| Revision as of 23:12, 27 November 2012 editAgricolae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,009 edits →Misleading verses Original Text: misleading and redundant← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:16, 28 November 2012 edit undoAgricolae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers31,009 edits →Misleading verses Original Text: not there, thornsNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| ::The true text is misleading and unnecessary! This does not begin resolving or explaining the question of disputed factual accuracy on this page, it doesn't even start... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml; font-family: Verdana;">] ❉]❉</span> 22:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | ::The true text is misleading and unnecessary! This does not begin resolving or explaining the question of disputed factual accuracy on this page, it doesn't even start... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em; class=texhtml; font-family: Verdana;">] ❉]❉</span> 22:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Paul, you are being less than honest again. This article is about a body of genealogical material that includes the Anglian collection, Bede, Nennius, AEthelweard, the Chronicle and an Essex pedigree of unknown derivation. To insert text that there is an 'original source' for this body of material, some of which predates, some of which is completely independent of, and some of which shares a common source with but is not derived from your favorite source, is what is misleading. The list of names is not misleading - it is simply an unnecessary duplication, as the names in the different manuscripts are already summarized in the existing text and thus a second accounting of the same information is redundant. ] (]) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | :Paul, you are being less than honest again. This article is about a body of genealogical material that includes the Anglian collection, Bede, Nennius, AEthelweard, the Chronicle and an Essex pedigree of unknown derivation. To insert text that there is an 'original source' for this body of material, some of which predates, some of which is completely independent of, and some of which shares a common source with but is not derived from your favorite source, is what is misleading. The list of names is not misleading - it is simply an unnecessary duplication, as the names in the different manuscripts are already summarized in the existing text and thus a second accounting of the same information is redundant. ] (]) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::Oh, and Paul, the source you have cited for the names does not contain that information, and those bs you are putting in the middle of the names aren't bs, they are ]. ] (]) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:16, 28 November 2012
 | The contents of the Ancestry of the kings of Wessex page were merged into Anglo-Saxon royal genealogies on 25 November 2012. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
please remove the links that redirect the user back to this page. it is quite annoying.
Merger
I have merged much text from Ancestry of the kings of Wessex into this page. Please see Talk:Ancestry of the kings of Wessex#Different merger for my rationale. Agricolae (talk) 02:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Misleading verses Original Text
The original text of the genealogies has been removed as misleading. Why is this? Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The table was unnecessary detail and does not belong in this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The true text is misleading and unnecessary! This does not begin resolving or explaining the question of disputed factual accuracy on this page, it doesn't even start... Paul Bedson ❉talk❉ 22:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Paul, you are being less than honest again. This article is about a body of genealogical material that includes the Anglian collection, Bede, Nennius, AEthelweard, the Chronicle and an Essex pedigree of unknown derivation. To insert text that there is an 'original source' for this body of material, some of which predates, some of which is completely independent of, and some of which shares a common source with but is not derived from your favorite source, is what is misleading. The list of names is not misleading - it is simply an unnecessary duplication, as the names in the different manuscripts are already summarized in the existing text and thus a second accounting of the same information is redundant. Agricolae (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and Paul, the source you have cited for the names does not contain that information, and those bs you are putting in the middle of the names aren't bs, they are thorns. Agricolae (talk) 03:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)