, neither cited source calls him a deity from Germanic mythology; the fact that Snorri, writing 500 years later, co-opted the pedigree is no reason to be vague about its origins.

Price never talks about Godulf, so to put his discussion of other people is unnecessary, let alone in the lead.

Latham can just be summarized rather than quoted, as he basically is just giving a very long explanation of how -ing means 'son of'.

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle section had one flawed sentence (to say that a manuscript is annotated means someone wrote in the manuscript, not that someone printed it 1000 years later with this bit of text added). The other sentence had nothing to do with the Chronicle and repeats information given elsewhere, so combined with that material farther down the page.

The Prose Edda section really had nothing to do with Godulf other than to indicate that he is named. That fact could be summarized more briefly and has been consolidated with the discussion of what later sources copied the pedigrees.

An External Links section in not to include a link to any Wikis, let alone to a Wikipedia pseudo-mirror of this article that preserves material since removed from here - this is an inappropriate way to bypass Wikipedia requirements for verifiability and consensus. Agricolae (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is outrageous literary forgery. Snorri wrote Germanic mythology, Geoting is mentioned. You have erased perfectly valid philological information about the Goeting or Geating surname without cause. The greek origins are important. Price lists "Gudolff, Gudolfr, Godwulf, Foleguald and Godulf, (alias Geta)" page 71, History of English Poetry from the Twelfth to the Close of the ..., Volume 1, By Thomas Warton, Richard Price - he even calls them all "their deities" (these are direct quotes, please look them up)

Goeting simply means son of Geat - it is not helpful to talk about anyone by this name, as it gives the false impression that this expression references someone's surname. There are no Greek origins - just a Greek analogy, which means we can summarize the meaning without relating it to a language which may have been informative to an 18th century product of the British elite educational system, but has very little value to the average reader of English Wikipedia. Price summarizes the names found in different pedigree sources, that is all. And he uses the words "their deities" but is not explicitly referring to Godulf, so this is no evidence that Godulf was a god. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note that this is now a 3rd cited source disagreeing with your wild theories DIRECTLY showing you that Geata is an alias of Godulf!!!

Note that, unsurprisingly, this too is untrue. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

He further quotes that they have "been introduced into epic poetry, and represented as gods". Hence they're all mythological gods.

And he is again speaking generically and not specifically. Were he specifically referring to Godulf, then it shouldn't be a problem to find an epic poem that represents him as a god.

The external link to the full wiki was to embarass you and highlight to everyone else the scale of your POV, unsourced, factually innaccurate material and bogus arguments. You are being a massive threat to Wikipedia and this behaviour needs to stop. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And that, sir, is an admission by you to breaking Wikipedia policy intentionally. It is not OK to introduce material into an article with the sole intent of embarrassing another editor. That is a violation of WP:POINT. It is not I who would be embarrassed by a link to a bunch of fringe nonsense that has rightly been removed from the article, except that it is an embarrassment to the whole project that it was ever in the article to begin with. Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae's view; Paul, you don't have consensus to revert Agricolae. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You should also be asking for his sources Mike. Good job I have consensus to delete him then. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:28, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have some of them, and Agricolae's right. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Great, then perhaps you can tell me the book and page number and names written on Vespasian B VI (Lindsey)? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)