Talk:Glastening

Sources

There are several unreliable sources being used for this article. Celtnet is one. I've removed the occult writer Nigel Pennick. Historyfiles is another. I'm not sure about David Ford's site. Raex.com isn't an RS either. I'm basing this on WP:RS. Doug Weller (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Celtnet and Raex.com removed (plus isleofavalon in the 'see also' section) and replaced where better sources available. I've noticed Historyfiles is referenced at least 62 times in Wikipedia with reference to kings already, in which case the website is viewed by many as being generally regarded as trustworthy. Similarly David Nash Ford's Early British Kingdoms came up as a source 172 times (plus through Britannia.com) and he is often quoted in the text. The crux of his information on this page is regard to the link with Dogfeiling, where he follows the same logic as John Morris (historian), who is well attested. Robinboulby (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HistoryFiles and EBK are unreliable. The fact they are used as references here does not mean they are acceptable but rather serves to underline the extent of the problem (see discussion started here, for instance). Enaidmawr (talk) 22:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been through the RS Noticeboard plus Sub Romain Britain Taskforce and note the extent of the issue and will avoid Historyfiles and EBK from now on. I noticed John Morris was also in for a hard time; presumably Mike Ashley (Mammoth Book of Kings and Queens) would come into the same category? Good luck with the clean up. Robinboulby (talk) 22:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Mike Ashley, but mention of John Morris tends to produce the same reaction amongst academics specialising in the sub-Roman period as the name of Robert Graves does amongst serious students of myth and legend. Great pity in Morris' case; he's a fine writer and certainly knew his stuff but he also weaves into his accounts his own pet theories and assumptions which have not found acceptance with the mainstream (and I'm being kind there!). Tnx for the good wishes. I've just checked some of the articles quoting EBK using Search and am rather daunted by the extent of the problem: needs the proverbial "month of Sundays" to sort out! Enaidmawr (talk) 22:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning what this article is about

I've got Thornton's Glastonbury and the Glastening now. And William of Malmesbury on the Antiquity of Glastonbury William Wells Newell, PMLA, Vol. 18, No. 4 (1903), and The Origin of the Name of Glastonbury Louis H. Gray Speculum, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Jan., 1935). The discussions are about the pedigree, the etymology of the name Glastonbury, about a farmer named Glast, etc. Not about kingdoms, Somerset, etc. So what should the article be about, if it should exist at all? A very minor discussion of a pedigree I guess. Doug Weller (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting it tyo the Saxon tribe's page.Wipsenade (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is yet another example of a minority theory dressed up as fact. Interesting to note that only four links to "Glastening" exist on this wikipedia and they all quote EarlyBritishKingdoms (Ford) and HistoryFiles (see here; see also the comments above and discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject European History/Sub-Roman Britain Taskforce). You are right to question what this is and whether it should be here at all. This is the kind of article that causes certain sceptics to smirk as they say "according to wikipedia" - and if "Glastening" was representative, who could blame them? Enaidmawr (talk) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Glastening. 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/20110715230717/http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/EUS_GlastonburyText.pdf to http://www1.somerset.gov.uk/archives/hes/downloads/EUS_GlastonburyText.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) 18:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]