Wiki 'Mistakes'

[Scafloc]

In the Stark family tree, Benjen is listed before Lyanna. With Bran's vision in Adwd, we now know Benjen is younger than Lyanna, or can hasard a good guess.

Would it be better to swap the two of them in the tree, or is there other information showing Benjen is older?

and this is why one needs to discuss these things: It is also implied (but not confirmed) that Brandon later bedded Ashara Dayne and got her with child.

it's not implied particularly anywhere, and whoever filled that is getting ahead of themselves. A wiki must be objective and only use facts, otherwise it's anarchy.

Not really. A reasonable case can be made that Brandon did in fact impregnate Ashara. However I do not like for the wiki to use the word "implied" even for theories that are very likely to be true. It is better just to report the facts and let each reader make up his own mind.

Thus I think we should state that Barristan Selmy remembers that Ashara "looked for Stark" and that she was dishonered at Harrenhal.

The http://awoiaf.wester...hp/Ashara_Dayne page tells it nicely.

About the family tree; not every family tree has the oldest members of the family to the left and the younger to the right. Sometimes it is just a matter where there is enough space to include a family member or a spouse of a family member.

So I do not feel that the three is sugesting that Benjen is older then Lyanna. Either way it does not bother me if you change the Stark tree.

[niamh]

It is "implied" nowhere in GRRM's writings.And yes thank you I just read everything about Ashara and this is how I know it is nowhere "implied" or otherwise.

All it is is "a possible theory amongst a number of others".

Stuff like that is not impartial or proven and has no business being in a wiki of any sort. To which you seem to agree

[Scafloc]

"Implied" is the wrong word to use. But you may want to reread chapter 67 of A Dance with Dragons. It clearly states that Ashara "turned to Stark" and that she was dishonered at Harrehal.

Note that Barristan Selmy (the pov character) does not say which Stark.

[Werthead]

"Implied" is the wrong word to use. But you may want to reread chapter 67 of A Dance with Dragons. It clearly states that Ashara "turned to Stark" and that she was dishonered at Harrehal.

Note that Barristan Selmy (the pov character) does not say which Stark.

Although, considering that Barristan liked Eddard and held him in great honour (in AGoT and here in ADWD noting that he stood vigil for him in secret), and we know Brandon is a Grade-A arsehole from Barbry Dustin, this is not exactly an idea plucked out of the ether :) But despite the evidence, it is still a fan theory not fully confirmed by GRRM.

[niamh]

I'm not denying it, I'm saying it has no room in a wiki. Next thing you know it'll be put in the damn app and we'll have slavering hordes brandishing the sentence as if it were the word of God to Moses. You know how it works

[WakeTheDragon]

I noticed they were missing some valyrian steel blades in their list. Needle isn't listed nor is dawn.

[The BlackBear]

I noticed they were missing some valyrian steel blades in their list. Needle isn't listed nor is dawn.

Needle isn't Valyrian, it's straight forward steel, castle forged (means it's good) but isn't Valyrian. Dawn is forged from a meteor, it's completely unique, and similar to Valyrian steel (if a bit better in fact) but it isn't Valyrian.

[Werthead]

I'm not denying it, I'm saying it has no room in a wiki. Next thing you know it'll be put in the damn app and we'll have slavering hordes brandishing the sentence as if it were the word of God to Moses. You know how it works

True. If it has to be on there, it should only be present in a clearly-marked 'fan speculation' section (and whether the wiki should have such a section is itself controversial).

[Ran]

I like the idea of having Theory sections, myself. Better than just putting a Theory/Speculative sub-section on the main page, to more clearly separate speculation from solid material.

[James Arryn]

I like the idea of having Theory sections, myself.

Isn't that what we are?

[Lion of Judah]

There is a mistake on the AWOIAF app, I'm not sure if this is the place to report it, but under Melisandre it says she used a shadow creature to kill Jon Penrose. It wasn't Jon Penrose, it should say Cortnay Penrose. Jon Penrose only appeared in the Hedge Knight where he unseated Tybolt Lannister.

[Scafloc]

The wiki article of Melisandre says it correct. http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Melisandre

Also I checked the history of the article and it seems to be correct as well. So I have no idea where the app gets its info.

[Black Lady]

I think I found an other mistake on the wiki but I'm not sure.

It list Robert arryn as Edmure Tully's heir on the page of house Tully. But with Catelyn being older as Lysa, shouldn't her children come before Lysa's? That would make Bran the logical heir, right? Or do you guys list the person that is believed to be the heir as heir. Thus, is Robert the heir because they believe Bran and Rickon dead?

[Scafloc]

It has been there for two years. I think it is based on a remark from Genna Lannister. The fief has been granted to Genna's husband and she considers Arryn's claim a possible threat.:

"And if Ser Brynden should survive this siege, he might be inclined to claim Riverrun in his own name . . . or in the name of young Robert Arryn." - A Feast for Crows - Chapter 33

Genna does not know that Bran and Rickon are alife but she talks about claims. Not about who she considers the rightfull heir. In the same chapter Genna also makes a remark that a son of Edmure would be an even greater threat.

So there is no official heir for house Tully. I advocate in my proposal for the new policy that info in the character templates (and some other templates) should be based on the situation at the begin of the books. This policy would solve the heir-of-the-Tullys problem because at the begin of the books it is clear and official who the heir is. Now it is not clear and even if it would be it would probably require extra changes in the future...

[Free Northman]

The Wiki has the wrong chronological order of the Stark Kings of Winter. It states that they are in rough chronological order, but they are not, based on evidence in the books. I need to go back to my books to confirm the finer details, but the fact that Brandon the Burner and Brandon the Shipwright are listed before Jon Stark who raised the Wolf's Den at the future site White Harbor is clearly wrong.

Brandon the Shipwright and his son Brandon the Burner are heavily suggested to have lived within the last 1000 years - both if you look at the order in which Kings are mentioned when people visit the crypts and based on the fact that the Manderlys seem to imply that the Northern Fleet was burned in a time when they were already part of the North - hence within the last 1000 years.

The Wolf's Den, however, was according to Ser Bartimus built anything from 3000 to 4000 or possibly even more years ago. It was built before the Manderlys arrived 1000 years ago. It was built before the wars with the Vale, which started about 1000 years prior to the Manderlys arrival, and even before the start of these wars it was inhabited by Greystarks for 500 years, Lockes and Flints for something like 300 years and an uncounted number of other Stark younger sons before that.

So a date for King Jon Stark is probably at a minimum around 3000 years ago. And it could be much longer.

.

[Scafloc]

I assume that you are referring to the paragraph of House Stark that mentions the notable Starks in history.

What the paragraph (and the whole article) is missing is references and notes explaining the reasoning and where the facts can be found. A quick search through the books resulted in the following:

When Bran and Rickon are in the vaults because they sense their fathers death Bran thinks: "...there were other levels underneath, vaults even deeper and darker where the older kings were buried. " (A_Game_of_Thrones-Chapter_66)

They are again the faults after their escape from Theon: "...down to the deeper levels where kings more ancient still sat their dark thrones" (A_Clash_of_Kings-Chapter_69)

So it is clear that the lower you go the older the kings are.

In agot-chapter 66 they go up so they begin with the older statues and climb up to the less older. Bran then names a number of kings in this order:

"That one is Jon Stark. When the sea raiders landed in the east, he drove them out and built the castle at White Harbor. His son was Rickard Stark, not my father’s father but another Rickard, he took the Neck away from the Marsh King and married his daughter. Theon Stark’s the real thin one with the long hair and the skinny beard. They called him the ‘Hungry Wolf,’ because he was always at war. That’s a Brandon, the tall one with the dreamy face, he was Brandon the Shipwright, because he loved the sea. His tomb is empty. He tried to sail west across the Sunset Sea and was never seen again. His son was Brandon the Burner, because he put the torch to all his father’s ships in grief. There’s Rodrik Stark, who won Bear Island in a wrestling match and gave it to the Mormonts. And that’s Torrhen Stark, the King Who Knelt. He was the last King in the North and the first Lord of Winterfell, after he yielded to Aegon the Conqueror. Oh, there, he’s Cregan Stark. He fought with Prince Aemon once, and the Dragonknight said he’d never faced a finer swordsman.” They were almost at the end now, and Bran felt a sadness creeping over him. “And there’s my grandfather, Lord Rickard, who was beheaded by Mad King Aerys. His daughter Lyanna and his son Brandon are in the tombs beside him. Not me, another Brandon, my father’s brother."

After their escape they go down so they see the older statues later. Again Bran mentions and numer of Starks:

"Torrhen Stark, the King Who Knelt. Edwyn the Spring King. Theon Stark, the Hungry Wolf. Brandon the Burner and Brandon the Shipwright. Jorah and jonos, Brandon the Bad, Walton the Moon King, Edderion the Bridegroom, Eyron, Benjen the Sweet and Benjen the Bitter, King Edrick Snowbeard."

Theon Stark is mentioned twice and close to Brandon the burner so he could be a good pointer to establish how ancient Brandon the burner is relatively to Theon. However in the first order Bran mentions he names Theon before the Burner. This seems to point that Theon is older. But in the second order he is again mentioned before the Burner but in this case the order seems to indicate that the Burner is the older one!

You are pointing to the Manderlys but what Lord Wyman says is:

"We have had no strength at sea for hundreds of years, since Brandon the Burner put the torch to his father’s ships." (A_Clash_of_Kings-Chapter_16) With "We" he seems to mean the North. Why would Manderly refer to the Manderly family when he tries to point out the advantages of having a fleet for the North. That would suggest that the Manderly fleet was Burned. That seems strange to me.

Also based on the order of the statues it seems that the Shipwright and his son are neither the oldest kings nor the youngest but somewhere in between. But I agree that the current orden in the house Stark paragraph seems wrong as this makes them close to the oldest Starks.

NB take note that a number of remarks by the characters seem to point out that they do not know an exact order themselves!

[Free Northman]

I assume that you are referring to the paragraph of House Stark that mentions the notable Starks in history.

What the paragraph (and the whole article) is missing is references and notes explaining the reasoning and where the facts can be found. A quick search through the books resulted in the following:

When Bran and Rickon are in the vaults because they sense their fathers death Bran thinks: "...there were other levels underneath, vaults even deeper and darker where the older kings were buried. " (A_Game_of_Thrones-Chapter_66)

They are again the faults after their escape from Theon: "...down to the deeper levels where kings more ancient still sat their dark thrones" (A_Clash_of_Kings-Chapter_69)

So it is clear that the lower you go the older the kings are.

In agot-chapter 66 they go up so they begin with the older statues and climb up to the less older. Bran then names a number of kings in this order:

"That one is Jon Stark. When the sea raiders landed in the east, he drove them out and built the castle at White Harbor. His son was Rickard Stark, not my father’s father but another Rickard, he took the Neck away from the Marsh King and married his daughter. Theon Stark’s the real thin one with the long hair and the skinny beard. They called him the ‘Hungry Wolf,’ because he was always at war. That’s a Brandon, the tall one with the dreamy face, he was Brandon the Shipwright, because he loved the sea. His tomb is empty. He tried to sail west across the Sunset Sea and was never seen again. His son was Brandon the Burner, because he put the torch to all his father’s ships in grief. There’s Rodrik Stark, who won Bear Island in a wrestling match and gave it to the Mormonts. And that’s Torrhen Stark, the King Who Knelt. He was the last King in the North and the first Lord of Winterfell, after he yielded to Aegon the Conqueror. Oh, there, he’s Cregan Stark. He fought with Prince Aemon once, and the Dragonknight said he’d never faced a finer swordsman.” They were almost at the end now, and Bran felt a sadness creeping over him. “And there’s my grandfather, Lord Rickard, who was beheaded by Mad King Aerys. His daughter Lyanna and his son Brandon are in the tombs beside him. Not me, another Brandon, my father’s brother."

After their escape they go down so they see the older statues later. Again Bran mentions and numer of Starks:

"Torrhen Stark, the King Who Knelt. Edwyn the Spring King. Theon Stark, the Hungry Wolf. Brandon the Burner and Brandon the Shipwright. Jorah and jonos, Brandon the Bad, Walton the Moon King, Edderion the Bridegroom, Eyron, Benjen the Sweet and Benjen the Bitter, King Edrick Snowbeard."

Theon Stark is mentioned twice and close to Brandon the burner so he could be a good pointer to establish how ancient Brandon the burner is relatively to Theon. However in the first order Bran mentions he names Theon before the Burner. This seems to point that Theon is older. But in the second order he is again mentioned before the Burner but in this case the order seems to indicate that the Burner is the older one!

You are pointing to the Manderlys but what Lord Wyman says is:

"We have had no strength at sea for hundreds of years, since Brandon the Burner put the torch to his father’s ships." (A_Clash_of_Kings-Chapter_16) With "We" he seems to mean the North. Why would Manderly refer to the Manderly family when he tries to point out the advantages of having a fleet for the North. That would suggest that the Manderly fleet was Burned. That seems strange to me.

Also based on the order of the statues it seems that the Shipwright and his son are neither the oldest kings nor the youngest but somewhere in between. But I agree that the current orden in the house Stark paragraph seems wrong as this makes them close to the oldest Starks.

NB take note that a number of remarks by the characters seem to point out that they do not know an exact order themselves!

The fact that Manderly refers to "hundreds of years" rather than thousands is another reason to put Brandon the Burner within the last 1000 years.

As to Jon Stark. He is the oldest King mentioned by Bran and may be one of the first on the top level of the crypts. Maybe THE first.

And his dating is set at a conservative 3000 years ago by the rather detailed information we get from Lord Borrel of Sisterton and Ser Bartimus of the Wolf's Den - both in Davos chapters in Dance.

His dating coincides with the building of the Wolf's Den, which predates the Manderly's arrival 1000 years ago, predates the Rape of Sisterton 2000 years ago, and predates the tenures of the Greystarks, Lockes, Flints and a host of Stark cadet branches, which easily add anything from 1000-2000 years on top of the Rape of Sisterton date.

So at the very least we are looking at 3000 years ago for Jon Stark. (Although nothing prevents it from being 4000 or even 5000 years ago either). Clearly he is the oldest of the Kings mentioned on the top level of the crypts.

He must definitely appear long before Brandon the Shipwright and Brandon the Builder, as should his son Rickard who won the Neck from the Marsh King.

Also, King Edrick the Snowbeard - and his son Brandon Ice Eyes - must have lived very long ago as well, as he is listed at the end of Bran's second list - but before Bran comes to Jon Stark. This again makes sense, as Ser Bartimus places Brandon Ice Eyes' slaugther of the Slavers at the Wolf's Den long before the Manderly's were given White Harbor, but after Jon Stark had established the Wolf's Den, therefore more than 1000 years ago, but less than the 3000 years we've conservatively assigned to Jon Stark.

So most certainly Jon Stark and his son Rickard Stark should be the oldest on the list Bran gives us, and Edrick Snowbeard and his son Brandon Ice Eyes should definitely be older than Brandon the Shipwright and Brandon the Builder as well.

EDIT:

What is also clear is that Bran leaves out the vast majority of Kings, probably only naming one out of every 10 or so Kings. Because as Ser Bartimus describes, there are clearly millenia between the time of Jon Stark and Brandon the Shipwright, but in Bran's list they are seperated by only about 5 names.

So cleary, even if the average Stark King ruled for 30 years - which is a heck of a long average - there should still have been up to 60 Kings between Jon Stark and Brandon the Shipwright. (Assuming a 2000 year gap, which is a very conservative estimate).

For example, look at the number of Stark Lords that are mentioned since the Conquest. There are at least 10, going by the list on the Wiki page.

That's in just 300 years. So do the maths for 3000 years back to Jon Stark, and you get at least 100 Kings. Probably closer to 200, given the martial nature and high death rate among Stark lords.

[Scafloc]

I agree with most statements only "Hundreds of years" sounds a lot more then the less then 1000 years. Also the information on House Hoare seems to indicate that Rodrik Stark (who lived after Brandon the burner) lived a looong time ago.

[Free Northman]

I agree with most statements only "Hundreds of years" sounds a lot more then the less then 1000 years. Also the information on House Hoare seems to indicate that Rodrik Stark (who lived after Brandon the burner) lived a looong time ago.

Well no, Rodrik Stark is mentioned just before Torhenn Stark in Bran's list. So clearly Rodrik Stark lived fairly recently. A rough date of around 400-500 years ago would fit quite well. Putting Brandon the Burner at say 600-700 years ago, for example.

I think the key here is that House Woodfoot of the North ruled Bear Island in the distant past. But then the Ironborn captured it from them and House Woodfoot became extinct.

So for an unknown period of time the North had lost Bear Island, until Rodrik Stark won it fairly recently and gave it to House Mormont. If House Mormont got Bear Island BEFORE they got Longclaw, then Rodrik must have lived before 500 years ago. If not, then Rodrik could have lived more recently.

I would hazard a guess - based on no real evidence - that House Mormont may have gotten Longclaw at the same time they got Bear Island. If so, then Rodrik lived 500 years ago.

[Free Northman]

In fact, the thought just struck me that it would be extremely fitting if the Ironborn conquest of Bear Island took place shortly after Brandon the Burner burned the Northern Fleet - thus leaving the likes of Bear Island vulnerable to Ironborn incursions.

If so, then the Ironborn would only have held Bear Island for a few centuries - say from around 700 years ago to around 500 years ago or thereabouts.

It would make sense that Brandon the Burner's actions would have consequences in terms of the Starks' offshore holdings. Especially on the West Coast with its everpresent Ironborn threat.