As the topic says, please remove the article "Ancient Britain". It appears to be not a historical article but a propaganda piece advocating creation. Of course there is nothing wrong with that but this subject has nothing to do with ancient Britain. Apart from that, the author bases his arguments on a swamp. In this post I will disprove all the main arguments he makes. Basically, the article says: After the fall of Troy, a group of Trojans moved to Britain where they established "New Troy". King Lud renamed Troy to Caer-Ludd, which was later changed into London. This is bad because it makes us forget our Trojan past. This is proven because in three medieval history books (Tysilio's Chronicle, Nennius' History of Britain, and Geoffrey of Monmouth's History of the Kings of Britain) all state this. Historians discredit Nennius and Geoffrey of Monmouth because they say that the Trojans were descended from Noah. These historians are evolutionists, and are afraid that acknowledging these sources as accurate will prove the flood and subsequently the existence of god and the truth of creation. Since the ancient Britons had no way of knowing about Noah yet still claim to descend from him, this proves he existed. Well, that's the article in brief. I've linked to the full article at the top, it's best if you'll read it along with my article to see what I mean exactly. 1. On the Trojans and Britain. There is no real, archaeological evidence to prove that some Trojans moved to Britain. It is in fact illogical, considering the following: in the ancient period cities were small. Troy was a big city for its day, 1200BC, but we cannot logically assume that it would've had more than a few thousand inhabitants. Considering the Greeks successfully captured the city and then razed it to the ground, killing whoever they came across, it is unlikely to assume that many escaped. According to the original legend Aeneas escaped with his son, father and some followers. According to the aforementioned sources Britain was quite empty when some Trojan refugees, led by Aeneas' grandson Brutus (a distinctly Roman name, not Greek/Trojan at all) reached Britain (there were giants, but no "normal" people). If we take this literally, as CelticHeart52 does, this means that all ancient Britons were Trojans. Are we to assume that a handful of refugees populated all of Britain? This is disproven by the fact of neolithic settlements and other indications of habitation by humans, long before 1000BC, the date the Trojans supposedly arrived. Nor are there any signs of a distinct change of leadership (from Ancient Briton into Trojan hands) as Geoffrey of Monmouth suggest. Besides, this does not matter; CelticHeart assumes that no people whatsoever lived in Britain before the Trojans. This is blatantly untrue. (And if it was true that the Britons descended from the Trojans, it's hardly likely to still be so; Celtic, Germanic, Norman and Flemish waves have severely changed the population). 2. Discarding CelticHeat52's statements Geoffrey is not despised and discarded because of this very ancient book. Geoffrey of Monmouth is despised because he wrote a bunch of garbled nonsense about the Kings of Britain. For example, he claims that Arthur conquered Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Gaul, etc. Because Geoffrey's description of "recent" (ie Arthurian) history is so inaccurate, we have no reason to assume that his "older" history (ie Trojan settlement) is accurate either. If Geoffrey of Monmouth had stayed a bit closer to the facts, there is more chance that he would've been somewhat believable. CelticHeart52 seems to interpret historical manuscripts in the same way he interprets the bible: taking everything literally. This is of course no problem with the bible, since it's supposed to have been the word of God. However, these historical manuscripts are written by normal "mortals". There is no reason to assume they know everything that happened. Often they wilfully changed history when they wrote it down. Nennius was living in a Christian Age; Christianity had to be spread and it had to be argumented too. By claiming that the people descended from Noah, this would "prove" (without any facts to back it up) that the Bible was true, and would make a tighter link between God and the British (which would make it easier for the British to abandon their original gods). Wrong. Nennius wrote in the 8th Century. He was a Christian. Tysilio died around 630. He became a saint for a reason (ie he was a Christian). Geoffrey of Monmouth lived in the 12the century. He was a Christian. There is no pagan source that states that the Celts descend from Noah. There is no reason to assume that there are pre-christian sources used in writing the aforementioned histories. CelticHeart52 himself says that the "ancient" book that Monmouth uses, was Tysilio's Chronicle, which is Christian in origin and therefore cannot be counted as a Pagan book (nor do I know if in Tysilio's Chronicle it mentions a link between Noah and the Britons). Not a bit of CelticHeart52's argument can remain standing. There is no reason to come to the conclusion that he came to. His article is not based on history and I'm afraid all it'll do is make the rest of your articles seem questionable, as it seems no standard is required to your articles. Or perhaps this one just slipped through. I hope so, in any case, and I hope this error can be repaired.