:::: Oh believe me, we are going to get into each and every one of those points in absolute detail to work out a version that is not disputed and has solid sources behind it.  Just be patient.  I still dispute the other changes, and I agree with Llywyrch that a bullet point list is easier to handle, because once a table is filled with dalse information, it's a little harder to add explanations of why something is debated and a little easier tocut out information.  So just for now, because as I said, there's really a lot of dispute here - just for now, I'm starting with Tubal.  Here, again, is the Duffy, tablar version of Tubal: 

 Father: Japheth 
 Name: Tubal 
 Name in other records: Tabal/Tubal/Jabal/Jubal 
 Usual Identification: Luwian tribes 
 Associated modern area: South central Anatolia 
 Earliest known records: 9th Century BC (Assyrian & Luwian texts) 

 And here is the multi-editor, bullet-point version of Tubal: 

 *Tubal, son of Japheth. He is connected with the Tabali, an Anatolian tribe, and both the Iberians of the Caucasus and those of the Iberian peninsula (modern Spain and Portugal), as well as Illyrians and Italics. In the book of Jubilees he was bequeathed the three 'tounges' of Europe. 

 Unlike Duffy's version of Tubal, every single statement in the multi-editor version can be backed up with sources and references.  This has been the usual identification of Tubal for centuries, if not millennia.  Flavius Josephus calles Tubal ancestor of the "Thobelites who are Iberes".  Nennius has him as fathering the "Iberians, Spanish and Italians".  And indeed, Jubilees does mention him as receiving two or three of the 'tongues' of Europe for his inheritance. Further, not only Georgian, but also Basque traditions credit Tubal with being an ancestor, as validly referenced (over Levzur's dead body) on the page Tubal.  This is all highly relevant information for anyone researching the Sons of Noah  but it won't fit on a table.  But FDuffy doesn't want anyone to be able to read or access this information on wikipedia. Instead, he wants them to read that Tubal corresponds with Luwian tribes who were also called "Jubal" and "Jabal" (sic) - something that even he ought to know better than.   

 This great researcher no doubt got the "Luwian" bit from something that I myself added to the article Hittites, ironically enough, after after read a book that mentions that the Tabals were speaking Luwian in the 9th Century BC.  But the same book I took that from also takes great pains to stress the point that although the Tabals were speaking Luwian in the 9th C. BC, historians are not at all certain that the Tabals themselves were Luwian or Phrygian, since everybody of any ethnic affiliation in the South half of Anatolia was speaking Luwian at that time, from the Adriatic to Syria.  It clearly said there is debate on the issue of whether or not the Tabals themselves were Luwians, or just spoke Luwian in the 9th C.  Notice that FDuffy wants to put "Luwian" as "Usual identification" for Tubal, which is disputed, whereas I would rather put "Tabal" as "usual identification" for Tubal, which is a) the correct name of the tribe as attested in records, and b) disputed by noone.