Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Archive 1

Archive 1

Recent Changes

I did some major organizational stuff and talking around today. I hope that this helps put some momentum on the project. If you have any changes, or I left anything out, please feel free to contact me. Also, I requested help from WP:History on the 1.0 assessment stuff, hopefully that gets up soon. When it does I will use WP:AutoWikiBrowser to add project tags to pages. Sadads (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Anything that forwards the aims and objectives of the project is all good in my book. This is my first WikiProject, so I'm finding my way. Obviously a lot of the items listed need to be agreed by consensus once enough editors have signed up.Metabaronic (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I suggest just writing things, and if one of us has a disagreement bringing it up on the talk. Do you have any suggestions for the first collaboration? We should pick something rather frequently traveled but not so large that we have to reassess the previous writing and research. Sadads (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure we have a quorum yet, but everything looks good to me so far. I am currently working Mercia, don't know that I'll get it to FA or anything by myself, but I was planning on just bringing things up incrementally.Revcasy (talk) 11:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Projects that need work and define the boundaries of the project might be good starting points. For example, Hereward the Wake needs a lot of cleaning up, needs history from myth to be disaggegated, and will be a useful marker to define the end of the period covered.Metabaronic (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like a good plan to me. Another good boundary article might be De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae, at the other end of the time line, and equally in need of attention. Revcasy (talk) 13:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest going earlier into sub-roman England. That period does not have any group covering, and probably will not and the extended vacuum left by Roman departure definitely is the cause of the Anglo-Saxon invasion. I suggest that we take any article not primarily associated with the Romans or the Normans during the period covered within the article History of Anglo-Saxon England. That way we can get Sub-Roman Britain, the Danelaw and the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, with a focus on the Anglo-Saxons in collaborations and task forces etc. Narrowing too much, makes the project a little too hard to recruit for and maintain active members. Sadads (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae falls under sub-roman England, which started around 410 and is already within the scope of the project, so should be added as a potential task force.Metabaronic (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added Sub-Roman England to the task force list. The related category covers sub-roman Britain, and could do with the addition of sub-categories for sub-roman England, Scotland and Wales.Metabaronic (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you include the Battle of Ethandun on the 'Priority articles to improve' list? The current description is somewhat rambling! Also the main body of current opinion favours Edington, Wiltshire as the site of the battle, they seem to have given equal weight to other possible sites. As you know Anglo Saxon history is full of possibles and probables! Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk Page Banner, and assessment

Got talk page banner running, go ahead and start tagging. That is one of the more important things, it both gets our name out and helps us figure out exactly what we have to work with. I was going to try to do tagging with AWB but it is pulling a really huge list from the category that includes a bunch of contemporary topics which I am trying to solve by reorganizing categories. Sadads (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember that some contemporary topics will need to be covered eg. Mercian Way and Forest of Mercia.Metabaronic (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I fixed the categorization problems, will try to filter stuff that doesn't actually belong to the project through AWB adding of the Banner, but we can do that while assessing too. Will take me a couple of days to do because I have to go through each step manually. Sadads (talk) 10:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Also as we physically assess we should be keeping an eye out for articles that ought to be deleted/merged to something else because of Notabilility. Sadads (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe South Saxons should be merged into Kingdom of Sussex. This was proposed originally I believe in 2007. I think it has been long enough for a consensus to emerge =). I will look into this as time allows—the two articles are not particularly long (or well referenced), but I've never merged two articles before, so help or suggestions would be welcome.Revcasy (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Supported at the discussion. Metabaronic (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Finished AWB sweep of Category:Anglo-Saxon England, the other categories either do not fall wholly under our control, or were included in. Sadads (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Banner Issues

Banner issues have been raised by User talk:Johnbod at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Middle Ages. The concerns are valid, and raise the following questions:

• When do WPASK banners appear at the top of a list of banners?: I propose that any list of banners should be ordered first according to importance, and secondly in alphabetical order.

• Where do complaints about our banners go?: I will set up a separate page WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Banner.

Some articles are inappropriately tagged. I'll add that as a section on the banner page.Metabaronic (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

While I have not worked nearly as hard as others at adding the banners, I have always put them at the bottom (I think). That said, the user who raised the concern seems a little over-sensitive about minor organizational issues. The order in which the banners appear has no practical effect on their function, which is simply an internal organizational, or meta-level tool. I can understand the desire he expressed that they be nested using WikiProjectBannerShell template when there are more than two or three banners on a talk page, as it is then a matter of reducing clutter. However, if User talk:Johnbod has some grand organizational scheme in mind when it comes to project banners, then perhaps he should take it upon himself to put it in place, or perhaps lobby for some sort of Wikipedia policy on the subject. I am aware of no established policy as things stand, and if I start re-arranging banners where will it end??? Besides, "Anglo-Saxon" is pretty close to the beginning of alphabetical order surely? In cases like this of disputes with users who seem to live under a bridge or overpass of some sort, I like to take the (entirely appropriate) attitude, "You can argue all you like, but in the end I am still smarter." It has the advantage of resolving the dispute as far as I am concerned, and then they also get to go about their business of dealing with trespassing goats. Revcasy (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

These kind of disputes just need to be diffused, as Revcasy points out it is kindof petty. The reason why the banner is at the top is because I was running through the pages really quickly on WP:AutoWikiBrowser, I left an edit comment when I added them, for people to report mistakes to my talk during the en-mass addition. Most editors will get what was happening by reading the edit comment and either delete innappropriate tags or do whatever minor reorginization needs to be done on the talk page, so I wasn't too concerned. I can take any other problem reports on the banner as well if need be. Sadads (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no dispute, there was just one grumpy comment. No harm in letting people know we do respond to issues raised.Metabaronic (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I see you are still at it, so I'm still grumpy. [1]. Johnbod (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Englisc Wicipǣdia

I've added a section on the Englisc Wicipǣdia to highlight the importance of a relationship between this project and that wiki - I did consider putting it as a sister link, but felt its importance may be greater. It might be useful for any Old English speaking members of this WikiProject to look at crosspromotion of the two and looking into linking articles with translations.Metabaronic (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Importance Guideline

Maybe we should develop some sort of guideline for assessing the importance of articles. It seems obvious that all of the kingdoms of the heptarchy should be given "Top" importance ratings—and the heptarchy itself for that matter(or should it?). What about the minor sub-kingdoms or tribes that were later absorbed? What about the article on Bede? What about the article on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles? What about kings? Should all the kings be given equal importance ratings? Or should Alfred the Great be given "Top", Penda of Mercia "High", and so on? I realize that it is a subjective judgement, but some sort of rough guideline might be helpful, and keep us all on the same page. Revcasy (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How would you compare Alfred with someone like "Æthelred the Unready" for example? Probably both equally significant but for completely the opposite reasons! My view is that the kings who significantly built what became "England" such as Æthelstan, Edgar and Alfred should be rated "Top". On that basis someone like Cædwalla of Wessex would rate as "Top" because he was responsible for initiating the campaign of conquest and merger that resulted in a unified England, however Æthelred would be rated "high" as he did the opposite. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

My rule of thumb always is:

1. If they are always covered in undergrad college courses or textbooks dealing with the period they are Top
2. High = usually covered
3. Mid = probably not covered
4. Low = trivial topic that very few specialist would know

I always try to think like a college professor when doing this, it allows me to write the curriculum from the project's perspective. May also want to compare to other projects systems like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels/Assessment#Importance_scale and Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Importance_of_topic. Fortunately, this is not set in stone. There is no way we will be able to cover all of the most important aspects of the scholarship. So just rate each thing, and if you come across one which you disagree with just change it. Not too important. Sadads (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I slightly disagree, as something can be highly significant but not covered greatly by a college courses. From a Mercian perspective, I'd put Penda of Mercia as Top priority not because of his coverage in college courses but because of his pre-eminence during his reign and because of the significance of his impact on the ultimate formation of the kingdom. Similarly Æthelbald and Offa are Top and Wulfhere may be Top or High. I also feel that legendary figures like Beowulf, Godiva and Hereward merit top status because of their legacies.Metabaronic (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My own suggestion would be that there should be many fewer Top articles than High; I think if you make Godiva Top you'll have hundreds of Top articles. But I agree with Sadads that it's not too important to have a rigorous definition; we could just describe it as "core" topics for a class, and leave it at that. Practically speaking, since most readers won't ever interact with the project, the value of the importance rating is only if we decide to use it to prioritize articles to work on. Mike Christie (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why there would be hundreds of top articles like Godiva as there are very few significant Anglo-Saxon myths/legends. Godiva as a noble alone would be Low importance. My point is that the importance of articles has to cut across all project areas.Metabaronic (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

True; I just meant that if Godiva is Top, then thirty or forty kings probably are too, and twenty or more bishops, and most of the archbishops, and so on. I think it would be fine to restrict "Top" to the main kingdoms and a couple of historical overview articles, and perhaps a dozen individuals beyond that. Mike Christie (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Just found this project, so my comments may have missed the boat. Simple written criteria for article importance and class are urgent and should be readily accessible to editors. Some projects (eg WPMILHIST) include simple checklists in their banners as a guide (see Talk:Offa's Dyke). Also see WPHERTS and WPCities projects for their importance criteria. This needs to be agreed asap to avoid backtracking, even if it's just a simple outline. Howabout: Top - fundamental to an understanding of the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, eg Heptarchy Anglo-Saxon; High - an important element of the Kingdoms eg Mercia, Danelaw, Edward the Confessor; Medium - wholly relevant to the project (eg, Offa's Dyke, Anglo-Saxon London); Low - article only partially relevant or on a subject of only local interest (eg, North Elmham). Not great, I know, but a start and can be refined with use. Class criteria are more important since they are a guide to the completeness and reliability of an article and have elements that are common throughout Wiki. Sorry to preach, but most projects I've worked with have gone this route. Folks at 137 (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that simple solutions are always the best. This looks reasonably easy to understand, I like it! For the most part I think would be easy to make work,but I repeat my original question, How would you compare Alfred(the Great) with someone like "Æthelred the Unready"? Not a trick question, some kings for example have no particular merit and have not figured much in history, whereas others are giants amongst men. Æthelred and Alfred both played important roles in history, one for giving into the Danes the other for beating them. So do we rate the same? Wilfridselsey (talk) 13:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Project is titled Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, so Kings and Kingdoms generally need the highest priority.The Kingdoms of the Heptarchy are fixed and sit atop a category tree, so I argue that they would be Top importance. Regarding Kings, this is really an argument between importance in historical context (prioritising the well-documented) vs, importance in understanding the subject matter (prioritising those focused on key events). Both Alfred and Æthelred stand out in both matters, so both would be Top importance as key figures. With other Kings I'd say High importance for those who we have a historical accounts of, Mid- for those who we know existed but have little information about, and Low- for those who only appear in genealogies.Metabaronic (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this; particularly the part about prioritizing the well-documented. In a perfect world the leaders of the first Anglo-Saxon settler groups (for example) would have Top importance, but it would be a shame to give that kind of importance to a topic that we have little or no information about beyond a name in a kings list. For this reason, I think it's important that we be cautious about assigning importance to an article if we are unsure how much information is actually available about the topic it covers. If nothing else, the importance + quality ratings given to an article by various wiki projects affects the Wikipedia 1.0 assessment process. For example, I am in the (long) process of writing and improving the article on Günther Blumentritt, and I have run up against the problem that no full length biography has ever been written about him, and thus the article itself is almost certainly the most extensive source for his life (in English at the very least). This makes it very difficult to improve the article to FA because of the lack of secondary sources that cover his life before and after WWII. To get quickly to the point (before this turns into WP:TLDR), we must choose our battles carefully. Revcasy (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

But it needs to be discussed - we can archive and summarise afterwards. A lot can be done even where little or no information exists. See my Beorma article - all sourced but probably the biggest encyclopaedic article on him. That could easily be done for, say, Creoda of Mercia. I think we should at least try to get articles about the most important figures as far up the GA rankings as we can, and sometimes emphasising their importance and prioritising them as articles would help this.However, thosediscussions should be on an article by article basis.Metabaronic (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The importance criteria are (mainly) an internal project matter, unlike class criteria. So, if the quality/quantity of sources is the bee's knees - then fine! Be careful however about moving this sort of thing beyond the capability of the interested amateur to do ratings - more hands less effort. I'd strongly recommend against "top", without some unarguable justification (this rating needs to be an exclusive group). Criteria need to be accessible and clear. Don't get hung up about it, it's only a measure, the important stuff is in the articles. Try rating a score of articles across the range, as a test run and see how it looks, but do it soon before it becomes an issue. Folks at 137 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Put in templates to be filled out at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Assessment, from discussion. Sadads (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What should be included?

I know very little about the eras covered by this project so can I ask should: Dumnonia, List of Kings of Dumnonia, Dobunni, Dumnonii, Gildas & early holders of Abbot of Glastonbury (when abbots were closely linked to royalty) etc & languages such as Proto-Southwestern Brythonic be included?— Rod ^talk 14:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

My own take is that British Kingdoms would only be covered from the time they are either conquered or agree to pay tribute to an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom. In some cases this never happened, so those Kingdoms would not be covered by the project. In other cases the period of tribute is uncertain - for example there is an argument that prior to 616 King Cearl of Mercia was overlord of British kingdoms in Wales.

The Sub-Roman period coincided with the arrival of the Anglo-Saxons, but the project should really only be concerned with Sub-Roman England - that part of Britain which came under the rulership of Anglo-Saxons prior to the Norman conquest.

In the case of Dumnonia parts of the Kingdom were conquered, but not as far as Cornwall (the Cornovii retained their independence), and exactly how much of the Western Britons were under the overlordship of Anglo-Saxons after the Battle of Deorham in 577 is unclear. Where it is a grey area like this, there probably must be an overlap, and we should work with WP:ARTHUR and WP:WALES to maintain a neutral point-of-view.Metabaronic (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Anglo Saxon Kingdoms

I've set this up at the top of the Category Tree for the project. It captures Anglo Saxon England, the Heptarchy, and the individual Heptarchy Kingdoms. In theory everything else should fit into those categories or their individual subcategories.Metabaronic (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The British Museum wants to give you money and help you write articles!

Yesterday I was lucky enough to attend the Backstage Pass event at the British Museum. It was part of a wider project of engagement with Wikipedia (see WP:GLAM/BM) that has seen them take on a temporary Wikipedian In Residence, User:Witty lama. They see Wikipedia as sharing many of their aims, and they want to encourage involvement by Wikipedians with the museum, and vice versa. They have even offered 5 prizes of £100 at the BM shop for featured articles on BM topics - in any language, Danish included. ;-/ (and is there an Anglo-Saxon version of Wikipedia? That would count too....)
Most Wikipedians probably don't know that the BM has curators dedicated to answering phone/email questions about their specialist areas, and most of their department libraries welcome visitors doing bona fide research - and they now seem to recognise that editing Wikipedia articles, especially about items in the BM's collections, counts for those purposes. I know that the first question most people will have is "Can we have images of all their stuff?" and I'd just ask people to be patient on that front. Let's just say that the museum are well aware of our hopes there, there are staff who see advantages to the museum in doing something, and it's being discussed at the highest level. On the other hand it's a very complex area that needs to be handled diplomatically. Literally in some cases - foreign governments can get very touchy about the dissemination of images of artifacts relating to their cultural history, and the museum needs to respect those concerns.
So for the moment the focus is on using the BM's huge resources of books, expertise etc to improve article content, and hopefully that will include articles being peer-reviewed by BM staff. Some of them are quite nervous about doing stuff on Wikipedia, a mixture of fear of professional ridicule, nervousness about the technical aspects, stories of rapid reverts of good-faith edits and just general culture shock - it's a very different world to the one they come from. So I'd ask everyone to look after any BM people that you see around the place, Wikipedia can gain a lot from their involvement and it would be a shame if they're discouraged for any reason. As I mentioned above, WP:GLAM/BM is the clearing house for the BM's involvement with Wikipedia, and I suggest that further questions/comments are directed there. Le Deluge (talk) 14:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, yes, ang:wikipedia. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject name

Just a minor quibble: I think "Kingdoms" in the project's name should be lower case because it is a common noun. To go even further, a broader name might be more suitable, e.g. "Anglo-Saxons" or "Anglo-Saxon history and culture". Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I like Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, then our abbreviation is WPASK which looks better than WPASHC. Sadads (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, "Anglo-Saxon kingdoms" would be more appropriate, per WP:LOWERCASE. Hayden120 (talk) 06:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Or "Anglo-Saxon England" (WPASE), perhaps? Hayden120 (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought originally, but several users objected. I think its because "England" did not actually exist until after the Normans came. Sadads (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The name "England" actually comes from Old English "Engla land" (land of the Angles), and was used before the Norman invasion. If other editors object, perhaps History of Anglo-Saxon England should be moved, and other publications, such as Cambridge's academic journal, are wrong. Hayden120 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that England came into being under Edgar in the 10th century. Certainly he called himself King of the English. Which implies that England did not exist as a political entity before Edgar. However my reading of the title "History of Anglo-Saxon England", is that it means England the geographical entity of today, during the Anglo-Saxon period, I guess that is somewhat ambiguous. The problem is that in a title it is difficult to convey precisely what the article is about. I think that the "introduction" has the job of doing that. Or to put another way it should tell 'em, what you are going to tell 'em! I don't see any elegant way round that. Of course we could take a leaf out of Peter Heylyns book he entitled :

A Help to English History; containing a Succession of all the Kings of England, the English, Saxons, and the Britons the Kings and Princes of Wales; the Kings and Lords of Man and the Isle of Wight. As also of All the Dukes, Marquises,Earls, and Bishops thereof. With the Descriptions of the Places from whence they had their Titles. Together with the Names and Ranks of the Viscounts, Barons, and Baroners of England.

It sort of explains what the book is about!! Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Northcote Toller

I sent an e-mail to a scholar at my university who has written several articles on him, maybe we can get some help from her. Sadads (talk) 12:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Got a research list, will start writing. She said she would review it for us. Sadads (talk) 13:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Then and now

Should we refer to places by their names at the time? I have noticed that several articles refer to (for example) places of birth being in counties or nations that were not formed until after their deaths. For instance, Oxfordshire was apparently founded in the 10th century. Alfred the Great was somehow born here around 849.

Does this wikiproject use the places at the time or the places that exist now?-- OsirisV (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally, I think that is a judgment call of the editor depending on how much scholarship is available for the pre-Contemporary placename, if it is substantial create the page for the older place and link to it in the history section of the new place name. I would suggest exploring Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) which deals with these issues, Sadads (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I have also noticed some biographies give a birth place as "Wessex, England". Was Wessex an official subdivision of England or were they just born in Wessex and someone simply put down where in the world it is? An example would be Æþelræd of Wessex whose infobox states his birthplace as "Wessex, England". However, the Wessex article says that England is formed in 927.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Wessex was one of the old kingdoms and was never a subdivision as such. Athelstan (of Wessex) is credited with being the first king of all England in 937 after the battle of Brunanburh and he did it largely by conquest. It was the kings of Wessex who are credited with creating England and they did it by conquering or forming treaties with the former constituent kingdoms of England. Initially the Kings of Wessex were overlords of the other kingdoms. It wasn't really till 973 that Edgar was crowned King of all England. So take your pick when England was actually born!However the shape of England in 973 is somewhat different to what it is now. Wessex technically does not exist anymore. However, the term is used by quite a few organistaions eg: Wessex Health Authority, which would be a health authority based in the modern counties of Hampshire and Dorset that approximately coincide with the old borders of ancient Wessex. Talking about ancient times, I think to say that someone was born in Wessex, England is technically incorrect. It should be either Wessex/ the former Kingdom of Wessex/ Ancient Wessex/ or even Wessex present day Hampshire, England. I guess that the editor has said Wessex, England because a lot of people would not know where Wessex is, and added England for clarity, though technically not correct? Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Just like Italy and Germany, England existed as a geographical concept and a country long before it was a single political unit. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems like a confusing situation in which both are correct, with one also being incorrect. Could it be possible for a consensus over this issue? And Johnbod, were you referring to Germany in its 19th-20th century state as a collection of kingdoms (eg. Saxony) and electorates?-- OsirisV (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Its 11-20th century status, yes. Not sure I understand your comment, but never mind. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was thinking of the unusual division of the empire (which seems more like an association of independent states to me).-- OsirisV (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It was, though not formally so until 1648. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Germany was decentralized, England during the early part of this period was more so. Sadads (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, at least from 1648, Germany was a collection of totally independent entities, as was early AS England; there was no centre. Johnbod (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Once England became an entity, its capital was Winchester, the capital of Wessex, and the Kings of Wessex became the early Kings of England. The capital was moved to London after the Norman Conquest. Wilfridselsey (talk) 20:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 00:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo GA review

Sutton Hoo has been nominated to be listed as a Good Article. A review has started and is now on hold while the reviewer does more background reading on the topic. In the meantime a few points have been listed for improvement or discussion here. This project is tagged on the talkpage as one that has an interest in the article, and any extra assistance is always appreciated during a GA review. SilkTork *^YES! 10:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 00:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum's FAR

I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

John Speed's portraits of Anglo-Saxon kings

Hello ! I've got a question about this picture. The caption says it is a depiction of Sigeberht of East Anglia, but John Speed's map actually mentions East Saxon beside it, so shouldn't it rather be Sigeberht the Good? Same goes for this one: is it really Æthelwold of East Anglia, or is it actually Eorpwald? I'm a little bit confused, to say the least, so any clarification would be welcome. Ælfgar (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

None of them are "really" anybody! They are just dreamt up a thousand years later by someone using a wildly inaccurate history book. I hope no one is using them in articles. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I know they are not, but that does not mean they were meant to depict any king: Speed had precise individuals in mind when he drew them. And I believe it interesting to see how a 17th-century historian (however bad his work might appear to us now) saw the Anglo-Saxon kings, especially with the attributed arms and the like, as long as the source is clearly indicated (unlike, for example, the present Alfred the Great with its 19th-century schoolbook drawings). Ælfgar (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

AfD pending on Wulfrida, Queen of Wessex?

The Wulfrida article states she was Queen of Wessex, as wife of Æthelred of Wessex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wulfrida states "No verifiable evidence that Wulfrida existed." I assume users from this project may wish to comment one way or another on this deletion. OCNative (talk) 07:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Svein, King of Norway

There is a dicussion of this man's status as King and his article title at Talk:Svein, King of Norway. If interested please join in the discussion.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Works added at Wikisource

I have added a couple of works recently at English Wikisource that may be useful references for Anglo-Saxon English saints.

• s:St. Oswald and the Church of Worcester (1919) by Joseph Armitage Robinson
• s:The Saxon Cathedral at Canterbury and The Saxon Saints Buried Therein (1929) by Charles Cotton

— billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain? or Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain?

You decide!

RM discussion at talk:Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain#requested move you may be interested in. Two years ago, an editor unilaterally moved the page to settlement without process and against wp:commonname; I've restored it and attempted to patch up some of its self-contradiction and meandering. She's returned and set up a vote. Policies, evidence, discussion after the jump. — LlywelynII 00:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Just for information, the page move from "invasion" to "settlement" was agreed by consensus, and was uncontested, in 2009. It doesn't do LlywelynII any credit to misrepresent that point. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon whatever of Britain

Also, for what it's worth, the page is currently a mass of historiology without much content about the relevant information. If someone has time and can add details about (a) Gildas's account, (b) Bede's account (to the extent it differs), and (c) the modern historians' views – not about the non-genocide of the Celts, but about the actual events which occurred during the A-S whatever – the page would benefit measurably. It's currently ranked "Start" but "High Importance". — LlywelynII 00:57, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Æthelwulf of Wessex listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Æthelwulf of Wessex to be moved to Æthelwulf. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Raith 0 Germany 1?

Some fellow eyes to watch the Battle of Raith article would be appreciated as it is one of several articles which has drawn the attention of an enthusiastic new editor whose mission is apparently to widen the scope of the Germanic Wars and the Military History of Germany to include any conflicts involving peoples who are related to ones who were at any point romanised (in this case Britons in what is now Scotland) and any germanic peoples (Angles). I'm a bit worried about their editing more widely as well, but this article is the one most pertinent to this project. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed merger

I've proposed a merger of Genealogy of the Kings of Mercia to Anglian collection at Talk:Anglian collection and would appreciate interested editors commenting there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon Essays

BBC Radio 3 are doing a series of essays on Anglo-Saxon individuals, if anyone is interested? Available here Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

They're excellent, it's inspiring to hear the experts speaking themselves. Hel-hama (talk) 06:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Alric/Ælfric

See Talk:Wihtred_of_Kent#name_of_son; looks like an error that's been around since 2006. Does anyone have a source that makes it "Ælfric"?

Assuming nobody does, it'll have to be changed in the AS kings templates and in the other language wikis too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

New user changing "King of the English" to "King of England"

I've asked him to stop, to no avail. Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The case is not clear cut. Some sources such as the Handbook of British Chronology describe kings after 927 as King of England, but others such as The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England and A Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain as King of the English. Both are obviously acceptable, but 'the English' seems to have a slight edge and if I remember correctly there was a consensus at some point for this usage.

To be fair to the new user, there was some confusion as several kings were described as of the English in the infobox and of England in the text. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I reverted him at Athelstan, given as example at another article of a king with that title. Dougweller (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I was doing this to make it more consistant and show someone unfamiliar with Anglo-Saxon history that they are one and the same thing, king of the English and king of England. This is something so arbitrary why does it matter such a minor difference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.127.78 (talk) 20:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It matters because we follow the sources ... which favor "King of the English" for this period. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Take a look at [2] - academic sources calling these kings "King of the English" as well as the article I pointed you to, Style of the British sovereign. It seems to be that only with the Danish conquest did the geographical word 'England' come into use, with Cnut probably the first king to call himself King of England. Lawson, M. K. (2004), Cnut – England's Viking King (2nd ed.) Lawson, Cnut, p. 97. "The Anglo-Saxon kings used the title "king of the English". Canute was ealles Engla landes cyning—"king of all England."" After all, he wasn't just king of the English, he was king of the entire population. There's a difference. Dougweller (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Æ or Ae?

I have proposed a move from Aetheling to Ætheling at Talk:Aetheling#Requested move 20 February 2015 and an editor has opposed on the ground that Wikipedia should follow modern dictionaries, not specialist works. As almost all articles use Æ, I think this raises a general point which requires discussion. (I could not find any previous discussion but apologies if I have missed it.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally I prefer Æ. Ae looks ugly and wrong to me. But that may be because I read a lot of Anglo-Saxon history. However, when Æthelred, Lord of the Mercians was nominated for WP:TFA, editors jokingly supported it on the ground that it remedied the lack of TFAs with Æ in them and no reader objected. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This has come up at least once before; I think scholarly sources are the way to go. I'll comment at the RM. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon coins

Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright rules bars copying a coin from any book published after 1923, a rule which is enforced if an article is nominated for FA. However, almost all coins are available in two volumes of catalogues of Anglo-Saxon coins in the British Museum, published at the end of the nineteenth century and uploaded to the web by American universities. Volume I covers kingdoms apart from Wessex and coins of archbishops. Volume 2 covers Wessex and England. I have photographed coins in vol 2 and added them to articles on kings from Egbert of Wessex onwards.

Is anyone is willing to take on adding coins to other AS king and archbishop articles from vol 1? If you do, then please add full details of the book in the image source details. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

PASE template

I have made a new template, {{PASE}}, for links to the Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England, and started migrating links over to it (eg diff).

The template should make links much easier to adapt, if they change the URL format again; and also should make the data easy to port to and then track against Wikidata. (Property proposals there currently in progress).

There are still a lot of A-S people articles without PASE links, so if people feel like looking some up and adding them I think that would be very useful. (I think it would be great if PASE links for A-S people could become as overwhelmingly present and expected as say an IMDB link for a film).

Please let me know if there are any tweaks and changes that should be made to the template -- eg are there any other formatting styles that would be useful, such as for use in references, or does what's now there work well enough?

All best, Jheald (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

House of Wessex family tree

I have made a translation of User:Mark J's wonderful graphic File:Wessex family tree.jpg into wiki markup, at House of Wessex family tree.

It's the first one of these that I've done, so I'd welcome any comments or suggestions.

I haven't translated the whole graphic -- this section of the English monarchs family tree continues onwards from the children of Alfred the Great, so I haven't duplicated that.

But I don't know whether people would think it would be useful to preserve having the whole of the House of Wessex tree on one page? One way to do so, if people do think that would be a good idea, would be to template the 10th & 11th century part, so then it would appear on both pages. Would that be worth doing? (On the other hand a downside is that content would then fall off people's watchlists, unless they now watched the template too).

A couple of other things that aren't now included on either page are

• the supposed ancestry of Ælfflæd, wife of Edward the Elder back to Æthelred I, and
• the supposed descent of Godwin, Earl of Wessex from Æthelhelm son of Æthelred

-- both of these are considered somewhat unlikely, according to our articles, so I don't how much of a loss people think they are. If necessary, they could perhaps be dealt with by translating File:Aelfgifu-genealogy.svg into markup.

Finally, I note that there is an unresolved merge proposal still on House of Wessex family tree. Do people think it would be appropriate to move the content to House of Wessex, presumably in a collapse box like the boxes on the English monarchs page? Or is the tree sufficiently useful that it is worth keeping on a page of its own? Jheald (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work you have done. It is a great improvement, but the chart does still include a lot which is guesswork or unreliable. I only have the knowledge to comment on Egbert onwards. 1. Redburh is only recorded in a late and unreliable source which is not accepted by historians, and should be deleted. 2. Æthelwulf is Egbert's only known child and Editha and Athelstan should be deleted. (Athelstan is the same person as Æthelstan king of Kent, who is recorded in one source as a brother of Æthelwulf, but most historians think he was a son). 3. Almost all dates of birth are unknown. The only exception so far as I know is Alfred, who was recorded by Asser as born 849 (not 847 as in the chart). Æthelred is thought to be a year or two older. You could shown Alfred's DOB and Æthelred as c.848, but apart from that it would be better just to give the death date. 4. Alfred and Edward the Elder are generally given the title 'King of the Anglo-Saxons'. 5. It would be helpful to check the dates against the articles on each person. e.g. Æthelbald is generally considered to have reigned 858-60 (not 856-60), Æthelwold died 902 (not 901), and Æthelhelm is only recorded in Alfred's will which is dated to the mid-880s. I would show him as "fl. 880s". Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Many thanks for that. A good thing about having the tree in wikitext is it makes it really easy to edit. I have now removed Redburh, Editha and Athelstan, changed the dates for Alfred and Æthelred, and changed the titles for Alfred and Edward the Elder. The rest of the dates I'll check as I go through.

The other good thing about wikitext is that now it is very straightforward to add footnotes, so where there is guesswork, or where there are variant relationships in some sources, such as for Æthelstan of Kent or some of the earlier kings such as Cynegils, these can now all be discussed -- so that's the next stage to start to work on. :-) Jheald (talk) 10:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Ælfgifu tree

I have now gone ahead and made a wikitext version of the File:Aelfgifu-genealogy.svg, showing theories for the ancestry of Ælfgifu, whose marriage to Eadwig was annulled in 958.

I have put it into the article, (diff) -- however I am not sure whether it works there yet. Unlike an image, which you can see alongside the text, the rather big wiki table sits underneath it, and it's not so easy to read the text and look at the tree at the same time. (At least not on-screen). Even just looking at the tree on screen, it's quite difficult to get an sense at a glance of the broad shape of what is being suggested.

Does anyone have any good thoughts on this? (Or even whether it should be reverted back to the image that was previously there?)

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have made an SVG thumbnail of the chart. It's not particularly beautiful, and does have a couple of rendering issues; but I think it makes a helpful thumbnail that people can be able to see as they're reading the text, while still able to click through to the full wikitext tree. Not perfect, but a good enough solution, I hope.

(I've asked at Help:SVG as to whether anyone's got any ideas to make the thumbnailing method better). -- Jheald (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to be critical but I am not sure whether a family tree is helpful, and certainly not one as complex as this one. I think you need to have a good understanding of the relationships to understand it, and then you do not need it. An alternative you might consider is to delete all persons not directly relevant, (Alfred and Æthelred's brothers, Edward the Elder, Æthelstan, Edgar etc) and have two separate trees showing the different theories. One would show Æthelred I to Æthelgifu and her children, deleting the link from Æthelhelm as it has very little support among historians. The other would show the descent from Æthelwulf of the Gaini to Æthelstan Half King and his relatives, leaving out anyone not part of their immediate family. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Cliviger

Hi, would anyone handy with Old English be able to help with Cliviger#Toponomy? "the origin was Saxon, from "clivvig" and "shire", meaning "rocky district"" doesn't feel right to me. Although I'm sure all the members of this project are fluent, incase I'm wrong, can anybody suggest where I might go next? --Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You could try here. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I spent a little while there trying to figure it out but nothing I could find looks even remotely like the source. I think I'm just going to remove the clivvig shire part of the sentence. Cheers.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Trappedinburnley: KEPN, from Nottingham University, suggests "cliff acre" from Old English 'clif' + 'æcer' [3]. Jheald (talk) 11:37, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jheald, KEPN looks very interesting. However that (probably better) origin is already in the article. The problem I had/have is if "clivvig" and "shire" is a reasonable alternative. Now I know that shire = scīr, but an OE word meaning rocky that looks like "clivvig" (which is actually an interpretation of what is printed in the source)? I was going to remove it, but never got round to it, so if you have any ideas? Trappedinburnley (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

placenames.org.uk has all the English Place Name Society volumes collated into a database. That would a gold-standard source for old attested forms of the name, which can often resolve questions like this (and give a check on folk-etymologies). But unfortunately it looks like Lancashire is one of the few counties that hasn't been published yet. Also it's not in Domesday [4], so that doesn't help.

The "-shire" ending could sometimes get tacked on to places that are no longer thought of as shires today, eg Blackburnshire, but that actually encompassed Cliviger, and Google doesn't find any hits for "Clivigershire", so there's no obvious smoking gun for running those two elements together.

The "-ig" ending is not uncommon for adjectives in modern German, roughly cognate to the "-y" ending in English, I think (though not quite so frequently occurring), so "clivvig" for "cliffy" doesn't seem completely implausible -- but as I don't know much about Old English, I should probably hand over now to somebody better read. Jheald (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

COPYVIO problem

It seems we have a WP:COPYVIO problem on Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain.

A problem with the latter article was actually flagged on the talkpage at Talk:Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain/Archive_2#Plagiarism in May 2014, but never followed up. Some discussion of issues found in the main article can be found in Talk:Anglo-Saxons#Social_differentiation.

In each case, the problem can be found within extensive material added to the articles by J_Beake, in January 2014 (the settlement article) and February 2015 (the main article), respectively.

The pattern appears to be the same in both cases. Content appears to have been knitted together from whole sentences (including references) lifted verbatim from source texts, without credit. These can often be revealed simply by googling the sentence.

Only one section in each article has been looked at so far; but the whole of these expansions should probably be considered "at risk" and in need of investigation.

If anyone has experience with this kind of thing, it would be good if they could take this forward. I have left a message on J Beake's talk page, but I think he hasn't edited for some months, so may or may not see it. Jheald (talk) 10:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that this article has been neglected for several months. There seems to be little initiative on anybody's part to make the necessary corrections. I highly recommend reading my comments in the talk page for this article. Thank you. Gordon410 (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

This obviously needs considerable work to sort out. I have replaced the plagiarism with a quote in the settlement article as a temporary fix. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision

If anyone wants to look at the full paper, I will send it to you via email. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have the option to upload files. Thus, the footnotes are lost.

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision: Equally and Simultaneously Valid Theories

Gordon White

6/5/2016

Have you ever argued with a friend about something, only to realize that both of your views were equally valid? Afterwards, the competition was over and you likely walked away in agreement. If this ever happened to you, you may relate to the following historical debate. The section ‘Romano-Brittonic’ peoples’ fate in the south-east in the Wikipedia article, Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain, claims that there are two competing theories: (1) the natives were invaded, enslaved, and genocided and (2) the natives had “a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.” The first theory was proposed by Edward Augustus Freeman, and the second was held by Grant Allen, an essayist. From the information given in the Wikipedia article, the theories of Freeman and Allen appear simultaneously valid.

The article appears to introduce two valid theories. Despite this, the theories are claimed to be in competition with each other. In order for the theories to compete, only one theory can win – this is what makes two theories compete. However, from the information given in the article, one cannot claim that one theory is definitely correct and the other theory is definitely incorrect. By making the claim that the theories compete, Wikipedia is making a generalization. In fact, according to the information given in this particular Wikipedia article, both theories may be correct. Keep in mind, only information in the article itself will be used here. It will be shown that the information given in the article concerning invasion, slavery, and genocide are not in competition with a Celtic contribution to Englishness. It seems fair that I only need to look at this particular article to see if the theories truly are simultaneously valid. If there is information somewhere else that demands the two theories must be opposing, by all means, we should not ignore it. However, this Wikipedia article ought also to include any information that demonstrates that the two theories are opposing. Yet, this is not the case. There is no demonstration in the article explaining how one theory opposes the other theory.

It is possible that the theories are in competition with each other. However, the article does not explain why the two theories are opposing. Therefore, by the information given in the article, the two theories appear equally and simultaneously valid. One must not mistake validity of a theory for truth of a theory. I am not advocating that the theories are absolutely both true. I am only saying that both theories can be true.

To go about proving that both theories appear simultaneously valid, I will expose the vagueness of each theory, and I will show how one theory is compatible with the other. First, it is important to understand the events of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain before one can understand the validity of either theory. I would highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article first before continuing. The following account is not necessarily historically accurate, but it is my best attempt at relating the event. The information I state has been inspired by several sources; however, one should understand it is mere conjecture – not fact.

The Roman Empire controlled Britain until the Roman Empire lost control of Britain to outside forces early in the 5th century AD. Plagued by Pict and Scott invasion and famine , Britain weakened. The tyrant of Briton (possibly Vortigern ) resorted to asking the Anglo-Saxons to help defend Britain against the Picts. The Anglo-Saxons already occupied parts of Britain during the latter parts of Roman rule, and they were continuing to arrive from the continent onto the East Coast of Britain. Although the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be the protectors of Britain , the Briton civilians, natives of Britain, were suspicious of the Anglo-Saxons' true intent of protection. Likely, many of the Britons saw the protection as an Anglo-Saxon decoy to seize power of the land. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons' supplies and food. [Why are footnotes on wrong pages?] The Britons and Anglo-Saxons scuffled over the wages for defense, and the Anglo-Saxons refused to assist the Britons anymore, but the Anglo-Saxons remained in Britain anyway. The Britons resisted the Anglo-Saxon settlement for some time. However, the much stronger Anglo-Saxon army rose to prominence, built kingdoms, and established the law and government of the land. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class. The Anglo-Saxon language became dominant according to the contact and transfer principles of language. This is an examination to see if the theory that the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain works alongside the theory that the natives contributed heavily to Englishness. If one finds no fault in the two theories occurring simultaneously, he can conclude that both theories are simultaneously and equally valid theories. According to the Wikipedia article, at a high estimate of Anglo-Saxon population and a low estimate of native population, the “Britons are likely to have outnumbered Anglo-Saxons by at least four to one.” The possibility for a successful Anglo-Saxon invasion of the natives with a ratio of one to four is the matter of discussion. Until a possibility of invasion under the given population estimates is determined to be either high or low, any truth of one theory is independent from the truth of the other. However, if it is shown that an invasion could not have occurred with a minority force of invaders, the Celtic contribution may be shown to invalidate the invasion theory and vice versa. But it has not been shown to be so. Thus, the possibility of both/either theories being correct/incorrect with the given population estimates is not determined. From this, we conclude that both theories are equally and simultaneously valid.

If the Anglo-Saxons invaded, given with all research and evidence of population estimates, a strong genetic contribution of the natives is quite likely. If the two populations were split in half, two to three, three to seven, or a ratio near those ranges, the Celts would continue contributing through their genes. The words “strong contribution” do not imply a majority of contribution from the Celts. One half is equally strong as another half. If the text said “stronger”, it would imply something different. However, it merely says strong. Nevertheless, as it stands, the Celts seemed to fairly outnumber the Anglo-Saxons. If the Celts were invaded and furthermore defeated, they still remained in the land. Perhaps they lived alongside the Anglo-Saxons as slaves or as a poor social group.

The exact meaning of invasion is rather vague. Only some of the Anglo-Saxons may have invaded and it might have been a combination between invasion and strategic settlement. Who knows to what extent the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain? The number of men could have been as low as a thousand or as high as ten thousand men. The exact figures and the extent they were successful are unknown. Even through a peaceful migration, some new Anglo-Saxons may have arrived on the shores to put down rebellious natives. And who is to say that the invasion was so successful? It may have contributed to the weakening of the native forces, but by no means must it be the only way they attacked. As they may have attacked through deception as well. Two scenarios are possible: we ignore population estimates and look at the two theories blindly. Or we can look at population estimates and compare each theory to the estimates. First, let us ignore population estimates. In that case, it is scenario one. The Anglo-Saxons invade the native’s land. The Anglo-Saxons succeed and win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land as a conquered people or perhaps even slaves. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

Including population estimates, scenario two arises. The Anglo-Saxons, outnumbered four to one, invade the native’s land. The Anglo-Saxons succeed, and they win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land and become a conquered people. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

Now, scenario one seems the more likely to happen with no other knowledge of events. Considering the Anglo-Saxons were far outnumbered, it seems less likely that scenario two could have happened. Regardless, one cannot reject that possibility. After all, the possibility for the natives to outnumber the invaders at those numbers and the invasion to still be successful is not yet determined. Is the possibility greater than 50 percent or less than 50 percent? One just cannot say. That would be entirely based on speculation and interpretation, but not fact. Wikipedia should not be based on one’s speculation or interpretation. Therefore, both theories are equally valid until the possibility can be told by a reasonable scholar. Enslavement and Celtic contribution being combined into one working theory is easy to construct. No matter what the population was, one can pretty much conclude that the Anglo-Saxons became dominant. This can be seen through language and culture. Also, we can pretty easily conclude that enslavement was somewhat alive in Britain, at least with the Welsh, whose name is derived from the word Wealas, which came to mean “slaves.”

Now, similarly to the first section, one must wonder how so many natives were enslaved by so many. But my argument is similar. We just don’t know to what extent slavery ensued. We know the natives were the poor and subservient society. Does that make them slaves? Well to some it depends on your interpretation on slavery. Perhaps, some natives may have been so desperate for food and shelter they were forced to give up their freedom and subjected themselves to slavery. The probability the slavery did or did not happen is unknown.

This is an examination to see if the theory that the Anglo-Saxons at one time committed acts of genocide against the natives of Britain works alongside the theory that the natives contributed heavily to Englishness. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The key words are "in part". That definition of genocide does not mean a complete destruction of a people. The Anglo-Saxons may have killed off several groups or clans of the natives yet still not enough to completely wipe them out. Therefore, even with a strong Celtic contribution, genocide of perhaps maybe 10 percent of the native people would not change the fact that the Celts outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons just a little less than four to one. It may turn to 3.5 to 1, or even as low as 1 percent of the population was killed systematically which would still be considered genocide. Even though the Anglo-Saxons were largely outnumbered, who is to say that the natives outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons in all places? In certain areas, such as Anglo-Saxon settlements, some surrounding natives may have been clutched into the wrong hands as a result of the dispute of land. To teach the natives a lesson, the Anglo-Saxons may have raised a hand against the natives. Whether this was a result of possible hundreds of years of war between the natives and Anglo-Saxons or whether it was not, who is to say that no genocide ever was committed against the natives? Once again, we don’t know how likely or unlikely genocide is when in view of a Celtic contribution which would be in this case, once again, genetic.

Now, it would only be fair to put all three of Freeman’s theories, invasion, slavery, and genocide together and combine them with Allen’s theory of Celtic contribution to Englishness to see that if they all can work together in agreement and demonstrate the validity of each theory at the same time. The Anglo-Saxons, out-numbered four to one, invade the native’s land. Through acts of deception and perhaps some genocide in places, the Anglo-Saxons succeed and win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land and become a conquered people. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class, even possibly so low they had to resort to becoming slaves just to survive. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

One doesn’t know the likelihood or unlikelihood of all these theories working together and therefore we cannot form a foundation to say they are in disagreement or that they agree completely. One just doesn’t know. He can even form a logical conclusion, but it does not change the fact that we cannot say the probability of one theory working while another theory is not working at the same time. Therefore, both theories are valid together and both theories are equally valid simultaneously until a substantial evidence shows that one theory is incompatible with the other. Each theory holds its own validity within recognition of the other. These theories are too diverse to draw any conclusions either that they completely disagree or that they completely agree. See, in order for two theories to be in competition, one theory must pose threats to the other theory. Yet they are just too different for the two of them to be competing. I have shown the methods to validate each theory to be accurate simultaneously to some extent. Therefore, a competition of the two theories is not shown to be existent in this Wikipedia article. Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false.   Bibliography De Excidio XXI, 1, Winterbottom, Gildas, p. 24.

General Assembly of the United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1949.

Gildas, and J. A. Giles. De Excidio Britanniae. Willits, CA: British American Books, 1900. (Gildas, The Ruin of Britain)

Going, Chris, and Robin Boast. "BRITAIN AND ROME: A LASTING AFFAIR?" Cambridge Anthropology 17, no. 2 (1994): 103-18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23820417.

Higham, N. (2004), From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages. History Compass, 2: **. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x Page Three.

http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

Wikipedia contributors, "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain&oldid=722397103 (accessed June 1, 2016).

Ward, John H. "Vortigern and the End of Roman Britain." Britannia 3 (1972): 277-89.

Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why Did the Anglo-Saxons Not Become More British?" The English Historical Review 115, no. 462 (2000): 513-33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/579665.

Gordon410 (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

"In order for the theories to compete, only one theory can win – this is what makes two theories compete." is an unscientific and fundamentally flawed view of how things work. Like Quantum Theory and General Relativity, competing groups of theories that are both valid. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 07:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

400,000 photographs of archaeological objects found by members of the public in England and Wales

In recent weeks, 400,000 images of finds, logged and photographed by the Portable Antiquities Scheme, have been uploaded to Commons.

• Portable Antiquities Scheme sample gallery
• 
  Pewter ladle or toy, medieval, Lincolnshire.
• 
  Flat axe, bronze age, Lincolnshire.
• 
  Swastika design brooch, Anglo-Saxon 6th-7th century, York.
• 
  Unusual quarter stater, 50BC-20BC, Surrey.
• 
  Medieval thimble, Norfolk.

They are now ready for further categorisation on Commons, and use in Wikipedia articles.

Please see this note on Commons and the project page there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed change to names of articles on Anglo-Saxon kings

I have suggested a move from Æthelbald of Wessex → Æthelbald, King of Wessex at Talk:Æthelbald of Wessex#Requested move 21 February 2017. If this is accepted I would suggest similar changes for other AS kings with similar article titles. Please comment if you have any views on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

New articles on supposed 'kings of the West Anglo-Saxons'

I've noticed a tidal wave of two-sentence stubs recently created by User:Figfires

• Geata of the Anglo-Saxons
• Goldoph of the Anglo-Saxons
• Finn of the Anglo-Saxons
• Frithowulf of the Anglo-Saxons
• Fritholaf of the Anglo-Saxons
• Woden of the Anglo-Saxons
• Balday of the Anglo-Saxons
• Brand of the Anglo-Saxons
• Frithgar of the Anglo-Saxons
• Frewin of the Anglo-Saxons
• Wye of the Anglo-Saxons
• Gewis of the Anglo-Saxons
• Esla of the Anglo-Saxons

I wonder if these articles do more harm than good. They seem to be ancestral names an editor has taken from an out-of-date translation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and turned into succeeding 'Kings of the West Anglo-Saxons'. I've noticed that User:Urselius has taken issue with one at Talk:Elesa of the Anglo-Saxons, as has User:Shirt58 and User:Robert McClenon at User_talk:Figfires#Woden_and_Balday. What do you guys think? I wonder if they should be redirected to House of Wessex or List of monarchs of Wessex or something similar.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Figfires - I think that the dates, although uncertain, appear to predate the best estimates of the dates of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain. The problem that I see is that these are "historical legend", that is, legend codified into written history, but not accepted as fact by modern historians, but presented as history. I don't think that they should be redirected to any article that presents itself as history, but should be presented as being probably legendary. For an example of how this is properly done in Wikipedia, on the island next to Great Britain, see List of High Kings of Ireland, which notes that a few of the latest kings, such as Brian Boru, are known to be historical rulers (with or without opposition), and that earlier ones are semi-historical, and still earlier ones (with ancestry going back to Spain and back to Japheth are considered legendary in modern times. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the articles as they stand. Some of the subjects, such as Finn, are Frisian or Scandinavian semi-historical figures, whilst others, such as Woden and Balday (Baldr) are pagan Germanic gods. As such they have existing articles. New articles about them, purely as legendary ancestral figures from A-S lineages, are confusing and redundant. The assertion within the article titles that these figures are "of the Anglo-Saxons" is just plain incorrect. All scholarship asserts unambiguously that the Anglo-Saxons arose as an ethnic and cultural group in Britain in the period c. 450 to c.600AD, and that the recorded expression of this common ethnic consciousness does not much predate c. 700AD. Labelling a Germanic god or continental Germanic folk-hero or semi-legendary king as "of the Anglo-Saxons" is nonsensical. All the useful content of these new articles can be found already in articles containing the family trees of A-S ruling dynasties, along with commentary on their reliability, or otherwise. My preference would be for deletion of all the articles, as they add nothing of value to Wikipedia, and it would take the efforts of more well-informed editors to make them acceptably accurate, and this effort would be better employed elsewhere. Urselius (talk) 10:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem solved. I am having them all deleted. --Figfires (talk) 12:41, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Urselius (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms/Archive 1/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Day and month of the Battle of Maldon

I have opened a discussion at Talk:Battle of Maldon#Day and month of the battle, and am notifying the WikiProjects identified on that page. Narky Blert (talk) 22:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Praise for Wikipedia

The links page at [5] on Kemble, the Anglo-Saxon Chrters website, includes "entries in Wikipedia (much of which is very good, with commendable use of footnotes)". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A-Class review for Edward the Elder needs attention

A few more editors are needed to complete the A-Class review for Edward the Elder; please stop by and help review the article! Thanks! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Deira

The last edits in Deira are totally unsubstantiated and must be corrected / undone ASAP. 83.237.179.152 (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Statistics section, updated

Greetings, For WP Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms I added progression, pie graph, rainbow. JoeNMLC (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimania

Hello friends! WP:Medievalwiki is holding an open session tomorrow - Wikimania's Unconference on Monday 16 August at 12pm (UTC). We'd love to chat to more medieval wikipedians! Lajmmoore (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Cerdic of Wessex/Archive 1#Requested move 26 December 2021

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cerdic of Wessex/Archive 1#Requested move 26 December 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England

The Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England article is very short and in dire need of expanions Faust.TSFL (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

History of the English penny (c. 600 – 1066) covers the same ground. It was written by an expert who unfortunately did not provide inline references. I think it would be better to change Coinage in Anglo-Saxon England to a redirect to that article. Johnbod I see that you have edited the article. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 14:28, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Some people only want a short article! I'm loath to in effect replace referenced material with unreferenced. Some could be merged, eg the leads. Or we could do nothing, except add more links across to the pennies. Isn't there sceatta etc too. Johnbod (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

These are fair points. The problem is that we have the article on the penny, which was written by one of the leading experts, Rory Naismith, with a title which few people will search on, and a stub article which most people will find and will probably not click the link to the first rate article. I am not sure what the solution is. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead of penny is certainly much too short, and one could make much of Coinage into an expanded lead there. I take it the articles don't actually disagree on anything much. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Meonwara and Wihtwara

This discussion is copied from Talk:Anglo-Saxons, it is probably more appropriate here.Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC) :

Wilfridselsey and I have been trying to advise Ovid99, a new editor who has been editing numerous articles relating to the Anglo Saxons. Would any pagewatchers be able to take a look at Meonwara (since 6 May 2021‎) and Wihtwara (since 20 April 2022) and advise them further? TSventon (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that Ovid99 has an interest in the Jutes. There was an IP editor, that I think was probably Ovid99, as they were adding similar content to the Jutes article plus towns and villages that would have been part of Jutish territory. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wilfridselsey, my problem is that Ovid99 is adding a lot of material and a lot of what they are adding is Wikipedia:Original research, loosely based on older sources. I have tried to explain that to them on their talk page, without much success. For example the history section of Meonwara begins "The Meonwara appear to have been part of the defence of the Sub-Roman polity of Cair Guinntguic",, added here The source wikisource:la:Historia Brittonum just lists Cair Guinntguic as one of the cities of Britain, it doesn't say that the Meonwara were part of its defences. Also, the reliability of Historia Brittonum is debatable. TSventon (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

References

TSventon thank you for your remarks. Ovid99 is very enthusiastic, but as we know there are few absolutes in Anglo Saxon studies. More of 'if,possibly, maybe' etc is the usual favoured vocabulary rather than absolutes. As you say they seem to have used some old texts and embellished these with OR removing some newer solid citations for stuff that has been binned years ago, or is from flaky sources. It is then trumpeted as the absolute truth. I think that Ovid99 is also 2603:6010:de3d:3ff6:8c5e:f8c6:adac:6194. If you check their contribution list, their edits are subject to being reverted a lot. Wilfridselsey (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

A couple of comments: (1) this discussion should really be taking place at the relevant article talk pages or maybe the WikiProject, not here. (2) I had a quick look at Meonwara and don’t understand why you guys aren’t just reverting him per WP:BRD. What’s been done is clearly a mixture of OR/SYNTH, misuse of WP:PRIMARY and WP:OLDSOURCES. For example, the etymology section is egregious. WP:OR etymologies cited to Wiktionary translations of claimed root words in Greek, plus Bede (to the extent that it creates garbled nonsense by directly quoting a latin genitive plural as a proper noun “the Anglorum”)! DeCausa (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wilfridselsey and DeCausa Thank you for your comments. The 2603:6010:DE3D:3FF6:* IP range and then Ovid99 have made about a thousand edits across 49 articles and as far as I can tell the content added is largely original research. (1) I have been discussing the issue of original research on Ovid99's talk page and didn't see any point in posting to largely unwatched talk pages for the articles or Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms. Meonwara is a recent example, rather than a particularly bad one. I came here because I know there are several well informed page watchers. (2) I haven't been reverting Ovid99's content, partly because there is a lot of it and partly to avoid an edit war. TSventon (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about what Wikiproject this should be on and where it shouldn't be.

Anyway, ANI may be the only solution. Doug Weller talk 14:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Doug Weller, I am afraid that I am also thinking ANI may be necessary. I initially posted at Talk:Anglo-Saxons because it seemed to be more active, but am happy to get further input from a WikiProject. TSventon (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Update: I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ovid99 and Ovid99 has not edited since 16 June.