Talk:Bæddel and bædling

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
Featured articleBæddel and bædling is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2025.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 8, 2024Good article nomineeListed
February 2, 2025Featured article candidatePromoted
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 8, 2025.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that scholars have suggested that bædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
Current status: Featured article

"Third gender" proposal limited to Wade 2024? And yet why so little from philologists?

[edit]

Right now this article strongly emphasizes discussion about a supposed "third gender" associated with the words bæddel and bædeling. Is this a proposal in fact specifically from and limited to Wade 2024, an activism-focused and non-philological source? If so, why is this not explicitly and clearly attributed as just Wade's proposal? And if it's just Wade's proposal, is it not WP:UNDUE to emphasize it in the lead? At the same time, why are philologists so briefly represented and discussed in this philology article? The philogy section reads in a confused manner (many of the philologists agree that there was likely a precursor to bad that *also* spawned bæddel and bædling). It is also not clearly presented in this article that philologists typically render these words as having a very negative semantic value (for example, Liberman translates bæddel as 'a bad man' and Sayers renders it as 'sodomite'). Why are these definitions and the definition of the OED, which is similarly negative, not included in the article? And why are the etymologies of philologists only partially presented and placed at the very end? :bloodofox: (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have four references on Bædling is thought by scholars to denote some sort of gender nonconformity, sexual passivity, or possibly a third gender. I've just added a reference (with quotation) from Clark, which does explicitly say that bædlings may have been thought of as "not-men". Not all of those sources endorse all three parts of the sentence, but Clark has the quote mentioned in the footnote, and Bell has It is not out of the realm of possibility that Alcuin [in glossing the word Bædling] could have been familiar with the concept of a “third gender” ... Or could beard-lessness even be read as a mark of what we would call a trans or non-binary identity?. That's a lot more than just Wade's proposal, so I think it's entirely WP:DUE in the lead, especially as we've only couched this as a suggestion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good example of why transparent sourcing is crucial: That sounds a lot like a lump of WP:SYNTH and nobody should be wondering exactly who said what or why, especially in an article topic that is invariably a magnet for activist editors. Who said what and where needs to be much clearer.
That said, as an FA reviewer, do you have an explanation for why these are so strongly emphasized but the definitions of the OED, Sayers, and Liberman—the latter especially a major philologist—are not included?
Right now the minor scholar Wade (2024) is repeatedly referenced in the intro while major philogists like Liberman are ignored. This article also implies that the article's subject words are somehow positive rather than outright derogatory/negative (whereas they are typically rendered as 'bad man', 'sodomite', etc. by philologists). :bloodofox: (talk) 10:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka suggested above that you set out what you propose to add from Liberman -- what do you think is missing? In general, few people are going to have a problem with someone who adds good material from a reliable source, but if they do, we have a well-trodden path for sorting out that disagreement. As a word of warning, the Liberman sources you've mentioned above are all from a blog, which would normally fail the standard of WP:HQRS, WP:SELFPUB etc required here -- has Liberman said the same things in peer-reviewed print? UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, it sounds like you're angling to get Liberman out of the article: shall we simply go to RSN with that one to avoid any further wasted time? :bloodofox: (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant bit of policy:

...Self-published material such as ... personal or group blogs ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent, reliable sources.

It's not out of the question that a discussion would conclude that Liberman is enough of an expert to allow under WP:SELFPUB, but in general, it's unlikely that such a discussion would allow a self-published source to be used to contradict peer-reviewed academic sources, particularly if the material in question is only found in self-published sources. How it's used is probably going to be more important than whether it's used. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:40, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now, now: the details. We're not just discussing the blog of Liberman, an expert as one can find alive in the field. No, it's the Oxford University Press's blog that maintains his column called "Oxford Etymologist". But since you've implied you'd like to bump Liberman out of the picture because he "contradicts" sources like Wade 2024, let's cut to the chase and go ahead and get some more opinions before we discuss it any further. :bloodofox: (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the blog is published by Oxford University Press, :bloodofox is clearly correct here per policy, so what's the problem? And why does the "Connection to bad" section of the article cite the 1989 second print edition of the OED, using the present tense, no less, rather than the 2010 third print edition, (I have access to the online version), which says, "ORIGIN Middle English: perhaps from Old English bǣddel "hermaphrodite, womanish man"? It appears that the second edition is cited only to support the "perhaps related to" bad" wording. Carlstak (talk) 16:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the problem here in part stems from the title "philologist" sounding a bit antiquated in English. It may need to be emphasized that "etymologist" and "historical linguist" are functionally equivalent when discussing questions such as the antecedents of bæddel and modern English "bad".
The broader question, though, is what should happen when an FA turns out to be problematic, as this one turns out to be. Is a formal FAR required? Or can the problem be resolved through collaborative editing now that it's been identified? Since it was promoted very recently, and those who worked on it and approved it are still active, I believe this falls under IAR and it would save a lot of time and agita to just go ahead and fix it. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've started a new thread on this below. Complete misrepresentation of OED is just the tip of the iceberg here. The article needs heavy work and all of this should have been caught in review. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liberman blogs, Wade article and academic publishing

[edit]

I have read both the Wade 2020 source and the 3-part Liberman blog (Chapter 1; Chapter 2; Chapter 3), and it is interesting seeing the differences between the blog style and the academic piece. What is noticeable, if you read the entire Wade 2020 piece is how small a part the 'Bæddel and bædling' discussion takes up of the whole piece. It is around 4 paragraphs in the 'Gender and Race in the 'Paenitentiale Theodori’s Afterlives' section. It is clearly relevant, but to what degree really needs one to have available an academically peer reviewed publication dedicated to the etymology of the words. You need experts to get this sort of overview done right.

Liberman's blog, being a blog, allows him to say more and in a more informal way, than he would have done if publishing as an academic article. There will be a number of reasons why he wrote about this as a blog, rather than as part of a formal piece of academic writing. Trying to bring the two together, as this Wikipedia article attempts, is not easy. I am not about to suggest how to do that, but it does need to be a consideration that the lack of mature and focused academic publications on this topic needs to be made clear to the reader, rather than attempting to synthesise something from the existing literature.

On a minor point, would it be possible to tidy the current five references to Liberman's OUP blog entries (a, b, c, d, e) to say which of chapters 2 and 3 are being referred to, and maybe to include chapter 1 (they should really be formally separated into Liberman 2015a, Liberman 2015b and Liberman 2015c)? Carcharoth (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did this and it was mass reverted by the FA approvers without further comment. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wade 2020 and Wade 2024

[edit]

The "third gender" element is mentioned in Wade 2020 ("Clark notes that bædling might imply a third gender but suggests that there is not enough evidence for this" and "There is evidence to suggest that the word bædling implied a third gender or some form of gender nonconformity." However, I don't have access to Wade 2024 (this source is 11 pages in The Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature, with the title 'Religion and Trans Literature'). What I can see is the abstract:

This chapter considers the historical relationships in literature between religion and what we might call trans experiences. It takes the historical scholarship of the activist and novelist Leslie Feinberg seriously in order to explore Feinberg’s claims about the history of Christianity and trans life in the early Middle Ages. Feinberg—a secular Jewish writer—focused on European Christianity to expose the source of European imperialism’s gender binary. Feinberg argued that European Christianity suppressed a previous trans-positive communal pagan tradition while importing some trans figures from pagan religions into Christianity as trans male saints. I test Feinberg’s historical hypotheses by examining three premodern sites of gender variance: pre-Christian burials in northern Europe, the obscure Old English gender category bædling, and the trans saints tradition as depicted in the Old English Martyrology. The burials and the bædlings hint at an early transfeminine category of gender surviving into early Christian England. At the same time, the trans male saints suggest that the church, indeed, imported Greek gender-variant figures into itself but sidelined transfeminine figures such as the bædling. These trans figures, however, are all racialized. Christian documents associated both the trans saints and the bædling with foreignness while portraying Jewish and Muslim people and people of color as gendervariant. My chapter thus suggests that scholars have misjudged Feinberg’s work as without historical value. I build on hir work by making two further points: that Christianity has used portrayals of gender variance to further racism and that the rise of Christianity led to a surge of transmisogyny while platforming transmasculine saints.

Serious question here. What does that have to do with this article? It appears to be more to do with Leslie Feinberg and his writings. How much does Wade write about the "obscure Old English gender category bædling"? Carcharoth (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Within the body of the text, Wade writes for about a page about bædlings without mentioning Feinberg. That is only circled around to later in the text, and the article does not cite those portions. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 15:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, this is a source explicitly advocating for centering Feinberg and its intense emphasis here, especially over that of discussion by linguists, is WP:UNDUE. The article needs heavy revision to de-emphasize minority approaches and emphasizing experts in historical linguistics. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:54, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Carcharoth, I get Wade 2024 through my institutional access. It's really short so feel it should be okay to share: Wade 2024. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this can't be the same as "Wade 2024 (this source is 11 pages in The Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature, with the title 'Religion and Trans Literature')".
It's interesting that four glosses is seen as a paucity of evidence let alone supression, considering the ubiquity of hapax legomena in the corpus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 09:43, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Hey Rich Farmbrough, the whole chapter is 11 pages but—as the main contributor says above—"Within the body of the text, Wade writes for about a page about bædlings; this is only that part. The rest of the chapter is about other things (e.g., the next section is on Romans). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 10:04, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Thanks. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 18:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC).[reply]
ImaginesTigers - thank you. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to downplay it: The entire source is an activist piece by a non-philologist. It is way overemphasized here while the works and discussions of philologists are either downplayed or completely ignored. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth:, have you tried Google books? I searched for Wade, Erik (2024). "Religion and Trans Literature" and found the relevant subsection on "The Bæddel and the bædling", but that may not work where you are. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
more detail
  • I tried Google books and searched for Wade, Erik (2024). "Religion and Trans Literature" and found the whole section. The most relevant subsection is "The Bæddel and the bædling: Old English Gender Categories"
  • At the end of the subsection Wade writes Feinberg (1996, 68–69) argued these pre - Christian categories of non - normative gender survived in the Christian stories of trans saints . Do they? to introduce the next section "Christian Gender: Trans Saints"
  • There is one further mention in the section However, there are no English trans saints. Neither the bæddel nor the bædling found their way into hagiography.
  • The reference is Feinberg, Leslie 1996 Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Marsha P. Johnson and Beyond
  • Feinberg 1996 is on archive.org here. I couldn't borrow it but I searched for 68 and pages 68 to 69 were indeed about trans saints.
TSventon (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting an FA article due to numerous issues

[edit]

What's the process for requesting a total rewrite for an FA article? After false statements about one of the core sources for it, OED, came to light after it had hit the Wikipedia main page, this article really needs to be completely scrapped. The primary author didn't even have access to the OED etymologies. Unfortunately, it's by far the worst FA article I've seen on the site and it shouldn't have gotten anywhere near FA in this state. So where do we go from here without any necessary large-scale changes being revert-warred by the editors that rubber-stamped it on to FA without even looking over its sources? This article is a a mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 06:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a process to request that someone else rewrite an article. There is a process to review whether an FA should retain FA status, and indeed the old-fashioned method of proposing a change, explaining a rationale, and building consensus for it. All of those depend, as with most things on this site, with building consensus among editors that the change would be an improvement. I'd suggest starting that process from the acknowledgement that there is already a strong consensus, which includes many skilled and experienced editors, that the article does meet the FA criteria. That doesn't mean that this consensus is fixed, particularly if new facts come to light that weren't apparent during the FA review. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, nobody needs your permission to edit this article (WP:FAOWN: FA articles are "open for editing like any other"). Editors like yourself didn't even bother to check the sources before approving it and have now repeatedly attempted to argue away even the use of WP:RS on this talk page: review WP:LAWYER. Please stop trying to dissuade editors from fixing the many problems here. Let's hear from others actually interested in improving the article rather than just you attempting to defend the current mess. :bloodofox: (talk) 07:14, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of routes, Bloodofox. The logical procedural step for any editor who believes that an article does not deserve its FA status is to nominate it at WP:FAR; you may find this script helpful for the practical gruntwork. I would advise clearly setting out your reasons for believing that "it's by far the worst FA article I've seen on the site and it shouldn't have gotten anywhere near FA in this state".
Alternatively, if you feel that this article is surrounded by WP:CABALS of editors who "rubber-stamp and revert-war", you are necessarily seeking participation from a wider range of editors. In this situation, an WP:RFC is the logical candidate—you will need a simple opening statement and question, perhaps "Are this article's references to [X source], [Y source], and [Z source] problematic?", and your first vote will clearly and logically set out your reasoning for why you believe this to be so.
The nuclear route, of course, if you believe this article is completely unsalvageable and an insult to Wikipedia, is nominating it for deletion on the justification of WP:TNT—that the only way to improve it is to blow it up and start over. (If you are wondering, FAs are not immune to deletion, see e.g. Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 or ANAK Society.)
Those are your three main options; perhaps take a little time to consider which route you think best; if you try all of them, you might be accused of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. Oh, and by the way, your first question: "What's the process for requesting a total rewrite for an FA article?" Like most things on Wikipedia, the best process is to do it yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For the record, I actually did begin a rewrite refactoring with new sources, extensive additions, and a wide variety of corrections but it was met with mass reverts by the FA approvers. When I have the time, I'll simply rewrite the article from scratch with a summary of the article's numerous problems.
Meanwhile, while I doubt it matters given how few specialists there are in this material active on Wikipedia nowadays (and it seems fewer by the day), I would strongly suggest the FA approval process try to involve more subject matter experts where possible. For example, it's simply not OK for oe of the very first lines of a main page FA article to have a completely falsified claim about the OED. Only after much questioning here from did the primary author admit that they had no access to the source and simply relied on 'someone else'. This is just one of numerous issues that have plagued this article and I have found the process to be really disheartening with where we're at in terms of quality for the FA process. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"When I have the time, I'll simply rewrite the article from scratch with a summary of the article's numerous problems." Isn't that what you've been doing thus far? How well has it been going? They say that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results; perhaps trying an alternative route might be better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:18, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How well has it been going? They say that the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over hoping for different results; perhaps trying an alternative route might be better.
Perhaps he was given misleading advice, somewhere?
"Like most things on Wikipedia, the best process is to do it yourself." wait what's this
Himaldrmann (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Himaldrmann "Like most things on Wikipedia, the best process is to do it yourself." is good general advice, probably AirshipJungleman29 found out more about this article before saying How well has it been going?. And hopefully everybody in this conversation knows that not all advice on Wikipedia is good advice. TSventon (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I know, I'm (mostly) just kiddin'—although the tone reads a tiny bit condescending, to me, esp. in the latter comment, esp. esp. without any acknowledgement that essentially the exact opposite has been said immediately prior, esp. esp. esp. without any acknowledgement of the rest of what bloodofox asserted (like, if it'd been me, I'd probably have tried—in both initial comment & response—to at least mention "I see you have been trying to do just that, but sometimes, in cases like these, I might recommend that one try [...]"; or "Yes, I can see why that'd be disheartening"; or... somethin').
Then again, I suppose @AirshipJungleman29 would hardly have been the first to be—nor the most—condescending, herein (& if indeed he meant to be at all—re-reading the comments, I don't think I'd actually impute any such motivation to 'im); and the first comment is helpful & the latter advice is good. No worries, I say!
Himaldrmann (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he was, I can't say with any certainty. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of toponymy

[edit]

Is there a reason this article doesn't even mention the matter of toponyms? I added this material only for it to be mass reverted by some of the FA approvers. Anyone with the slightest familiarity with this topic will encounter discussion of this important matter and yet it is not here (in fact, all etymological matters — the core of the article and why these words have received the attention they have — are smashed together and shoved in at the end). :bloodofox: (talk) 08:07, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article review

[edit]

Due to some outstanding concerns raised on the talk page, I nominated this article for featured article review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:21, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: & @Yngvadottir:, regarding above. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To gloss or be glossed

[edit]

@Generalissima: the article says things like It [Bædling] is given three different Latin glosses. I understand that a gloss (annotation) is an "explanatory note or translation of a foreign, archaic, technical, difficult, complex, or uncommon expression" (wikt:gloss#Etymology 2), so that seems to be the wrong way round. I would suggest It [Bædling] is used as a gloss for three different Latin expressions. What do you think? TSventon (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also a similar comparison with adultery is also applied to bæddels in the Antwerp Glossary. What does Bell 2023 say? The scanned Antwerp glosses don't mention adultery, as far as I can see. TSventon (talk) 06:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked the wording to clarify that bæddel and bædling are used to gloss Latin words, rather than the other way round. TSventon (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

[edit]

@Generalissima: I have had a look at the Definition section and think it needs some more work. I don't claim to be any kind of expert on early medieval texts, so I apologise for any misunderstandings of my own. (There are scans of the four glosses and the main excerpt from the penitential on Commons, so I have created Commons:Category:Bæddel and bædling for convenience.)

  • It [Bædling] is given three different Latin glosses used to gloss three different Latin words in the four extant sources, including mollis 'soft person' Bædling does not gloss mollis, it is possibly used as a translation in the penitentiaries, so mollis could be removed here.
  • mollis 'soft person' needs to be explained. According to Frantzen 2020 Recent scholars are in general agreement on the meaning of "molles.” Boswell argued that "molles" means "weak-willed” or “debauched," possibly "wanton" or "unrestrained."
  • The Old English translation of the penitential handbook Paenitentiale Theodori makes a distinction between men and bædlings the article should explain that the translation is based on categories in the Latin penitential. According to Frantzen 2020 Theodore's Penitential uses three categories to describe men who have sex with other men: "masculus,” “sidomitae,” [presumably "Sodomitae"] and “molles" (1.2.2, 1.2.5–6, CED 3:178).
  • The Old English translation of the penitential handbook Paenitentiale Theodori Two translations of the Paenitentiale Theodori mention bædlings, so it would be helpful to mention them both.
  • a similar comparison with adultery is also applied to bæddels in the Antwerp Glossary. I can't access Bell 2023, but, as far as I can see, the scanned Antwerp glosses don't mention adultery.

TSventon (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I'd have no disagreement with any of the first four here being done as bold edits.
Bell 2023 is available on TWL -- the relevant quotation is This occurs in Antwerp, Plantin-Moretus, MS 32, where the Latin hermafroditus (hermaphrodite) is glossed as scritta (scrætte, “adulteress”) and bæddel. That's pretty unequivocal: does the citation there help you find it? It's not impossible that Bell has misread, but I'd generally be very cautious about proposing to overrule a scholarly source's statement of fact with a Wikipedian's observations, however expert they are, as that's WP:OR by any definition. UndercoverClassicist T·C 08:22, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
UndercoverClassicist, Thank you, I will try to update the article. The usage of mollis is quite complex, as I expect you know. I am not trying to overrule a scholarly source, I wanted to find out what it said first (I couldn't find Project Muse under M in TWL, but now realise it is under P). TSventon (talk) 11:37, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Mollis" in classical Latin has strong connotations of effeminacy and non-normative homosexual sex (in fact, that's pretty much its only meaning when applied to a person), but I'd need to defer to an early medievalist as to whether that was still true in our period. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Wæp(e)nwifestre"

[edit]

Is it really in the glosses? Is there an up-to-date available mirror of the glosses to show this? All online search results seem to lead back to this Wiki page and the corresponding (equally unsourced) Wiktionary page, where it was added by an IP-address with no cited sources; are we dealing with citogenesis? Inimicvs-voster (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

E: What makes me suspicious is the fact that it's said to be "uniquely attested" but the Wiktionary page lists two alternate forms. Inimicvs-voster (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll down to the body: you'll find it cited to Bell 2023, page 18. Specifically:

Bædling is unattested anywhere else in the surviving Old English corpus, aside from two tenth-century glosses: one in London, British Library, MS Cotton Cleopatra A.III, where effeminata is annotated as molles/bædlingas; and MS Harley 3376, where the Latinate cariar is translated as bædling. It is possible that the word has links to bæddel, another obscure Old English word that is preserved only in a glossThis occurs in Antwerp, Plantin-Moretus, MS 32, where the Latin hermafroditus (hermaphrodite) is glossed as scritta (scrætte, “adulteress”) and bæddel. In this manuscript, scritta/scrætta and bæddel are further associated with another word wæpenwifestre, also not attested elsewhere. This last word seems to function like wæpnedman, delineating a woman (wif) that has the phallic masculinity of a wæpen.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 11:44, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've in the meanwhile found a dictionary citation for it, which I'll add specifically under the word. The alternate form (without -e-) on Wiktionary should probably be recommended for deletion, as it seems to be citogenesis there Inimicvs-voster (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inimicvs-voster you can see scans of the glosses discussed (and the longer version of the penitential) at Commons:Category:Bæddel and bædling. Commons:File:Hermafroditus in the Antwerp-London Glossaries.jpg has a link to the whole manuscript and the relevant page is 15r. TSventon (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I found it later; my issue was primarily because I found the e-less variant and searching led me only to here and Wiktionary (I actually have a physical OE dictionary that does include wæpenwifestre that I saw later, but no e-less variant). I added a citation to it here, and requested a deletion on Wiktionary to remove the ghost form that seems to be producing citogenesis. Inimicvs-voster (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]