Talk:Lombards

message: The section of this article upon the Lombards currently puts forward that they were a pagan people, but no citation is given in support of this. Two paragraphs go into length about the paganism of the Lombards, yet not a single source to back up the claim. Thusly I am removing the section on paganism until such a time as sources may be cited.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean theoretically they had to be something other than Christian at SOME point in time, definitely before the year 0 but probably going a several centuries after that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcibiades979 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually though if you refer to Paul the Deacon I.VIII he discusses paganism among the Lombards. I realize this is in the more mythical history section, but I still think the section is important, and what it discusses in so far as their worshipping typically germanic gods makes sense as they spent a long time in... Germany. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 00:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that they were Christianized by a monk sent out from Byzantium to Pannonia (or wherever it was) before the Nicene Council and that the gospels were translated into their language, hence they were for centuries very resistant to Nicene Catholicism. However, I can't remember where I read this. I also read that the Lombards were invited as allies in during one of the wars in Italy against the Goths. Of course, the Roman Catholics considered them to be Pagans. Mballen (talk) 01:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Basis for Pagan Section 

message: The original words used in primary source texts that refer to the Lombardic gens are not considered by serious scholars to translate into either 'long-beards' or 'long halberds'. Ref: J.S. Martin's "An examination of two Langobardic mythological texts"
in 'Proceedings of the 11th International Saga Conference' for a summary of currently 
accepted opinion regarding those two alleged translations that scholars like W.D. Foulke  and others thought might be plausible a century ago or even farther back in time.
If either of you have further questions about this matter, please feel free to send them to info@northvegr.org.   ***Pádraic
I wish to know if anyone has explored the pretty straightforward possibility that "Langbaerte" or "Langobarden" is merely the corruption of "Långt Borta," which is swedish for "far away." I may be making an assumption, being less familiar with Old Norse than with Swedish, but the article does state that the lombards were scandinavian, and a scandinavian might reply to a questioning inhabitant of the region, on being asked where he came from, "I come from far away," or "Jag kommer ifrån Långt Borta." Pronounced in english this would sound like "Longgt bortá," wiht emphasis on the letter a.         Joe
Naturally "Langobards" can't translate into "long halberds" (the halberd being a high medieval weapon). I have, however, read that it might translate into "long axes" (the -bard bit being from the same root as "halberd"). However, I doubt both the "axe" and the "beard" interpretation on the grounds that they wouldn't fit ancient Germanic society. Axes weren't used as actual military weapons before the 3rd/4th century AD (though they were used as ceremonial weapons). First-century Germani (about whom Tacitus was writing) fought essentially using a short spear (used in melee or as a javelin) or swords for rich people. Secondly, I doubt the "beard" interpretation (etymological arguments aside) because apparently shaving was all the rage in first-century Germania. I don't know what scholarly consensus is on the issue. Does anyone have a weblink? --Helmold 21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Longbeards and Long Halberds

message: Please excuse me, gentlemen, but when the appproximate time that the Lombards became Italianate in culture(e.g. Italian-sounding names)?--Anglius 17:38, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Only towards the end of their kingdom they started to use latin sounding names. Their last king, Desiderius, had a latin name, and we know that in 751 AD the king Aistulf removed Lupo (a latin name) as duke of Spoleto. However the use of the names was traditional, at that time the Lombard language was already lost. As for other aspect of the culture, for the entire duration of their kingdom there was a struggle between the need to integrate Roman elements and the desire to remain the separate rulers of a subjected population, their kings being alternatively the product of one or the other current. For many aspects the Frenks were more latin than the Lombards (see for example the conception that the Franks had of the king as a sacred and inviolable entity, the title of which was transmitted by heredity, whereas, for the Lombards, the king remained a mere military leader whose title was not hereditary).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.195.30.234 (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Italianisation

message: "They left their mark also through such great figures as Hildeprand (Pope Gregory VII) and Napoleon Bonaparte, who have Lombard names, being descendants of those cultured Mediterraneans who ruled the Mezzogiorno for three centuries"
The link provided is not solid enough for establishing that Napoleon is a Lombard name, nor is it proof enough that he is a descendant of the Lombards (it is only his first name, not his surname), especially considering that it mentions no specific Germanic tribe when, as we know, several of them invaded Italy well before his conception. Hildeprand's case is more compelling and I do not personally dispute that. However, I expect some more solid citations be provided or the wording changed to acknowledge the unsurity, and, such as is the case with Dante, I expect that these citations be lifted from somewhere other than white supremacist sites.
The Mezzogiorno is reffered to Southern Italy (does not include the island sicily, just the boot) and Napoleon was a Ligurian. So he came from a terretory of the Lombard Kingdom, not the Duchy of Benevento. The same goes for Gregory VII, who was from Tuscany (also Lombard kingdom)
:The above assertions that Napoleon was a descendant of the Lombards has nothing to do with the geographic proximities of a kingdom that dissolved more than 500 years before his birth. Many people of various racial types were present there before, during, and after the Lombard rule. Until anyone can provide genetic proof or a genealogical breakdown of his family history to conclude that Napoleon was a descendant of the Lombards or any other people, Napoleon's ancestry remains unknown and should be presented as such. Sicilianmandolin 03:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ancestry

message: I think the 651 date is a typo: possibly 615?  Agilulf shows up as King of the Lombards from 590 to 616, while Theodelinda's page says she died in 628.165.127.8.254 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theodelinda 

message: Wetman 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fear that a lot of information from before that date may be lost. The article was completely rewritten and at least one section was entirely lost. I am adding some links that should be there and some references. Srnec 16:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent cleanup

message: The three-dimensional objects in museum cases are either personal photos or else from official museum sources, in which latter case they are not covered by this and would be copyrighted. --Wetman 08:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Two-dimensional images":Copyright 

message: We have an editor, User:Eochaid Airem, who takes issue with the following statement and has reverted it — as "POV" (sic):
:"The Lombards were a Germanic people of the Jastorf culture during the Pre-Roman Germanic Iron Age."
The statement appears to be a neutral description merely setting early Lombards in a broad cultural context that is defined in archaeological terms. I can understand that Jastorff culture might be a misidentification that could be corrected, but I am at a loss as to what violates a neutral point-of-view. Perhaps this is just a weekend joker. --Wetman 23:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: An issue?

message: This article has far too much unecassarily long quotes, I am sure they could be reviewd an irrelevant material removed while still retaining the pertinent information? Could someone more knowledgable in the area please have a look? Ciriii 00:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quotes 

message: The Lombards were a cultural group with cohesive linguistic and cultural allegiances...
Does anyone know what language(s) the Lombards spoke? fleela 02:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lombard, an extinct Germanic language which can be partially reconstructed from words which appear in Latin sourcs. The English word skiff comes from the Italian word schifo, which is one of the few Italian words of Lombard origin. It is cognitive with "ship," a Germanic English word. Srnec 23:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much!--fleela | ± 02:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I should have given you a link to the Wikipedia article, but I didn't know it existed: Lombardic language. "Lombard language" usually refers to certain historical dialects of Italian. Srnec 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Italian schifo, is actually a parallel derivation from OHG scif, and— OED to the contrary notwithstanding— it's not often necessary to reach to Lombardic through Italian and French when looking for a nautical term in English. When one hears "sk" in English, it's often useful to look to Nordic origins, a source like Frisian for many sea-going terms: for "skiff" one need look no farther than Old Norse skiff, which my Shorter OED missed. The sh of ship/schiff shifts to sk under Nordic influence. shirt/skirt, ship/skipper, etc. The Lombardic connection is tenuous and distant. Doesn't that make sense? --Wetman 03:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct that that is a possible derivation, that's why I pointed out the cognitive connection with "ship." However, both the Wiki article skiff and a book on the history of the Italian language that I don't have on hand right now gave the Lombardic etymology. The word "skiff" entered from French, which borrowed it from Italian, which had conserved it from Lombard, I believe. The same word did indeed enter English from another Germanic language and became "ship." Srnec 03:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English ship is simply inherited from Old English scip. The attested Lombard language is virtually identical to the oldest attested Bavarian, and thus linguistically an Old High German dialect. In fact, skiff demonstrates this; it faithfully preserves Old High German scif (pronounced skif), while Old Norse had skip (English skipper, however, is actually a borrowing from Middle Dutch schipper, which was pronounced with [sχ] as in Modern Dutch). Wetman misses completely that skiff cannot be possibly Norse because of the uniquely High German shift of p > f, and the sk has nothing to do with Norse influence. (Skirt is simply borrowed from Old Norse skyrta; his idea that shirt was somehow altered to skirt under Norse influence is wrong.) It was simply preserved by Italian (schifo is pronounced skifo – apparently it was the spelling that has misled Wetman) when it borrowed the word from Lombard, which still had sk. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Italian Schifo was borrowed by French as esquif "little, fragile boat", first mentioned in the 15th century, then from French to English. If the word had entered French before, [s] would have disapeared, so *équif. French borrowed a related Germanic word earlier in the Middle Ages : OF eschiper "to land with a ship" "to fit out a ship" (in 1120),  esquiper "to start sailing" (in 1160) and eschiper again "to fit out a ship" (Wace, in 1155). First found in Norman documents. sch is an OF spelling for [sk]. Probably borrowed from Old Norse *skipa > Icelandic, Norn, Norwegian skipa. Continued by F équiper "to equip", équipe "team", équipement "equipment", English equip is borrowed from French.Nortmannus (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language question 

message: I have removed the current top image twice in favour of another image for the following reasons:
#The image was unclear. It is not obvious exactly what is being depicted. It is not a high-quality image. The new image is clear and it is easy to see what it is (a crown, it even has its own article). 
#The image does not tell us anything about the Lombards that I can see. The iron crown, however, does tell us something (about their royalty, their aesthetics, their religion) and such information is referenced by a at the Iron Crown article. 
#The old image also has an annoying titleblock at the bottom telling us where it came from. The current image is simple and its own article even provides a link to a colour photo. 
In short, I cannot see that the old image has any real value. Srnec 19:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with your points and think that they are not any valid reasons for adding a nondescript crown instead of the image of people (who are the matter of this article). I have no problem seeing clearly what the image depicts, and I do not really understand why you are having such problems with it. Unless a third person steps in and supports your change of picture, I will soon revert your change.--Berig 19:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find your response severely lacking. Enlighten me: what does the old image represent? And what makes the Iron Crown nondescript? It has a whole article describing it! And who says the picture is in anywise an accurate portrayal of the Lombards? At least the Crown is indisputable a Lombard artefact telling us real information about the Lombards. Don't just respond, argue. Srnec 19:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand from your answer that the true reason for removing the picture is that you don't find it to be "an accurate portrayal of the Lombards". However, I don't find the crown to be a better picture at all, and I wonder why you among all the possible pictures chose that one.--Berig 19:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My original reason was lack of clarity. I was willing to accept its accuracy, but when pushed I realise that its lack of clarity is only compounded by its lack of a solid source foundation. It is unclear in two senses. The crown is not the best picture, only the best available at Wikipeda that I could find. I would like to hear exactly what's wrong with it. I think it's a pretty good option, especially because it is a Lombard thing itself' and not just a representation of them (I guess the drawing is a representation of the crown, but the article provides a link to the photo to prove its accuracy). Srnec 19:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Lllo3, you can call my reasoning idiotic, but it is better if you demonstrate it. We both agree that the image is a bad one, I expressed doubt about its accuracy, you only proved my doubts correct, so what's your beef? Also, I never took responsibility for this article, Wikipedia prohibits ownership of articles. Do whatever you can to improve this article, but remember that your edits may be edited mercilessly and tremember to use citations. Also, try to work within the framework provided so as to make it easier for other editors to assist in improving the article. Srnec 20:00, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Does anybody have any better section headings than the nondescript "7th century" and "8th century"? Srnec 04:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Section headings

message: I do not deny that "Kingdom of Lombardy" is sometimes used to describe the Lombard kingdom, but it is usually avoided because it could cause confusion with the region of Lombardy (which was not coextensive with the Lombard kingdom) or the later Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia. "Kingdom of the Lombards", "Lombard kingdom", "Lombard kingdom of Italy", or just "Kingdom of Italy" are probably all better terms. The Latin would be regnum Langobardorum (Kingdom of the Lombards) or regnum Italicum (Italian kingdom). The Lombards did rule most of Italy from an early date and almost all of it from Liutprand's time. There is no confusion with the term "Kingdom of Italy". The term "Kingdom of Lombardy", furthermore, is not contemporaneous but is a rough translation of regnum Langobardorum (I think). The source provided is from 1847 and prima facie cannot be considered to pass WP:RS. I will alter the heading unless there is a good response here soon. Srnec (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is clearly a bigger confusion by calling this the "Kingdom of Italy" even though that wasn't its actual name, when we have real kingdom's under that name such as Kingdom of Italy (Napoleonic) and Kingdom of Italy (1861–1946). Kingdom of Lombardy was the name used by the Popes and its no less confusing than having articles such as Kingdom of Sicily and Sicily. But even "Kingdom of the Lombards" is fine, if you think it should be that, just not this, this "Kingdom of Italy" history revisionaism. - Gennarous (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The kingdom did not change when Charlemagne took over in 774 and it was definitely called regnum Italicum under the Carolingians. The title rex Italiae is also known among the Lombards: Agilulf was rex totius Italiae (King of all Italy). "Kingdom of Lombardy" was never used in that age, so far as I know. "Kingdom of the Lombards" was. You are wrong about revisionism: kingdom of Italy is standard fare for the Italian state from the fall of Rome until the Renaissance. The second chapter of Chris Wickham's Early Medieval Italy, an English standard, is entitled "The Kingdom of Italy, 568-875; Survival and Consolidation in the North". You can also see at Britannica Online that regnum Italiae is the name for the regnum Langobardorum from the ninth century on. To the best of my knowledge, as the Italian Wiki states, the kings of the Lombards were proclaimed rex totius Italiae upon their coronation at Pavia. What is misleading about describing a kingdom that encompassed most of Italy and was ruled by kings bearing the title "King of all Italy" a Kingdom of Italy? Srnec (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: An 1847 book you found with Google is not reliable. "Kingdom of Lombardy" was not used by popes alive at the time, since its English and the language did not yet exist. Rather, it is a 19th-century English translation of a Latin term, probably regnum Langobardorum (which should never be translated using the word "Lombardy"). As I have pointed out, though, this entity is commonly called the Kingdom of Italy without issue in academic literature. Srnec (talk) 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingdom of Lombards = from the American Council of Learned Societies Dictionary of the Middle Ages = the Kingdom of LOMBARDS (not Italy) "usually refers to the period of the Lombard domination of northern and central Italy from 568 to 774. The Lombards (an evolved form of their own name, Langobards, "Long Beards") were a German people who were living aroudn the lower Elbe by the late 5t century BC. Whether they were ethnically East Germanic of West Germanic is a matter of debate. In the mid second centry AD, they were raiding the Roman Empire along its Danubian frontier. The next three centuries of Lombard history are poorly known, but their legends of this period include in the principal narrative source of the Lombards, the Historia Langobardorum of Paul the Deacon, himself a Lombard writer at the end of the eighth century....."  So needless to say, the Kingdom was called Lombard, not Italy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ADent42 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingdom of Lombardy or Italy? 

message: what does philo-Catholic mean? is it common knowledge?68.161.205.226 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Philia is a Greek word for love or close friendship. Philo- as a prefix generally indicates alliance, support for, or adoration of (depending on context). It is "common" knowledge to me, but what do I know? Srnec (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  philo-Catholic  

message: Section "Kingdom in Italy" begins with statement: In 560 a new, energetic king emerged: Alboin, who defeated the neighbouring Gepidae, made them his subjects, and, in 566, married the daughter of their king Cunimund, Rosamund. - this is not completely true. The Gepides and Lombards were the enemies from the moment when Lombards came to Pannonia which had been already settled by the Gepides. But real conflict and war started because of Rosamund. Alboin captured Rosamund, which caused real war and 2 sides dragged the others around into conflict too (Lombards as the allies of Eastern Roman Empire). The Gepides won one of the battles and their king brought his daughter Rosamund back home, but war ended with final defeat and destruction of Gepides, their king was muredered by Alboin himself and Rosamund was captured again. However, Gepides didn't become his subjects. Both sides were weak at the end of war. Gepides never had their own king again and were broken into small groups; Lombards won the war as Eastern Roman Emperor allies, but this emperor didn't reward them, they didn't get the land of the Gepides. That was probably one of the reasons why they left to Italy.
Maybe there's no need to include all story, but details should be fixed. Zenanarh (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosamund and war vs Gepidi 

message: The last to be crowned with the Iron Crown was Emperor Ferdinand I in his role as King of Lombardy and Venetia. This occurred in Milan on September 6, 1838.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.116.68.77 (talk) 12:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the Iron Crown 

message: "The Iron Crown of Lombardy, used for the coronation of the kings of Italy until 1836."
The "kings of Italy" until 1836 ???     Which kings would those be ?   When was the last "king of italy",  before c. 1860 ?Eregli bob (talk) 14:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingdom of Italy (imperial), King of Italy, etc.--Enok (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a wording tweak would be wise, such as that it has been used by the holders of various regal titles over the centuries. The wording now implies that there has been a simple continuity and meaning to such a title.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: claim 

message: It's nice to have all the vowel quantities and accents marked, but that's not the way to write Latin. If you want, add in phonetic spellings in parentheses. I'm going to remove these, barring some valid objection. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck me as weird, too. Seeing that there's no objection, I'm going to go ahead and do it.  (Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact if no one cares, I just assume going ahead and translating it in to English. This isn't a Latin article. (Alcibiades979 (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I cleaned up the Latin. I think most of it is ok, since it refers to titles of works with English translation or is used in quotations where the language matter. - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 20:49, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good. Didn't see them all, there were quit a few. At first glance I thought it was some sort of Germanic or Norse, till I looked closer and noticed it was just Latin with TONS of accents, haha.  (Alcibiades979 (talk) 22:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lombards. 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/20080604203505/http://www.lansmuseum.a.se/runriket/taby.html to http://www.lansmuseum.a.se/runriket/taby.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 13 references to 11 sources in English. 33 (14) for medieval sources. 46 (16) in German. 3 in Swedish. 2 in Italian. 1 Slovene. 3 undeterminded.
References let the reader read more about the detail she found interesting and to verify it. Scaring other editors (who could claim that a factoid - wrong or obvious or both at once! - is "unsourced") off is also an important task. But this task is of secondary importance! Multiple references in German perform the latter task very well.. ...but for the majority of readers who can't read in German the article is unsourced! 
Meanwhile the list of references appears extensive, scary and messy. Two books (Karin Priester, Geschichte der Langobarden and Wilifred Menghin, Die Langobarden. Geschichte und Archäologie) are referenced 21 times. "Archäologie" sounds interesting, the article could benefit from it. But all the references to both are to the introductory chapters. I like references in German, but if the sole purpose of references is avoiding criticism (a possible explanation for "introductions only") and actual contribution of German and Italian scholars is ignored... It is like having dozens references to Britannica.--90.154.72.166 (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 'scary' references?!? Eh? 50.111.6.149 (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refences in English 

message: Currently Historia Langobardorum is referenced as: "PD", "HGL", "Hist. gent. Lang.", "Peters, Edward (2003). History of the Lombards: Translated by William Dudley Foulke....", "Ibid.", "Paolo Diacono, Historia Langobardorum". It hasn't been refrenced as "Pauli Warnefridi Diaconi De Gestis Langobardorum" yet, but I'm sure someone will call it this way. I'm going to restructurize the references. 1) Put the "bibliography" in chronological order, perhaps even with "in German" and "in English" subsections. Tacitus is not the same as a 19 century book. 19th century book is public domain and dated. A modern book is less dated but it is less accessible as well (you need a good library, for artilcles you contact the authors or use sci-hub). In its current form "bibliogrpahy" is not very convenient for its "further reading" purpose, as for rerefencing, date is just as good as authors name. --90.154.72.166 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: In the lede we have: "(Latin: Langobardi)", which seems to imply by its position and form that the name comes from Latin.  However, in the section 'Legendary origins and name', it is clear that the name originates in Germanic mythology and language, and that the Latin form has been Latiinised from the Germanic original.  This information should be more clearly reflected in the lede.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 03:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a short etymology section should be added, as well as a correction/clarification in the lede.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: While there is a valid scholarly debate about whether we might be able to use bits of Paul the Deacon (or Jordanes who he seems to imitate, including concerning Scandinavia, the "womb of nations"), we need to report that debate, and we certainly shouldn't be assuming everything he says to be correct, right from the opening. The whole article is structured around him. This will eventually need to be changed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I see in your latest edits that you have increased the above mentioned tendency of censoring scholar's doubts about Paul the Deacon, by making the article rely on one author who is apparently happy to keep referring to his work as the legends of the Lombards. This is going backwards? I can't see any good reason to do this? We can't say that we think the whole field simply equates Paul the Deacon's work to the legends of the Lombards can we, so just because we can find one source which does, clearly does not make that the right thing to do, does it? We need to mention it when there are possible differences of opinion. This seems to be a particularly easy case to explain in a clear and simple way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at other peoples edits before you attack them. My edit did not involve the "censoring" of anything. I simply added content from Neil Christie, Michael Whitby and recent genetic studies in Nature Communications, Science Advances and the European Journal of Human Genetics. Krakkos (talk) 18:25, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, and sorry if I was unclear but what I see is that these additions are using a "their legends" terminology which is not a field consensus. I had expressed concern previously (section above) about how we are treating Paul the Deacon. Paul the Deacon was an 8th century scholar. Like Jordanes, there is a debate in the field about whether to treat what he wrote as any kind of real set of legends. Do you understand my point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  to put it another way, I think your own preferred sources accept the idea that Paul the Deacon was influenced heavily by Jordanes at least concerning some specific parts of his narrative?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue deference to Paul the Deacon, with no mention of doubts