Talk:Langfeðgatal

Highly problematic

So we have a text of 1780, reprinted verbatim in 1801 saying that Snorri composed the Langfedgetal. But this is contradicted by the 1838 text, which treats it as a source for Snorri. The final source does not appear to support the statement it follows. Where is the notability of this, anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsmejudith (talk • contribs)

And how much of that is taken from the unreliable source The God-Kings of Europe: The Descendents of Jesus Traced Through the Odonic and Davidic Dynasties by Hugh Montgomery (whose article was recently deleted). In any case, you are right. Snorri indicates here[1] that he used the Langfedgetal, not that he wrote it. I'm tagging this for accuracy until this is sorted. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It is disconcerting that with the exception of the Montgomery writings, the most recent work to mention this is Munch, writing in 1866, and he only mentions it in a source-note. Before that all we have are passing references. This does not speak well for its notability. Agricolae (talk) 16:48, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, isn't it disconcerting that I can so easily make a very important history article we don't know what to do with. My opinions about the waffly state of our history section have been made quite clear, so I won't repeat or peacock them anymore. What is important here is the question of whether I am running around using Hugh Montgomery (Deleted historian) instead of Bo Gabriel Montgomery as a source here. Which I am not. What we have a problem here is the reliablility of the source and my use of it, which I have taken to WPRS if you want to raise any points there. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:13, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in this article has assuaged the concerns raised above. I have changed it to the redirect. Agricolae (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I would appreciate a proper redirect discussion before taking such action without any consensus. You have deleted the Chambers 1959 source (see below) that I was awaiting your replacement of, after several calls for it's replacement. I had been waiting on that before further work on the article. I am unsure how you can claim such things as "Nothing in this article..." and "No sources after 1871". Did you not check what you were deleting? There is an obvious 1959 one that is highly reliable. Could you not answer my request for this material's replacement? I will do some more work on this later with various other reliable sources for "Langfeðgatal" along with the non-Snorri Icelandic versions that will make this notable. They are more reliable than Snorri, who was a drunkard and didn't have clue what he was doing with genealogies. In the meantime, I would appreciate the undo of the redirect and replacement of deleted reliable sources mentioned below, or at least the common courtesy of discussion about them. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 11:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Snorri being a drunkard is not relevant. I have reversed the redirect per request but unless I find something more than passing references I am going to formally propose an AfD or merge. I am not entirely convinced that this is not a generic Icelandic term for a genealogy - I certainly see references that suggest this is the case. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that. I appreciate it. I'll get working tonight to incorporate lots of other new references to try and impress you. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Page name?

I continue to struggle with the notability of this article - with the exception of two fringe sources, nobody seems to have mentioned this genealogy since the 1860s, even though there has been much writing on the origins of Snorri's works and the Scandinavian genealogies since. It makes me wonder if 'Langfedgetal' has been superseded by some other name for it. Agricolae (talk) 21:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

After finding more recent mentions for Langfeðgatal, I have moved it. Agricolae (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Deletion of mankind's ancestry

Why are you trying to erase our past? I'd like to know about my history, it's yours too. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is stopping you from knowing about your history (although your own choice of reading materials does seem to be leading you in the wrong direction). However, that doesn't mean that you need to thrown your favorite bit of non-historical pseudo-genealogical trivia onto Wikipedia pages that only have the most peripheral relationship (or into pages that are related and already include the material). Agricolae (talk) 23:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

These are the real, genuine, original manuscript names. You are the one making up your own favourites. I've created Progonoplexia to help explain the importance along with a favourite quote of mine:

"You think God belongs only to you? He doesn't. God is an immortal spirit who belongs to everybody, to the whole world. You think you're special? God is not an Israelite. In the desert, the baptist warned us, God is coming. Well, I'm telling you it's too late! He's already here. I'm here! And I'm going to baptize everybody... with fire!" Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance of this as we are talking about names in a pedigree, not gods. Agricolae (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the point giving you another basic english lesson. To engage in discussion with you requires explanation of infant school concepts from plurality to the birds and the bees. You have self-confessed your mission to make Wikipedia's history section an unreliable source of information as possible, and to that intention, I can only remark that you are the disease, I am the cure. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 09:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No such self-confession has been made. Irrelevant material or material so badly formatted as to be uninterpretable does not belong on a page. Agricolae (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

See my talk page for a discussion about your usage of that statement. With regard the badly formatted material. I used your template from the Ancestry of the kings of Wessex page, so don't criticize it as my formatting. I just increased the size 6% so I could read it better. With regards it being irrelevant, I repeat my aforementioned view that history and especially mankinds earliest written records of our genealogy are some of the most important records that have ever been written. The latin "legend" we discussed earlier meaning "things to read" had an entirely different meaning in the dark ages and earlier. In Ireland, at the great Tailteann games for instance, the Ollamh Érenn would devote the entire second evening of the festival to reading out the Book of Life, with everyone's names and everyone's ancestors and everyone's tribes for reverance. We are dealing with what's left of the most ancient remnants, copies and distortions of those records in Europe, which in my opinion is one of the most important "legend"s or "things to read" that anyone can have. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Talk page shows no evidence of such a self-confession being made. The table material was badly formatted because the alignment of names in the rows was completely random. Having entries in the same row that refer to different people is confusing, and defeats the purpose of using a table as opposed to plain text. As to all the rest of this argument, were one to accept all of it (and I do not but this is not the place for that discussion), that doesn't mean that this entire body of knowledge is appropriately placed on a page about one specific Icelandic document. Agricolae (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I never told you I was quarter Irish - great-grandson of Alexander Thomas Cassidy no less, who was lost working at Thomas Cook in 1939 in Paris (possibly as a spy). He spoke five languages and was a fully trained Royal Marine, brother of James Cassidy, who also died as a Royal Marine in the British Navy. I've been told that Cassidy is an ancient name associated with the physicians of nobility in Ireland. All my cultural heritage is fascinating stuff to me but what we're talking about applies to (almost) everybody and deserves significant coverage. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, I fail to see the relevance to this specific Icelandic document. Agricolae (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

It contains the Names of God, Source Chambers, R. W., Beowulf, p. 200 & 203, Cambridge University Press, 1959, Source Thomas Warton; Richard Price (1871). History of English Poetry from the Twelfth to the Close of the Sixteenth Century: With a Pref. by Richard Price, and Notes Variorum. Edited by W. Carew Hazlitt. With New Notes and Other Additions ... With Indexes of Names and Subjects. Reeves and Turner. pp. 71–. Retrieved 27 November 2012. who millions of people are alleged to have descended from. Plus it is one of the oldest forms and sources of written history in Europe. The question really should be, why are you trying to delete it? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'it' here? Agricolae (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

All the names in the various versions of the Langfedgetal and the original names on the Anglo-Saxon genealogies that they have been compared to. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. As I explained in the edit summary, I removed the table of names from the Langfedgetal because the table was misformatted in such a manner as to make it confusing more than enlightening. The material from the Anglian collection was removed because it has no direct relevance to the Langfedgetal. More generally, Wikipedia is not a data repository. When talking about a mss, it is not common practice to reproduce the contents of the document, but instead simply to summarize what it contains and put it into perspective. Agricolae (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

And that perspective has to be WP:NPOV which I would suggest makes using the original text particularly important with historical sources. I could go on arguing about how both the sources link the two genealogies, but if you see that as a sidetrack for us, I can compromise for those names appropriately listed as alternatives on the Ancestry of the kings of Wessex and Anglo-Saxon genealogies pages, at least once. I would prefer the chart deleted from this page as it is highly important philological and historically accurate information from a period where there is very little. What is wrong with the formatting of the table. It all seems perfectly clear to me. How can we improve it to include it? Just let me know and I'll do all the work. I think the readers would all be fascinated to find out that we are all descendants and Lords of the Sif Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's more evidence establishing that link between these Scandinavian genealogies and those of the early Anglo-Saxons just appeared at Wuffingas page, for your interest. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What is this article about?

It's not at all clear to me what this article is about. Is "langfeðgatal" a common noun which can denote any royal genealogy, or is there a specific text called Langfeðgatal which relates a particular royal genealogy, that of the Danish kings? The text of this article seems to use the word both ways, but in a most unclear fashion.

The lack of clarity here makes me suspect that the creator of the article is having difficulty understanding the source material and scholarship about it.

Another problem in the article, which is another indication of lack of familiarity with this topic area on the part of the article's creator, is the reference to "Hauk" in the first paragraph. Is this Haukr Erlendsson, the author of the Hauksbók? If so, he should be referred to in a clearer way. If not, then the reference still needs to be clarified... --Akhilleus (talk) 21:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have already indicated having the same problem with it. It started out as reference to a specific document, but the last set of edits has morphed into a more generic usage. A Google search turned up the term being used to refer to an 18th century mss that as best I can tell is relating to an entirely non-royal family. The last reference currently given, Fulk, seems to translate the term simply as 'Dynastic Roll'. Poirion seems to use it both ways, once as a generic name for an enumeration of ancestors, and once as a specific item at the end of Islendingabok. Steinsland's book chapter, in ref 7, refers to Ari saying "when he with Langfeðgatal presents", which is awkward any way you read it, but could as well be using it generically. Ref 6 leads to a Google Book with no view (not even snippets), and Ref 5 to one that a search for the term turns up no matches. A broader search of my own turns up nothing that is not from the 19th century or earlier, from the fringe Montgomery books, or only mention the term it in passing (e.g. 'Ari gives this relationship in the Langfeðgatal of Islendingabok') or quotes genealogical data from it(/one of them) without description of the source. I can't find a single source that actually discusses it(/them) as a concept or specific document. As a general rule, if there isn't enough written about the term to tell if it is specific or generic, it isn't likely to be notable. (Bear in mind that this page was created for the explicit purpose[2] of making a fringe book that refers to it seem more reliable.) Agricolae (talk) 23:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I highly recommend you have a read of the book before labelling it. I am only using it as a guide with the ultimate objective of presenting the best and most reliable possible genealogical information to support historical research. There is decent coverage out there of the Scandinavian type, just mainstream academia is so many lightyears behind that it's patchy to piece back together. Some academics are getting there though. Alexander M. Bruce is having a good old go. Gudbrand Vigfusson also gives it a good consideration and pieces together his opinion that it was likely originally the work of Ari Þorgilsson that Snorri copied (in my opinion in an un-anointed, drunken stupour). Anyhow, I've rephrased the article and given it some straight, non-comparative tables. I'd quite like to make them comparative as described. Let me know what you think to that? There are more in depth studies out there, I'll have to dig them out and work on it more tomorrow now. Hopefully it'll pass for the night. Thanks for all the commentary I guess, even if this is turning into a bit of a Muppet Show, you are doing a pretty good impression of Statler and Waldorf to my Kermit the frog. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am making the argument there that the term is not "generic" but referring to different versions of a common ancestor langfedgetal that Vigfusson has defined as likely coming from Ari (or earlier). Hence I think the names should be replaced to compare different versions. Monty suggests possibly Sæmundr fróði but I need more time to see if I can source that.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you must stop being guided by these fringe authors—the ideas of this "Monty" have no foundation in real scholarship, and as a result neither do yours. Your mention of Vigfusson is no help either—he mentions Langfeðgatal only once, on p. xxx—and the text you've put into the article with this citation ("Gudbrand Vigfusson suggested that it may have been originally compiled by Ari Þorgilsson") shows that you've misunderstood what Vigfusson is saying—he says that Ari used Langfeðgatal as a source, not that Ari compiled the Langfeðgatal.

Ironically, one of the sources you've found through Google Books gives us a good understanding of what the Langfeðgatal is. The source in footnote 1, Scyld and Scef: Expanding the Analogues, gives us a decent overview of the form and content of the Langfeðgatal. Unfortunately, you seem to have missed this treatment—you've cited p. 61, but pp. 56-60 is the good part! If you had read that bit, you'd know that Langfeðgatal refers to a specific 12th century text, which influenced later works. (You seem to have an odd understanding of literary influence, though—you seem to think that a work that has been influenced by another is actually a second version of the earlier text, so that everything influenced by the Langfeðgatal is itself a Langfeðgatal.) I can see where there's some grounds for confusion, since "Langfeðgatal" seems to mean "Kings' roll" and so could be used as a generic term for royal genealogies, but it's clear that there is a specific text with this title, and that's what references to the Langfeðgatal usually denote. So I'm going to try to wrestle this into shape now.

Incidentally, if we're going to start making references to the Muppet Show, let me suggest that you're looking a bit more like the Swedish Chef than Kermit. But really, we're not putting on a variety show here—we're trying to craft an encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the term is used for both. Poirion refers to Langfedgatal (no italics) in general terms, and Langfedgatal (italics) to refer to the specific one. At least one of Paul's references also pointed to a distinct mss., and as I said, I found it used for an 18th century family tree of an Icelandic landholding family, so not just royal either. Still, I agree that most references are to the specific one. For the actual text of the document, along with the Latin translation, see [3] (p.2 in original book, xiii as Google Books numbers the page). I still don't think this source is notable enough for an article of its own. Agricolae (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree: Langfeðgatal refers to a specific text, found in AM 415, 4to (AM stands for Arnamagnæan Manuscript Collection), available here in Alfræði íslenzk III: Landalýsingar et al., starting on p. 57. (I appreciate the link you provided, Agricolae, but I had trouble finding the text there.) With no italics, and sometimes starting with a lower case l, langfeðgatal refers to a type of genealogy found in many sources. I think both uses of the term would probably pass AfD, even if we might not want them to. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Try this link [4]. Text is at bottom of page, left side, Latin right side. Image of a mss is on next page, although there is no legend so it is unclear which mss. Agricolae (talk) 06:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I already put details of that manuscript in last night but they were erased. It would make more sense if half my writing didn't keep dissappearing. Viguffson simply said that the Langfedgetal was more typical of Ari's age. That needs rephrasing. It's obvious to me that this table came from long ago (pretty obviously originating in the other genealogies mentioning Japheth in the Bible and earlier sources). The less I say about 'Mainstream (corporate) scholarship' is probably for the better, that contemptable joke is just trying to turn a profit (as always), confuddling the issue with all sorts of phoney experts 'opinions' about who originally wrote it at the expense of real scholarship such as Monty (and Chambers, possibly Bruce and Viguffson in this case) detailing all the sources for comparison to judge for ourselves. If mainstream scholarship was of any use at all, I wouldn't have to be here would I? I could be off having a family and enjoying myself instead of having to work these 18-20 hour days to save Eden. Hopefully we can piece it back into shape later:

Stofnun Árna Magnússonar Manuscrpt 415, dated shortly after 1300 CE (in Alfræði islenzk, III, Copenhagen, 1917-18, 57-8) traces a "Dynastic Roll" from Japheth, the son of Noah through Iupiter, Priami konungs, Magi, Sescef, Beðvig, Beaf, Goðvlfi to Wōden and then splits into Norwegian and Danish lines. The Norwegian line includes characters such as Ynguifraeyr and Iorvndr. The Danish line included Friðfroðe and ends with Sigvrðr Hringr, Ragnar Loðbrok and Ha'rða Knvtr.[7]

Since Wikipedia is supposed to be based on mainstream scholarship—this is the whole point of policies like WP:NPOV and WP:V—you should probably find another venue in which to save Eden. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Saving Eden will be done when I go and buy it. The venue is a hilltop in the middle of the Aaiha plain after the Syrian Civil War. In the meantime, I suggest the concept of evolution encountered similar problems entering the encyclopedia because Darwin was a bit too good at that. I can assure you however that I am reflecting what mainstream scholarship is saying about such things as Scandinavian genealogies that go back to Adam and Eve, Noah, Beawulf, Scef or whoever. Along with being a valuable study aid for history, these things are of inherrent psychological benefit to people, it gives a sense of heritage and distinguishment and belonging to a culture with ancient leaders, some with nice moral stories, some they'd never heard of. I'm representing a specialist set of knowledge, no doubt, but only reflecting it through mainstream sources (hence the Muppet show analogy - Hurdy Gurdy). The material compiled has not had a question asked about the reliablity of sources, simply making sense and good order of them all and their various usages of the word "langfedgetal" in all it's numerous incarnations and variations. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 19:36, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Again the misunderstanding of the appropriate role of an editor. It is not to 'make sense and good order' of 'various usages . . . in all its numerous incarnations and variations'. That is WP:SYNTH. An editor is to summarize the writings of scholars who have made sense and good order out of such chaos, not do it themselves. Agricolae (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

From my first forray into the available sources. We have agreed that the "Icelandic" langfedgetal that the most are referring to is the Arnamagnæan Manuscript Collection 415 that my assistant --Akhilleus has so graciously expounded upon (My Stofnun Árna Magnússonar Manuscrpt 415). I also like Akhilleus terminology; that it has become adopted as a "type of genealogy found in many sources". I think it is fair to give significant coverage to the various editions and sources in which it has been used, it expands the content elsewhere too as part of all the other books langfedgetals have formed part of as a literary component. As I have demonstrated, I am only taking baby-steps, putting up non-comparative versions of Langbek's version to summarise the topic. This is very far from WP:SYNTH. I will focus my research to find improved scholarly coverage and comparative sources about langfedgetals following your advice before putting anything out there too quickly however. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is fair only to give significant coverage to whatever aspects of this text that reliable sources have given to it. Giving "significant coverage to the various editions and sources in which it has been used" is SYNTH unless you have a secondary source that does that explicitly. Your statement that you want to expand "the content elsewhere too as part of all the other books langfedgetals have formed part of as a literary component" is also SYNTH, unless you have a secondary source that tells us AM 415 is a "component" of other literary works. (It would help if you understood the difference between a text influencing another and a text being a part of another.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

nothing but a recapitulation of the primary data from a textual appendix - not based on scholarly summary

A section of information detailing important information about how the Langfedgetal details Norwegian line. This is vitally important to sort out the Sigurd Hring problem. I am unsure as to why this information is any different to the primary data from textual appenices on Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies and numerous other articles throughout Wikipedia. More explanation for this deletion is required. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

It is also vitally important to sort out the [[Sigurd Hring}] problem. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:34, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If it was all that important, a scholar would have discussed it, it would be easy to find and cite, and we wouldn't be having this discussion. There is noting vital about Sigurd Ring that this pedigree is going to help. Why is the information here different? I have said this before, but apparently you are again playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. All of the tables in Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies are illustrating direct comparisons and alignments made in the cited analysis - they are not drawn from the primary record at all, they are from the author's discussion. The material here was deleted because the cited source did not describe the pedigree in the way it was summarized here. Rather, the material was drawn from the primary data and described directly, based on one Wikipedia editor's opinion of which the important names are. It was OR, so it was deleted. How do I know that's what was done? Because there is something in what was deleted that shows a lack of understanding for what is in that pedigree. It is an obvious tip-off that this is being lifted without the benefit of relying on someone with even minimal competence. Even before I followed the citation and found it pointing to the documentary appendix I knew. That is why, again and again, we keep ending up in the same place - enthusiasm outstripping expertise, and that is why editors aren't supposed to rely on expertise, except in so much as is necessary to correctly interpret a scholarly analysis, not to do their own scholarly analysis. Agricolae (talk) 10:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

The Chambers tables illustrate direct comparisons and alignments made in the cited analysis. I have asked to use them comparitively above and am still awaiting a reply on that. If a comparative table is better, I will add one tonight. The pedigree was described as cited in the source as a "Dynastic Roll" and gave the name and details of the manuscript. This is basic coverage of the topic, scholarly analysis cannot be done without any material to analyse. The analysis given is clear regarding the splitting of Norwegian and Danish lines. This makes the article 'factually innaccurate' again. The choice of names is the only thing you are suggesting is 'my interpretation', which it is not. It is simply a reflection of some of the names in the langfedgetal to give appropriate coverage. I am not concerned which names and have no interest or personal interpretation to put over. You are merely assuming that. I just want to put across a decent reflection of what the langfedgetal is. Please replace so I can get on with the scholarly analysis and explaining how all this affects Sigurd Ring. With regards minimal competence, I cannot begin discussing that without all the sources in place. To do so would be completely incompetent. If you like I can do tonight, but as you suggest, import the entire table without any interpretation at all.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 10:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Again missing the point - I am not suggesting that you do scholarly analysis and faulting you for not doing it. I am explaining why you aren't supposed to and why the fact that you are trying is a bad thing. You feel the need to talk about something specific, when the scholars which should serve as the basis for this decision have had no such compulsion. Take your guidance from them. Sources aren't ways to support the analysis you want to write on Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia pages are the way to summarize the the analysis given in the sources. When one decides to create a page on something nobody really talks about, then it is unlikely to be more than a stub, because there is no WP:RS discussion to summarize. That is part of the reason notability standards are a good idea - they avoid creation of articles on things about which almost nothing legitimate can be said. The emptiness of such articles feed a compulsion to synthesize every single instance that the term is mentioned by any scholar when collectively they say nothing of value (Wikipedia writing by Google snippet - this is part of the problem with several of the articles that have been removed after your use of this approach), or worse, to fill the space with one's own analysis. Agricolae (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not missing the point, I want to relate that scholars have discussed the branching of the Langfedgetal into Norwegian and Danish branches, whilst providing a table of the langfedgetal as several have done to show readers what it is, and who it names. Over ten reliable scholars so far have talked about it, and many more too I can find, especially if I go foreign language. None of them so far have been snippets in this article. There are plenty of WP:RS discussing it. All are highly valuable showing the development and usage of the langfedgetal in other sources from Haukr to Ari. Question is how can we reflect this legitimate info according to whatever standards you are working to? Also, if you can leave out this business about me not doing it the correct way. You are fully aware that I have the best source book available, and that you have censored it, necessitating me to do it this way around. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 15:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Censorship now? For anyone who doesn't like Wikipedia's requirement that sources used be reliable, there is a whole internet out there, and web space is quite inexpensive. And out there one can 'do it' however one wants. If one wants to 'do it' on Wikipedia, then both 'it' and the manner in which 'it' is 'done' need to be compatible with Wikipedia policy. Setting a goal of getting a specific set of genealogical data onto Wikipedia then stumbling around in search of a way to do it is not consistent with those policies, and wastes everyone's time cleaning up the mess left in the wake. Agricolae (talk) 16:54, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not seeking to put any "specific set" of genealogical data on Wikipedia. I am trying to expand Wikipedia's sources of history and genealogy generally. Now I could go on arguing about how there are 5 million people in Norway, all having lots of conversations about their kings. I went to Oslo once and walked up to the palace, thought "Vikings were here!" and that I'd like to know a bit more about them. I could even suggest a hint of a systemic anti-European bias in statements suggesting "nobody really talks about" Norway's kings. I'll take your advice though, and more particularly Akhilleus' and use the Bruce source to piece it back together more in line with policy. Then expand to the books langfedgetals feature in and get them straight. Hopefully with as little mess as possible. Paul Daniel Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:40, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for raw genealogical data, or for complete transcripts of medieval manuscripts for that matter.

The langfedgatal has been removed again with the reason given above. Firstly, the data was not "raw", it had been translated to English by Bruce. Secondly, it was not "complete". The primary line, and the Norwegian branch are missing. I would either like it replaced, or all other similar lists of genealogical data removed from Wikipedia. I could list the pages that this would affect, but that would be very long and tedious. Look here List of family trees. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be replaced. Paul, please try to understand that you are not going to win consensus for putting a chart of the genealogy from AM 415 in this article, nor are you going to win consensus for putting some sort of comparative genealogical chart in this article. In fact, since you've aroused suspicions that your current project is to insert fringe analysis of Anglo-Saxon and Nordic genealogy into Wikipedia wherever you can, you are unlikely to win consensus for putting genealogical charts in *any article*. So please stop wasting our time with further attempts.

If you want to go around campaigning to have other genealogical lists removed, kudos to you. There are way too many lists in Wikipedia articles, and way too many editors who think making lists passes for analysis. Do bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, though. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(e/c) It is raw data, transcribed, translated or whatever. The Wikipedia page on the Magna Carta does not give the text of the Magna Carta, in the original language or in modern English. It describes it. The page for the Orygynale Cronykil of Scotland does not give the text of the chronicle, it describes it. That is how we treat most ancient documentary sources. As to removing genealogical material, there are certainly pages where that should be done - too many people use Wikipedia as a personal website to propagate their ancestor-worship. There are also, though, pages that are inherently genealogical in nature, or where genealogical material is deemed necessary for context. In both cases, the genealogical data provided should reflect what scholars studying the question have considered noteworthy - it should represent the genealogies they themselves have presented in contextualizing the topic, and not just genealogy for genealogy sake, or because we can. One shouldn't give an entire genealogical descent from a medieval manuscript just because of a deeply held desire that the information to be on Wikipedia somewhere. Agricolae (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, in that case, judging by these arguments, I suggest we remove the genealogical data from Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies immediately, for starters. There is no difference between this and that (apart from something to do with race). The table clearly reflects what Bruce and other scholars consider noteworthy are saying about it. Without the table, the commentary doesn't make much sense to a reader. It also helps negate the woden-centricity and POV of the ASRG page by at least giving people the option of considering their descent from Thor. And I am not promoting "ancestor worship", how very voodoo. Genealogy is an auxilliary science of history, as I have pointed out, along with numismatics and philology, etc. and should be encouraged as a valid and valuable field of study. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

More IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It grows tedious. Agricolae (talk) 08:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

More preferential treatment of one race over another is what is growing tedious. I thought this disgusting sort of POV should have died out long ago. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 12:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Wild charges of racism aren't helping, Paul. Try to pay attention to the substantive issues at hand—which boil down to the fact that what you want to do with this article isn't in line with Wikipedia's policies or scholarship on the topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing wild about these charges my friend. At least you have a respectable reply regarding the equal deletion of other material. As for the editor deleting key elements of Greek identity and displaying overt bias for Anglo-Saxons over Scandinavians. All I can say is "Who do you think you are kidding Mr. Agricolae?" Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

more confusion between specific/generic

This article is (I thought) about a specific passage of text, found in one particular manuscript. So there's no reason to have a link to the Wikisource text of the Eddas: those are different texts than the one covered in this article.

Similarly, a paragraph about langfeðgatal and other forms of genealogy came to form a literary genre are confusing a general type with the specific text under discussion. So I've removed that paragraph. It might be useful for this article to mention that this text is an example of a type of genealogy that's found in other texts, but the paragraph was written in such a way that the distinction between this text and the genre was unclear. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

The original Langfedgatal has grown over 8 centuries to become "a literary genre of itself". Pretty easy to understand if you ask me. I have provided half a dozen citations showing it and have moved off to other genealogies referred to as Langfedgatals in later times, such as in the Islendingabok. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold up, you already pointed this out earlier in the conversation above. Howcome it's less clear now for you that 2 days ago? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are requesting a re-write, which is ok. I'll do that later. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 14:40, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not just a rewrite, a reconceptualization. Thinking of the Langfeðgatal as the originator of a literary genre is a mistake. Thinking of this variety of genealogy as a genre, of which the text called Langfeðgatal is one example, is ok—but notice that none of the citations of langfeðgatal as a genre mention AM 415. So the connection between the text that is the subject of this article and the general type, no matter how logical it might seem to us, is WP:OR, and shouldn't be put into the article without a source that makes the connection explicitly and clearly. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I feel we are thinking along the same lines here and I appreciate your input greatly. It's occurred to me today that Scandinavian royal genealogies might be the best place to put this, before I go running off making a load of pages about áttvísi, Mannfræði Ættartölur, etc. Your thoughts on that would be of interest. I still think Bruce's langfedgatal has use, perhaps on the Yngling page. More sources on the generic usage of the word would be nice. I'll see what else I can turn up. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 18:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Comparative Table

Here's what a comparative table could look like if the Langfedgatal is added to other Scnadinavian genealogies on the Yngling page fyi. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

Beowulf eighth c.-tenth c. Ynglingatal late ninth c. Íslendingabók early twelfth c. Langfeðgatal twelfth c. Historia Norvegiæ late twelfth c. Ynglinga saga c. 1225 Hversu Noregr byggðist 1387 Thor Burri Hloritha Burr Einrid Óðinn Ásakonungr Yngvi Tyrkjakonungr Vingethor Ingui Freyr Njörðr Svíakonungr Vingener Neorth Njörðr Njörðr Freyr Moda Froyr Yngvifreyr Freyr Fjölnir Fjölnir Magi Fiolnir Fjölnir Fjölnir Sveigðir Svegðir Seskef or Sescef Swegthir Svegðir Sveigðir Vanlandi Vanlandi Beduig Wanlanda Vanlandi Vanlandi Vísburr Visburr Athra Wisbur Vísburr Vísburr Dómaldi Dómaldr Itermann Domald Dómaldi Dómaldr Dómarr Dómarr Heremot Domar Dómarr Dómarr Dyggvi Dyggvi Scealdna Dyggui Dyggvi Dyggvi/Tryggvi Dagr Spaka Dagr Beaf Dagr Dagr Spaka Dagr Agni Alrekr Eatus Alricr Agni Agni Skjálfarbóndi Alrekr and Eiríkr Agni Godulf Hogni Alrekr and Eiríkr Alrekr Yngvi and Álfr Yngvi Finn Ingialdr Yngvi and Álfr Yngvi Jörundr Jörundr Freealaf Jorundr Jörundr and Eiríkr Jörmunfróði/Jörundr Aun Aun inn gamli Voden, whom we call Odin He was King of the Turks. He fled hither to the north because of the Romans. Auchun Aun hinn gamli Aunn inn gamli Ongenþeow Egill Egill Vendilkráka His son Skiold Eigil Vendilcraca Egill Tunnudólgr Egill Tunnadólgr Ohthere and Onela Óttarr Óttarr His son Fridleif Ottarus Óttarr Vendilkráka Óttarr Vendilskráka Eadgils and Eanmund Aðils Aðísl at Uppsölum His son Frode the Peacemaking Adils/Athisl Aðils Aðils at Uppsölum Eysteinn Eysteinn His son Fridleif Eustein Eysteinn Eysteinn Yngvarr Yngvarr His son Havar the Strong in Hand Ynguar Yngvarr Yngvarr inn hári Önundr Braut-Önundr Frode Broutonundr Brautönundr Braut-Önundr Ingjaldr Ingjaldr inn illráði Varmund the Wise Ingialdr Ingjaldr hinn illráði Ingjaldr inn illráði Óláfr Óláfr trételgja Olaf the Gentle Olavus tretelgia Óláfr trételgja Ólafr trételgja Hálfdan Hálfdan hvítbeinn Upplendingakonungr Dan the Magnanimous (or "proud") Halfdan hwitbein Hálfdan hvítbeinn Hálfdan hvítbeinn Eysteinn Eustein Eysteinn Eysteinn Hálfdan Halfdan Hálfdan hinn mildi Hálfdan inn mildi Guðröðr Goðröðr Guthrodr Guðröðr veiðikonungr Guðröðr veiðikonungr Ólafr Óláfr Halfdan Niger Ólafr Hálfdan svarti Rögnvaldr Helgi Harald "The most fair" Haraldus Rögnvaldr heiðum hæra Haraldr inn hárfagri

Given that the names in Langfeðgatal have precisely zero in common with any of the other genealogies given, what exactly is the point of a comparative table when there is nothing to compare? Please quit trying to force these data onto pages. Agricolae (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

If, like Sturlson, you cannot read Latin and have a poor understanding of the differences between European language branches, making any sort of comparison may be difficult for you. This however may not apply to everybody. I am not trying to force anything, just putting it out there for discussion where/how/what is the best place for this important information that history has been compiled with. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Shoehorning these names into the middle of a table dealing with an entirely unrelated pedigree is all kinds of inappropriate. You are pounding a round peg into a square hole. Concluding that a particular set of names is important is not something that falls within the role of an editor - Wikipedia leaves such conclusions to scholars. To try to find a home for some orphaned primary data is not how the editing process is supposed to work. An editor should start from the scholarly work and summarize it, not start from what they decide should be on a page and then try to decorate it with barely-relevant scholarship to try to justify its presence. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, Paul, can *you* read Latin? More to the point, can you read Danish, which seems to be the language Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder is written in? You cited this source in this edit (and also in the talk page section below). Can you provide some quotes from that source to show how it supports the material you put in the article? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I have five years training and earnt a certificate in Latin which included translating the Aenid and the Illyad. Once upon a time, in the days before Eden, I was a north European sales manager for Peer Information (now Wrox Press) and travelled widely around Scandinavia picking up the basics of the North Germanic languages. I have to admit that my Finnish and Icelandic are a bit sketchy, particularly Finnish I struggle with. I'll look further into the source you suggest though and see what I can come up with to improve the article. Thanks. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, Paul, so where are the quotes from Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder? Also, I'm a bit puzzled by what you say about the Latin—although the Aeneid is in Latin, the Iliad is in Greek. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It was the Ilias Latina (Latin Iliad), my Greek isn't that great, although I know a few words, here and there and I still keep up with my latin. As for quotes, sorry if I cannot jump up and speak in tongues at you, but my Danish is a bit basic and I wouldn't want to put anything out there that hasn't been backed up by a qualified translator better than I. If it were French, German or Dutch I'd feel more competent. The important thing that Halverson defines in the encylcopedia is that Langfedgatal's are a particular type of genealogical literary genre that trace descent from 1) Christian and 2) Classical forebears to 3) Odin and onwards. This is a distinctly different genre from the Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies which trace descent from Odin or Geat, and that is the information I think we should present appropriately. What I can do is quote what secondary sources have said after translation more reliably, such as at one backing up the above information at [5]. Also the discussion on p. 312 of the 1965 source is referenced here,[6] dicussing Trór (Thor) having derivation from Troy or Trojans and equalling Þórr, which in the process of someone taking the T to a Þ to a B appears to have ended up with Burri at the top of the comparatvie table above instead of Thor. European Royal descent from Mighty Thor is surely something that readers should find of interest requiring discussion. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 21:26, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally found a much better source from Anthony Faulkes in English that we can re-compose this article based on. Check out [7] - it's a lot easier for me than the Danish. It gives details of the development of langfedgatals from poetic forms, discussed the various sections of it and compares with Welsh genealogies that show certain similarities. There is lots more I would like to edit back into a re-conceptualized article based on this in depth and scholarly study.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want a quote, here's one from Faulkes regarding it's general designation as a genealogy that links to classical and Biblical sources - "The two links between Celius and Zechim, Cretus and Ciprus (or Ciprius) also appear in some thirteenth century Welsh genealogies, where the whole line from Saturn back to Adam appears similar to the Icelandic langfedgatal". Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 02:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You can't write a page saying X means Y simply because that is how you interpret somebody's use of the word in a sentence. You need a source that explicitly says "X means Y". Agricolae (talk) 03:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Which is why the article in Kulturhistorisk leksikon for nordisk middelalder would be good—it seems to be about langfeðgatal in general, and as an encyclopedia article would be a good model for us here. It's distressing that Paul cited it but is unwilling to translate because he feels his Danish isn't up to it—if that's so, why cite it in the first place? I don't cite articles in languages I can't read well, because I can't truly say that I understood the material well enough to give an accurate summary.

I like the Faulkes article, but I don't think it's adequate grounds to write a Wikipedia article. Especially since the text that Paul is proposing quickly takes us out of the scope of genealogies focused on male lineage, which seems to be the etymological meaning of langfeðgatal, into meditations on genealogies more generally. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The male lineage is an obvious characteristic of this type of genealogy. Only the Picts have records of matrilineal descent as far as I have noted. The distinction of the Langfedgatal is that is it a "Langfedgatal from" someone classical or Christian. This distinction is made by Kålund in his publication of AM 415 [8] where he denotes "Langfedgatal fra Noa", "F. Troes", "F. Priami". You'll see that the "F"s run out after the classical ancestors. This is in line with the section in Faulkes that deals with the development of the Langfedgatals. This source [9] describes four different types of Langfedgatal, the one from Noah being the "father" list of which others are part. Langfegatal fra noa til varra konunga (from Noah to Harald Fairhair and to Sigurd Orm and Horda Knute), Langfedgatal Noregs konunga (Norwegian kings) (from Ragner Lothbrok to Hakon Magnusson), Langfedgatal Dana konunga (Danish kings) (from Ragnarr Lothbrok to Erikr Eriksson (Menved)), Langfegatal Svia konunga (Swedish kings) (from Ragnar Lothbrok to Birgir Magnusson). I think this is how we should craft the article and am still researching to provide the best sources and material for the best explanation. Langfedgatal as best I can translate it literally means "long list from figures", by figures, it means from classical or Christian as defined by Halvorsen.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nothing in Wikipedia is obvious, or rather, editors don't get to decide what is and is not obvious. Further, that a Langfeðgatal is defined by male-line descent is contradicted by this very manuscript, which involves a female linkage (between Priam and Thor). Those four 'types' of langfeðgatal are nothing of the sort - this is a listing of the contents of mss AM 414. It is not a discussion of a genre, nor does it have anything to do with types of anything. "This manuscript has 13 sections, which are. . . ." That's all that source is saying. It is deeply disturbing that the suggestion would be made to reorganize this article around a categorization that nobody has ever used. The gulf between what the sources are claimed to say and what they actually say is astounding, and so I, for one, have little faith that you are conveying Halvorsen's interpretation accurately. Agricolae (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about that female linkage between Priam and Thor being an important component part. I think we should convey Faulkes English interpretation as I agree that my conveyance of interpretation of Halvorsen may be prone to innaccuracies. This is why I am suggesting a revision based on Faulkes discussion of the development of the Langfedgatal. Page 16 of his article makes the most interesting reading showing how the notability of the langfedgatal developed from the prologue of the Snorra Edda, introduced figures from Troy. A later reviser added ancestors from Priam to Saturn. Another late 13th century "unknown genealogist" added "apocryphal pseudo-classical names from an unknown source that was also known to Welsh writers liking Saturn's father Celus/Celius to the descendants of Japhet in Genesis, thus taking the line right back to Adam. Final versions thus included names from the Bible and classical mythology and legend, as well as the names from Germanic (Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse) historical and mythological traditions". AM 415 is a seperate issue here. It would seem that Faulkes has not identified this as 12th century, as Bruce has. Faulkes suggests that the "Uppsala Manuscript" is the oldest form, which I have not been able to identify. It might be the [10] which we need a page on, but I am not sure it is the same MS. I'm not sure that's really important anyhow, AM 415 is discussed by Faulkes as a Langfedgatal, even if he wasn't aware of it's dating and placement in the development of the genre, which is open to speculation. We should really be going with Faulkes definition in terms of a literary genre that has development phases requiring coverage. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This, all this, is why it was all a bad idea from the start. If a term is not broadly enough described, such that you have to read tea leafs and flip coins to decide which one single author best represents the 'real' meaning of a word, then there is no way forward consistent with Wikipedia policy. We shouldn't make such decisions and we shouldn't have to make such decisions. "It's this, oh, wait, no, it's that" is a bad way to go about writing an article. Agricolae (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

True, more research and preparation could have gone into writing an article on a complex subject we don't have much coverage on. Lessons learnt. I still think that Faulkes analysis of it as a literary genre with development stages is the most advanced and detailed and is compatible with Bruce, who gives a more detailed account of AM 415 in particular. This should be the direction to present a balanced article. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In absence of further discussion, I've had another go at getting it right along the lines mentioned after boosting Anthony Faulkes profile as an expert over at the Prose Edda page. It is still doesn't flow very well, so I propose to continue working on it (or please be my guest and try and improve). Let me know if there are any problems or questions. Also, can we put the comparative table in please? Perhaps if I say pretty please with a spiced Christmas cherry on top? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As a sidenote, I have made a translation of the French Manuscripts of the Prose Edda page, that might help understanding of this sort of material. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:59, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, you're not *really* trying to reach consensus here, are you? Because it should already be crystal clear to you that neither I nor Agricolae think the table is appropriate here nor anywhere else. It should also be clear that neither I nor Agricolae agree with your changing the subject of the article from a specific genealogy contained in one manuscript to a type of genealogy found in many sources, yet you've gone ahead and done it anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Langfeðgatalí

I have come up with the following text to explain the differences between Scandinavian royal genealogies and literary genres and the use of the generic, non-italic, Langfeðgatal that I am suggesting realy needs a seperate article. Constructive comments and suggestions always welcome.

Langfeðgatalí' is an Icelandic word that was used by Snorri Sturlson in his preface (or prologus) to the Heimskringla. In the English version it is translated as "ancient family registers" or "ancestral lists" descending from one's Langfeðgar or ancestors on the father's side. Along with Langfedgetalí, Snorri stated that he had used kynslóir or "kin-lines" and poetry to compile the history of Norwegian kings. Eynvind Fjeld Halvorsen suggested that langfegatal was a specific type of genealogical text that traced ancestry to classical and Christian forefathers such as Noah, Adam, or Trojan kings and princes, along with Odin. Gabriel Turville-Petre suggested a similar literary genre known as Áttvísi likely constituted a form of narrative prose that included a short Ættartölur found in earlier sources. Joan Turville-Petre noted that the Lǫgsǫgumannatal or "list of lawspeakers" was another tradition that conceptualized history using periodization and became a component part of historical narratives. Jón Helgason discussed another related term, Mannfræði as "historical lore" fitting amongst other genres of sagas and laws. Judy Quinn suggested that the specific textual significance of genealogical literary genres such as Langfeðgatal, Lǫgsǫgumannatal, Ættartölur, Mannfræði, Áttvísi and Kynsló is open to speculation.

Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Page move request back to Langfedgatal

Langfedgatal gets 2700 hits in a google books search, Langfeðgatal gets 87. The topic is clearly defined now as a broad one so I'd like to propose a move back to the spelling without the foreign language character. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 01:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean 'back'? It was never Langfedgatal. Agricolae (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The page started at Langfethgetal. The results of a Google Books search for "langfethgatal" turn up results both for the specific text and the type of genealogy. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed it did. Almost nobody but the Montgomery twins had used that spelling since the 19th century. It took me a lot of digging before I figured out what the real spelling was. As to 'langfeðgatal' vs 'langfedgatal', the Google Books results are not as straightforward as Paul presents them. I looked at the first 20 matches for 'langfedgatal'. Of these 20, 1 has no preview or snippet view, 15 are more than a century old and hence don't represent modern scholarly practice (and likewise, predate modern digital typography, where putting a 'ð' into text is as easy as a couple of keystrokes), and the remaining 4 of them (every single one of the recent ones that can be viewed) actually say langfeðgatal in the text, but they have been mis-parsed by Google Books (or else Google Books has intentionally double-indexed the word). If this is indicative of a broader pattern, then the page should not be moved. A redirect would be a good idea, though. Agricolae (talk) 08:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have now done the complete analysis. Search Google Books for langfedgatal, and you (or at least I) get about 896 matches. Sort by date, and (eliminating duplicates and reprints), all but 17 predate 1924. 6 of the recent ones are not in English so are no indication of modern English-language usage. Of the 11 that remain, 2 are not viewable on the relevant page. The remaining 9 all have "langfeðgatal" in the original text. Langfeðgatal it is. Agricolae (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Good researching and reasoning in the face of very deceptive search results. I concede that it's better left where it is. It goes better with correct pronunciation too.Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 00:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Revert

It's tiresome to have to revert edits which surely consumed a great deal of ingenuity and energy. But Paul cannot say he wasn't warned. I've reverted the change of the subject of this article from a passage in a particular medieval Icelandic manuscript to a general article about genealogy. The basic reason is because the sources Paul is citing don't support his edits.

One example: Paul's most recent version has as its second sentence "Icelandic genealogy such as langfedgatal have been described as "a literary genre of itself." The citation is to Judith Jesch (2002). The Scandinavians: From the Vendel Period to the Tenth Century. Boydell Press. pp. 103–. ISBN 978-0-85115-867-9. Retrieved 13 December 2012.; the text there is "Genealogies even came to constitute a literary genre of itself called áttvísi, mannfraði, or langfeðgatal". Other kinds of genealogies are covered in the ensuing sentences of Jesch's text. This is not a source that calls langfeðgatal a literary genre; rather, langfeðgatal is one label for a literary genre--genealogy. Paul wants to write an article about Scandinavian royal genealogy, not about langfeðgatal. This misunderstanding of article scope is unfortunately common among editors who want to push non-mainstream theories into Wikipedia articles.

I note that the first citation in the version of the article I reverted is to Halvorsen's article in Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk Middelalder, a source from which Paul has declined to provide quotes, on the grounds that his Danish isn't strong enough. If we can't verify that the cited source supports the text in the article it shouldn't be used. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Kulturhistorisk Leksikon for Nordisk Middelalder quote in the lede is double backed by another source quoting it, as previously pointed out:

• Quinn, Judy., From orality to literacy in medieval Iceland, p. 46-47 in Margaret Cluneis Ross (ed.) Old Icelandic Literature and Society, Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• Which says, and I quote, "in texts of the twelfth century and later it appears to have been combined with the learned European fashion for tracing lineage back to Christian and classical forebears, such as Adam, Noah or the Trojan King Priam (Halvorsen 1965). An example of of genealogical text, or langfegatal, is found in the second appendix to Islendingabok." - so clearly not referring to AM 415.

Anthony Faulkes, along with the majority of sources support a generic terminology. Directly quote Jesch, or leave her out if necessary, but we are clearly representing the wrong information here. I will happily create a whole bunch of articles on all the other forms of Scandinavian genealogy with the correct information if that is what you wish. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 07:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not reassuring that a source in a foreign language is used if your command of that language isn't sufficient to provide quotes. I can read Danish, but I do not have access to KLNM. If it's any help, please feel free not quote the relevant passage verbatim in Danish here, and I'll try to make a translation for you. As Akhilleus writes, it shouldn't be used if it can't be verified. Other sources citing Halvorsen is not sufficient for us to cite Halvorsen. Finn Rindahl (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay well, seeing as how I can't get to the library before Christmas, let's quote from Judy Quinn. It's more up to date than KLNM and presents the mainstream, english language, Cambridge University definition. Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 20:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, let's see. The citation to Quinn that you've put in the article doesn't have a page number, and links to a copy of the book on scribd, which likely posted its copy of Old Icelandic Literature and Society in violation of copyright. The only relevant text in that book seems to be: "Snorri states that his history of the kings of Norway,stretching back into legendary time, is based on genealogical material—kynsló…ir (`kin-lines'), langfe…ðgatal (`ancestral lists')—and poetry (A…al-bjarnarson 1979: I 3–4). Although the precise textual significations of áttvísi, mannfrœ…i, kynslóir and langfe…ðgatal are open to speculation, it is clear that they all enunciate enealogical information of some kind." I can't see how a quote that says the meaning of langfe…ðgatal is "open to speculation" provides a foundation for this article. Perhaps I missed something? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I see that the citation actually had a page number, and I missed some relevant text above the passage I quoted. But this doesn't alter my point—Quinn doesn't provide a definition of langfeðgatal upon which this article can be founded. I'll try to rewrite the article soon to reflect what the sources I have access to say, but if anyone who reads Danish can get the Halvorsen article, that would be most helpful. (It seems that Paul will not be able to assist us, however, since he has been blocked from editing Wikipedia.) --Akhilleus (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Langfeðgatal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130412173927/http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf to http://www.vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Saga-Book%20XXIX.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)