Talk:Wuffingas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Royalty and Nobility (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.
 
WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Former countries (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Wuffingas. Ucucha 14:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)



House of WuffingWuffingasRelisted. There is a consensus that the article should be moved, but further input is required to determine the title it should be moved to. Jenks24 (talk) 19:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Let's pick something which is actually used, for instance by Barbara Yorke, Andrew Wareham, D. P. Kirby, etc. Cavila (talk) 20:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

In what context do they use the word 'Wuffingas'? Shatter Resistance (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

See Google Books: search 'Wuffingas' and you get phrases like "the eight faces on the sceptre are the ancestors of the Wuffingas", "the location of the Wuffingas' heartland" and "no kings of the 'East Angles' are known earlier than the Wuffingas". Wuffingas, Wuffing dynasty, Wuffing or Wuffings are all used by various historians whose work is cited in Wikipedia articles about the kings of this dynasty (Yorke, Kirby, Carver, etc.), whereas no texts I have reads have ever referred to the 'House of Wuffing'. I'd prefer Wuffingas. --Amitchell125 (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I find the present title regrettable, since it implies the wrong name for Wuffa; I should however prefer Wuffings. We are writing in Modern English; there is an Anglo-Saxon WP, which could use a version of this artlcle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
A little confused as how this inplies the "wrong name for Wuffa", what does that mean? Wuffings doesn't make any sense to use, how is it 'modern english'? Surely any word that you use in current context is modern english? Shatter Resistance (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
House of Wuffing implies that there was a person (House of Cedric - a title which begs several questions), or possibly a place (House of Hanover), called Wuffing. There wasn't; there was Wuffa and his descendants the Wuffings. Strongly oppose Wuffingas as I would oppose Atreidai, which is and ought to be a redirect; both are mere paedantry, not what the family is called in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

"House of Wuffing" gets no hits at all and doesn't make much sense. House of Wuffa is the form consistent with the way royal houses are usually named on Wiki. Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support proposal. Srnec (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
So that name House of Windsor implies that the current ruling House of Britain have anything to do with Windsor or had some in their family called Windsor? Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, actually, it does; it was coined from Windsor Castle, which is a royal residence. Whether the implication of that piece of war propaganda is accurate is another question entirely. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The outstanding question seems to be whether to use "Wuffings" or "Wuffingas" - naive searching on both Google Books and Google Scholar indicates that "the Wuffingas" is three times as common as "the Wuffings" - is there any reason not to follow this?--Kotniski (talk) 11:54, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's precisely why I suggested Wuffingas, which is what they're called in English. It's that simple really. I can't say I'm surprised given how Wikipedia operates, but it would be pedantic to insist on some preconceived notion of consistency or Englishness at the expense of what reliable sources in the real world are actually doing these days. Cavila (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons already specified. "House of Wuffing" really is pushing credibility (though I appreciate there is a valid analogy with the Gibbonian House of Cerdic): Wuffingas is the best of the options, though if it is more common I could go with Wuffings too. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose whilst Wuffingas may well be a word commonly used so far no evidence has been provided that this is the correct form of the word to describe the content of this article. Another proposal was House of Wuffa which seems just as plausiable as the correct form of the word to use. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. I would marginally prefer "Wuffingas", since that seems to be the predominant form in the secondary literature, but "Wuffings" would be OK too. Yorke translates Bede's "Uuffingas" as "Wuffingas"; Colgrave makes it "Wuffings". Neither seems unscholarly to me. I would not support "House of Wuffa" without evidence that that's a term in use in reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I'll add my support for Wuffingas (with Wuffings as second choice). Reflecting what seems to be current scholarly usage.--Kotniski (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal[edit]

A page, Uffingas, has recently been created to cover the exact same subject as this article, which uses the alternative name. This forking should be eliminated by merging any useful information on that page into this one. Care should be taken, however, since the Uffingas page is based largely on very dated or non-scholarly sources, including a citation to a Google Books entry for a Books-on-Demand version of this Wikipedia article. Agricolae (talk) 02:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Another editor has superseded this with a Redirect. Agricolae (talk) 10:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
For once Agricolae, I am in agreement with your first suggestion. Sorry about the google books source I had thought I had removed that, genuinely not happy with myself for that, but am glad you found some of the info interesting and useful and would appreciate your suggestion what can be merged. Paul Bedsontalk 17:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Looking at the Uffingas sources, I would agree with Agricolae that they are all either too out of date or unscholarly to use, as a result much of the Uffingas article cannot be merged with Wuffingas. Hel-hama (talk) 19:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree that many are out of date, however some are notable and present a neutral point of view. The three original historical sources (Henry of Huntingdon, Bede and Flores Historiarum) use the name "Uffa" from the original word on the Textus Roffensis (arguably Wuffa from the shadow of a Wynn), which I argue deserves reasonable coverage and I'm going to try with a the Beowulf and the Uffington White Horse reference, but nothing extensive and nothing to compromise the terminology of the article as per WP:COMMONNAME. Stats on this are interesting and show us correct on Uffingas only getting 359 hits to Wuffingas with 877. I took a more comprehensive look at the subject, did a few searches, and found that the singular form Uffinga gets 1220 hits compared to only 432 for Wuffinga. The Google Books search on King Uffa comes up 1490 in favour against 1410 for King Wuffa. Uffa gets 169,000 compared to Wuffa only 3,090. The observance goes to the large number of high quality modern sources, but balance should be brought to the source. Paul Bedsontalk 19:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I note that although talk page consensus was against merging in this information - it was merged anyway. And it's incorrect to state that Henry of Huntingdon, Bede and the Flores use the name "Uffa", since what we're really talking about is different forms of the same name. Spelling changes over time, but the name is still the same, no matter how it is spelled or spoken. And what the heck does "but balance should be brought to the source" mean? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
That first statement sounds distinctly Anti-History to be deleting content wholesale without examination or consideration. Thank you for yours however. Appropriate material has been merged now and the article definitely improved. Balancing the sources in my opinion is giving accurate reflection for the actual words, written on the actual historical sources, within limits - as alternatives if common name denies primacy. Using common names is fine but maintaining an NPOV is also (possibly excessively) important for me, especially in with something as subjective as history and naming conventions within it. I have suggested these are of valuable importance for historical research along with various evidence to provide a balanced view of the sources. Paul Bedsontalk 22:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
You again fail to understand what it is that Wikipedia does. What you just described is what a historian does - they weigh up the primary sources and reflect those sources in their works. THey are trained to interpret manuscripts and in how to determine bias. We are not historians when editing Wikipedia. We are encyclopediaists - we distill down the secondary sources, using modern day historical writings to determine what the current state of scholarship is. We shouldn't be referring to primary sources that often - we should use the names the historian's use in their secondary works. We aren't doing "historical research" .. that's what historians do. THEY write balanced views of the primary sources into secondary sources which we then use to write articles. If you can't grasp this important difference between being a historian and being an encyclopedia writer, you probably need to read up some more on what wikipedia is. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure, Agricolae told me, it's not a reliable source for history. We can but do our best to improve the mess. As encyclopedists, we are expected to write honestly and with a neutral point of view. As pointed out before, it this is done on Goole Book results alone with no background knowledge, a mad computer is writing history and it will end up as a complete jumble of no use at all, encyclopedic or otherwise. Where primary sources differ from the Google Books results significantly and significant coverage is given to other naming conventions, questions should be asked by any reasonably competent writer whether and where they deserve a mention. This provision is well provided for at WP:COMMONNAME. Paul Bedsontalk 23:08, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see how this is at all in reply to what I said above .. it makes no sense. Are YOU using Google books to write articles? I certainly am not. All I can gather from the above is that you think others are using Google Books? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Tribe?[edit]

This phrase "Similar tribes were have been mentioned as the ancestors of Beowulf:" has two issues - first ... "were have been"? Secondly, the Wuffingas aren't a "tribe" they are a dynasty. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I agree. Lets just call them the Wuffinga dynasty. I'm happy to lose the tribe reference. Paul Bedsontalk 22:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
But why did you use tribe originally then? Does the source use tribe? This is the 1807 source - we really need to see modern secondary sources for this sort of claim ... not something from before the end of the Napoleonic Wars! Ealdgyth - Talk 22:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Colin Chase[edit]

The source given by Chase clearly refers to a Scandinavian dynasty and not the East Anglian Wuffingas. I have edited the article accordingly. Hel-hama (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Fascinating, thank you very much for pointing this out. The source is referring to the suggestion of the Wuffinga dynasty having descended from the Royal House of Uppsala and Wiglaf. A suggestion that seems to have originated around the middle of the last century, now backed up with new genetic evidence from excavations at Norwich Castle (see link in thread below). It also seems to co-incide with a change in scholarly terminology from Uffinga to Wuffinga. Paul Bedsontalk 00:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Antiquity is a journal...[edit]

And the person listed on the title page is the EDITOR. It is unclear from this snippet who wrote the currently added here text nor is it clear that this Uffingas is at all related to the dynasty under discussion. In actuality - this is Sune Lundqvist's actual article - see here for the journal entry. It's QUITE clear you're not actually reading the actual journal articles or the books - because if you were, you'e not be trying to attribute this text addition to Osbert Guy Stanhope Crawford - when it was really written by Lundqvist. The text added "After studying archaeological sites in Sweden, Osbert Guy Stanhope Crawford suggested that the Wuffingas may have been related to the Royal House of Uppsala descended from Wiglaf.[9] Sune Lindqvist has also put forward this suggestion in 1948." is actually both BY Lundqvist and it's not clear at all that it's referring to this dynasty or not. And certainly NOTHING in the Antiquity source snippet I can see says antyhing about Crawford actually doing archaelogical studies in Sweden to come up with that information - as near as I can tell .. that first part is all extrapolation from the name given in Google Books. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I see you've now changed this ... but really ... you need to read the WHOLE ARTICLE, not just Google Snippets. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, sorted it all before I saw this. Also been checking the arcaeological reports on Norwich Castle. Lots of buildings, unexpected Middle-Saxon burials under all the baileys, a possible church, but no "castle". Evidence a lot of work was done there before the Normans though and even new genetic evidence linking them to the Swedes, to back up Lindqvist's evidence. [1]. Paul Bedsontalk 00:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Mary Vivian Hughes[edit]

The current text reads, "Mary Vivian Hughes suggested the Uffington White Horse may have been named after the dynasty."

This is an inaccurate representation of what she said, "The White Horse at Uffington (named after the Saxon King Uffa), in White Horse Vale (Berks), is particularly interesting because the shape of the horse suggests a greater antiquity than the time of Alfred."

So, it is Uffington and not the White Horse thereof that is so named, and it is named after King Uffa, not for the Uffingas, and she doesn't suggest it, she states it outright. I would question whether this passing reference merits mention in this article, particularly given that she is just repeating scholarship of the 1870s. At least one scholarly work indicates that it appears to have been first named in the late 10th century and was presumably named for some Uffa, but before that time it was part of Æscesbyrig. Agricolae (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Poised to edit out any mention of Uffington in the article, as I agree with Agricolae after having read this, by D. M. Hadley, which states that the Berkshire placename Uffington incorporates the name of a man who lived no earlier than the 8th century. Any objections? Hel-hama (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree; Hadley is definite enough that we should remove the reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I think this is a good case where something has crept into popular culture enough to be notable as a mention, even if not in the current format. A popular and highly influential boy's novel in Britain, still read widely today is called Tom Brown's School Days, which mentions "Uffington, the Uffingas town". Tom Brown's School Days. Taylor & Francis. pp. 11–. GGKEY:BFKYXLLQ054. Retrieved 1 December 2012.  After looking at the Hadley source, and this one M Reed (1997). The Landscape of Britain: From the Beginning to 1914. Taylor & Francis Group. pp. 99–. ISBN 978-0-415-15745-2. Retrieved 1 December 2012.  I tend to agree it may not relate to the Uffa or Uffingas of the sixth century, but the argument is based largely on lack of evidence and presumption. The notability of the suggestion is massive however and still goes on in schools all around Britain today, and any kid that reads Tom Brown. Authoritative explanation of the connection sounds best to me. The article could keep the image then, which does give a flavour to the subject and history of East Anglia. Paul Bedsontalk 13:18, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the above comments by Paul Bedson, but it might be useful to mention the mistake Hughes made in the novel in Uffington, Oxfordshire article, with an explanation. No connection can possibly be made between the Anglo-Saxons of Norfolk and Suffolk and the famous Uffington White Horse, which is of Bronze Age origin. Hel-hama (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The source you just removed was written in 1857 and didn not connect the Anglo-Saxons of Norfolk with the Uffington white horse. Tom Brown calls the town, Uffington the "town of the Uffingas", as do the majority of the sources in the 19th century. Mary Hughes wrote in the 20th century, so was not being copied by Thomas Hughes, who died long before she was writing. The Mary Hughes source has been removed, and that is understandable, but reference to Tom Brown's Schooldays should be replaced as fair and balanced coverage of how every child in a British public school (and anyone who read Tom Brown) has been educated for the last century and a half. Paul Bedsontalk 21:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
But Tom Brown isn't a source for anything but what is said in Tom Brown. It has no place being cited as popularizer of a 'suggestion'. If there is a source that explicitly states that Tom Brown is to be credited with changing public perception in this way, then it can be entertained whether this effect on popularizing inaccurate history might be considered for inclusion, appropriately balanced with the scholarly consensus. I don't see that anyone has made that observation. If this is just an expression of schoolboy reminiscence, that is not really noteworthy, and editors don't get to reach their own conclusions about the effect of books on public perception. Agricolae (talk) 21:52, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
The notability in popular British culture is relevant and deserves mention in this article as it is about Britain, we should be authoritative on the subject as previously suggested. Paul Bedsontalk 21:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something, but you haven't provided any evidence that the derivation of Uffington from Uffingas is a notable feature of British culture. A mention in a novel, even a popular one, isn't enough. A source that says that this derivation is well-known would be enough. Do you have such a source? --Akhilleus (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, your opinion is irrelevant. To justify putting in the article that the statement in Tom Brown is relevant, you need to have a reference that says, explicitly, that the statement in Tom Brown is relevant. It needs to say, "This view was popularized in Britain by the novel Tom Brown," or, "because of Tom Brown, many Britons think . . ." or something of the sort. You don't get to decide this on your own. Agricolae (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Fwiiw, the toponym Uffington could be mentioned (as meaning "town of the Wuffingas") in a wider discussion of the given name Wuffa and its use among Anglo-Saxons. Of course, the various Uffingtons do not relate to "the" (royal) Wuffingas but just to local descendants of various Wuffas. And needless to say, the White Horse near one particular Uffington (but nowhere near East Anglia) has nothing whatsoever to do with any of this.

(By the way, I do not know if the White Horse actually dates to the Bronze Age. Our article claims as much, but it doesn't give any decent sources for the claim. Saying that there were "optically stimulated luminescence dating carried out following archaeological investigations in 1994" sounds great and reassuringly precise, but that doesn't excuse you from providing an actual reference. Don't just believe stuff you read on Wikipedia.) --dab (𒁳) 12:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I have added a reference from Darvill, Prehistoric Britain from the Air (see link) to Uffington White Horse, but admittedly there's a lot more to be done to improve the quality of this particular article. Hel-hama (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)