Talk:Battle of Edington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Untitled

Actual Locations. There is little clear evidence of locations of either the fort to which the danes retreated or of the battle itself. My problem with the Wiltshire site is that it is over 76Km from Athelney and requires an army to cross tidal marshes and fording several difficult rivers and then to attack up a steep gradient. Attemts to war game a win in Wiltshire show the possibility as remote. Ethandun means a hill or down in an empty place or possible an isolated hill. This isolated hill has to offer a tactical advantage to Alfred. The Somerset Levels had many isolated hills at that time from the imposing Brent Knoll with Battleborough at its base to Burtle (so called) Hill that was a dune just 8 foot above high tide. Edington on the poldens is on a ridge of hills so is only an approximation of an ethandun. Having written Narrative Verse and NOT History about the campaigns I am well versed in the issues and have come to the conclusion that historians seem not to have got all the details right as yet. As is said: "more research needed" (for verses google IWVPA Wessex Sagas)

Horrible Description

The Description of this Battle is very poorly done, and to confusing to follow. Other battles and campaigning need not be mentioned when talking about the Battle of Eddington itself. You digress way off topic and mention things that should be talked about in "Events before the Battle"

Yes, I've created an "Events before the Battle" section. Dzw49 (talk) 21:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Alfred seems at this time to have ineffectually chased the Danes around Wessex, while the Danes were in a position to do as they pleased. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle attempts to convey the impression that Alfred held the initiative; it is "a bland chronicle which laconically charts the movements of the Danish victors while at the same time disingenuously striving to convey the impression that Alfred was in control",[14] although it fails. Even if Alfred had caught up with the Danish force, it is unlikely that he could have accomplished anything. The fact that his army could not defend the fortified Chippenham, even in "an age... as yet untrained in siege warfare"[14] casts great doubt on its ability to defeat the Danes in an open field, unaided by fortifications. There was little that Alfred could do about the Danish menace between 875 and the end of 877, beyond repeatedly paying the invaders off."

This section seems incredibly slighting and assumptive, and lists only a single source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2404:4404:3400:6600:D891:7994:6157:2233 (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

This edit [1] constitutes almost the entire article and has references to publications that the editor didn't even bother to add. I'm guessing it's copied from somewhere else. Without the references and source of this huge edit, I'm afraid it should be removed. --

Ronz 23:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Reported to
Ronz 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps, but I am not convinced enough that it is a copyvio. Anons also can greatly expand an article. Garion96 (talk) 14:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a copyvio. I wrote this as a research paper for school and decided it would be useful here, so I added a (suitably trimmed and edited) version. I don't know why I didn't add the works cited list then; I've been meaning to add them since I noticed the omission, perhaps a month or two later, but just somehow never got around to it until now. Golwengaud (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 08:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative battle site

There are new arguments - reason to doubt that the battle of Edington was in Wiltshire, but happened in the village of Eddington - on the north :side of the
Battle of Cannington). They would have retreated to the river, and the Roman fort which stood at the only defensive mound :allong the river, at Bridgwater. Alfred was just 6 miles south at Athelney. Guthrum would have followed Alfred South, using the rivers and the :Bristol Channel. The fortress mentioned after the battle may have been Bridgwater, where the survivors of the battle of Cannington may have :been recovering. Thus not distant Chippenham
. Further arguments to support this lie in the fact that a defeated Guthrum was baptised at Aller :(Enmore church, as claimed, did not exist at this time) which is just 4 miles (South) away from Eddington (Somerset) and a peace treaty was signed :at Wedmore - 3 miles North of the village.

I do believe a reference would be in order here (see

WP:NOR). SwordSmurf (talk) 23:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed move to Battle of Ethandun

I agree that Edington is the most likely site for the Battle of Ethandun, but I find the name and contents of this article quite wrong, indeed, frankly misleading. Our only source for the battle is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which calls it the "Battle of Ethandun". Many, like me, think the site was probably at Edington in Wiltshire, but the movement which changes the name to the "Battle of Edington" is not a scholarly one, and it won't do to state this location as a fact. We should surely move this article to the title "Battle of Ethandun" and then put the points of view about the three most likely sites. Any comments? Dzw49 (talk) 05:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As no one commented, I have now moved this to
Battle of Ethandun. Dzw49 (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move to Battle of Edington

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

I was inclined to move this back to Battle of Edington, because it had been moved from that title without discussion, but given the move was three years ago, that became the default consensus. However, Ealdgyth's comment today about the sources seems pretty clear, and given that opinion is otherwise divided, the result of the discussion is that it be moved back to Battle of Edington. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 07:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Responses
  • Oppose. So far as I can recall, the principal source for this battle is the
    Battle of Ethandun helps to remind us of that uncertainty. (I recently drove through the Edington in Wiltshire and noticed that it has entry signs at each end of the village reading "Ethandun / Edington"! Does anyone know, does the Edington on the Polden Hills do the same?) Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Note [copied from below by SV] - I pulled the first six books relating to the period off my shelves - and ALL six called this the battle of Edington. They were - Kirby's Earliest English Kings (p. 175), John's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (p. 75), Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (p. 111), Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.) (p. 75), Pollard's Alfred the Great (although he does list in the index "earlier Ethandun" but does not use that name in the text, (p. 263, etc.), and Abels Alfred the Great (see index, many mentions). None except for Pollard even mentions Ethandun, and his mention appears to support the fact that common usage now is to use Edington. I then checked Stenton Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed. 1971) even though it is a bit older and it uses Edington also. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England entry on Alfred (written by Yorke) uses Edington. Wormald's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Alfred (here if you have a UK library card) uses Edington. Costambeys' entry in the ODNB for Guthrum uses Edington. In short, I can't find any modern secondary sources that use Ethandun - there may be some out there, but they would appear to be outnumbered by the usage of Edington - especially in the three main biographies of Alfred I consulted. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Threaded discussion

Note: the supports and opposes moved to the first section are retained here to keep the threaded discussion intact. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes thank you, I have struck out 1993 and replaced it with 2003. The search is from 1993 because that is the first year that Scholar allowed and I wanted to ignore older PD sources from distorting a the Book search--
    talk) 00:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Oppose. So far as I can recall, the principal source for this battle is the
    Battle of Ethandun helps to remind us of that uncertainty. (I recently drove through the Edington in Wiltshire and noticed that it has entry signs at each end of the village reading "Ethandun / Edington"! Does anyone know, does the Edington on the Polden Hills do the same?) Moonraker (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • While I understand your argument Moonraker, using a primary source and ignoring the common usage in reliable English language secondary sources, is in danger of falling under the banner of original research. For example the
    talk
    )
  • Comment: Wilfridselsey helpfully points out that both "Ethandun" and "Edington" are used in the latest sources, and that seems to me to leave us with a choice to make. If I am relying on primary sources in preferring "Ethandun", then I would submit that in making such a choice of name the primary sources deserve the greatest weight. There is a real choice to be made and all relevant factors can surely be taken into account, including reasoned opinions on which are the best sources. If David Starkey says anything like "found on the hill where the two armies fought", then he is plainly exploded on the matter. None of the primary sources says which county the battle took place in, let alone whether it was fought in lowland or on a hill. The main primary source is, of course, Asser's Life of King Alfred, which this article does not mention, although a footnote is presumably referring to it by "Life". Asser gives tantalising hints, for instance saying that Alfred camped one night in Selwood (rather a large forest) and the next night, before the battle, at "Okely", about which there has been much debate. An early secondary source is Symeon of Durham, but he relies on Asser. In the case of Waterloo, we know exactly where and when the battle took place, but with Ethandun we have only a name and a few hints from Asser: all is speculation. With regard to "badly mutilated bodies, of the right date", it is self-evident that more than a thousand years after a battle in the south of England nothing would remain of human bodies except bone, and I can find no sources for any mutilated 9th-century bones being found anywhere near any of the Edingtons. Clearly "Edington" is the modern name of various villages (in Wiltshire, Somerset, and even in Berkshire), but as no one knows whether "Ethandun" means "Edington", to say that there is a trend which prefers modern English is rather kind to present-day historians who wander beyond speculation. Moonraker (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arithmetic I really do not believe a matter of this kind should be decided by g-hits, even in Google Books or Google Scholar, because the choice of name here is a more subtle question. However, if it did come down to numbers, then both spellings of Ethandun(e) would need to be taken into account. I have 9,180 Google Books hits for "Battle of Edington", 4,320 for "Battle of Ethandun" and 5,110 for "Battle of Ethandune", which gives a small majority to "Battle of Ethandun(e)". It is much the same with Google Scholar, which has "Battle of Edington" 156, "Battle of Ethandun" 71, and "Battle of Ethandune" 92. The numbers change if you leave out the quotation marks, because many of the hits are then not related to this battle. Moonraker (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how your are getting your numbers and I do not think that you have been looking at hits since 1992. If you do that and you
    talk) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • PatGallacher, I welcome your comments on giving weight to the primary sources. It is surely translations of the ASC and Asser which have "Heddington" and "Edington"? So far as I can recall, the ASC has "Aethandun" and Symeon of Durham has "Adderandun". I don't have the Latin of Asser to hand but would be astonished if he has "Edington". Moonraker (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If you look at g-hits you need to set the date option in the search, you will find that Ethandun was more popular in the 19th century, the Victorians were very much into playing up a German heritage of the English!! Look at what the current generation of AS scholars are saying eg: Campbell, John, Wormwald, Hines, Yorke etc. they all call it Edington, and some even addend (Wilts) to the name. We do have a section, even though it is a bit thin, that does discuss the possibilities of other sites, it could do with being expanded! I believe that the reason that Wiltshire has the edge is because of Alfreds connection there, and the stories of him actually praying at his local church (the current church is now named after him) the night before the battle, also of course there is the story that the White Horse carved into Bratton Down was on the site of an earlier one that Alfred troops had made in commemoration of the battle, the evidence for both stories is somewhat anecdotal. I can not add to what I or Moonraker have said about Starkey's assertion, it is in The Monarchy of England Part 1. p. 61 if anyone wants to check. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Here is a version of the original Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [4] it appears to say "Ethandune". I know change my vote to Oppose. Should we go for "Ethandune" with the "e" as this is the spelling used by the Chronicle, Chesterton and Hodges. Does anyone know where "Edington" comes from originally. PatGallacher (talk) 15:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is the nub of the argument, do we go for the primary ASC OE version Eþandune (Ethandune/ Ethandun) or the modern English Edington? According to Gelling Edington probably means Etha's hill which is the same meaning as Ethandun of course! Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment above on Waterloo. You are not addressing the naming of this article through the policy and guidance given by
    WP:AT
    and its guideline. Instead you are arguing that we should not use the name commonly used in modern reliable sources, but base it on a study of the primary sources. If the majority modern academic literature was with you, there would not be such a paucity of sources returned by Google. The title of this article is not meant to make a statement about what is the truth but it is mean to reflect what is used in reliable English language sources. If you want the name to remain at "Battle of Ethandun" with or without an "e" at the end, you need to bring some late 20th or 21st century scholarly sources to the table that recommend using or use that name. For examples this 21st century Oxford University publication for a general audience uses "Battle of Edington":
  • Pollington, Stephen (2010). "Battle of Edington". In Rogers, Clifford (ed.). The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. pp. 13, 14.
    ISBN 9780195334036
    .
--
talk) 04:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
]
  • If the article title of that battle article is not under the name used in modern reliable sources, then it too should be moved, it is not justification for mistitling this article. The whole point of the title of an article is not to engage in OR, or to use a name popular in the past, but to give it a name that is easily found by someone who is familiar with the battle but is not necessarily an academic expert on the subject. --
    talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • As most modern reliable sources use the name "Battle of Edington", modern fiction is likely to follow their lead. Eg Bernard Cornwell in "The Pale Horseman" uses the name of Edington and, as is his want, at the end of his books explains his choice of name is based on a work by the military historian John Peddie (1999) "Alfred Warrior King". --
    talk) 01:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I do not think that there has been any significant additions to the knowledge base since Stevenson's time, just a re-analysis of what I have already outlined. The Starkey mutilated bodies thing looks a bit of a red herring. I notice there is a reworking of his book available at Google if you want to check it out, I don't think that it's citable as he does not provide any decent references. More interesting is the recent book (see pp. 309-312) by Ryan Lavelle who actually provides a useful analysis of this subject, including a table with all the suggested locations for Ethandun. It seems that we should add Slaughterford(Wilts), Eddington(Berks) and Michampton(Glos) to our list. I also think that Joanna Parker's book provides some useful background into the Victorians love affair with Alfred and why they were suggesting all sorts of locations for Ethandun. Both of these authors support Edington, Wilts as the location by the way! For Lavelle the key seems to be, during the reign of Eadwig, where in Charter S.646 it refers to a meeting at the vill which is called Eðandun (uilla que dicitur Eðandun) in which Eadwig invoked 'the gift of divine grace and the example of the lineage of my ancestors'.Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I pulled the first six books relating to the period off my shelves - and ALL six called this the battle of Edington. They were - Kirby's Earliest English Kings (p. 175), John's Reassessing Anglo-Saxon England (p. 75), Yorke's Wessex in the Early Middle Ages (p. 111), Blair's Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed.) (p. 75), Pollard's Alfred the Great (although he does list in the index "earlier Ethandun" but does not use that name in the text, (p. 263, etc.), and Abels Alfred the Great (see index, many mentions). None except for Pollard even mentions Ethandun, and his mention appears to support the fact that common usage now is to use Edington. I then checked Stenton Anglo-Saxon England (3rd ed. 1971) even though it is a bit older and it uses Edington also. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England entry on Alfred (written by Yorke) uses Edington. Wormald's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography on Alfred (here if you have a UK library card) uses Edington. Costambeys' entry in the ODNB for Guthrum uses Edington. In short, I can't find any modern secondary sources that use Ethandun - there may be some out there, but they would appear to be outnumbered by the usage of Edington - especially in the three main biographies of Alfred I consulted. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note about closing the discussion

This was moved without a requested-move discussion in 2009, and currently there is no consensus to move it back, so further input would be very helpful. I've therefore asked Philip if he can request comment from the relevant Wikiproject(s). SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coordinates wrong?

The geographic coordinates currently shown for the battle (51° 26′ 25″ N, 2° 14′ 32″ W) indicate a place in the fields quite near Chippenham but rather a long way from Edington. If it is worthwhile having geographic coordinates at all for a battle of which the site is controversial, perhaps they should point to Bratton Camp (51° 15′ 49.95″ N, 2° 8′ 34.49″ W) near Edington, where, according to the apparently prevalent view, the battle took place.

Frans Fowler (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- I eventually found where to do it. --Frans Fowler (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus has not changed over the last two years, rather it is far clearer now. Andrewa (talk) 16:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Edington → Battle of Ethandune – This issue was discussed 2 years ago, but the discussion was confused and inconclusive. "Ethandune" (with minor spelling variations) is definitely the term used by various primary sources, and although nowadays most historians believe that the battle took place at the modern village of Edington, even now opinion is not unanimous on this and other sites have been proposed. The term "Battle of Ethandune" is used on the monument on the presumed site at Edington, and in some works of historical fiction e.g. G.K. Chesterton's "Ballad of the Vale of the White Horse" and C. Walter Hodge's novel "The Marsh King". PatGallacher (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Marsh King" was written nearly 50 years ago, the "Ballad of the Vale of the White Horse" over 100 years ago, both by authors with an interest in history. If you read any up to date books or papers on the subject, by modern historians, then it is referred to as the "Battle of Edington". On this basis alone I think that we should remain with the status quo. There is a discussion, in the article lead, to explain the link between Ethandun and Edington and a section on 'location' so I think that we have it well covered. Wilfridselsey (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm not normally a fan of the Google Ngram but in this case it appears to show the evolution clear.[5] It appears that prior to 1950, there was a split usage with a likely preference to Battle of Ethandune. However, after the 1950s it became Battle of Edington and by the 1980s the clear favourite was the current title. The Google books stats seem to show the same when looking at sources from 1980 to present day. "Battle of Ethandune" -wikipedia, 544 hits[6], "Battle of Ethandun" -wikipedia 413 hits [7] "Battle of Edington" -wikipedia 3770 hits[8].--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review
. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edington/Ethandun Consistency

The Battle of Edington article calls it the Battle of Edington; the King Alfred's Tower article calls it the Battle of Ethandun (User Dzw49 having changed Edington to Ethandun in the King Alfred's Tower article in February, 2009). On the Talk page for King Alfred's Tower I'm suggesting the reference(s) there be changed back to Edington and I'm mentioning it on the Battle of Edington Talk page because there has been much discussion about Edington v Ethandun

Frans Fowler (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Battle of Edington/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following
several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Decent start. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 14:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The battle in fiction

I am puzzled by the reference to the battle being featured in

Uhtred of Bebbanburg participate in the battle with his allies. The battle is an important event in the series, not least as two key characters die in it. I suspect some of the confusion is that the TV adaptation of the novels is also called The Last Kingdom.Dunarc (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I think you will find that quite a few Wikipedia articles include an "in fiction" section. I note that this section includes an important work by an important writer, G.K. Chesterton. I question whether all the references given are invalid. PatGallacher (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some articles include lists of references in popular fiction, but not high quality ones such as Henry II of England, which is an FA. This has a discussion of cultural depictions with reliable sources, not in list form, and a link to a separate article, Cultural depictions of Henry II of England, for those interested. This model could apply to the Edington article. The Chesterton ref and maybe the Cornwell one are probably discussed in reliable sources which could be cited, and the other books could be hived off to a new article, Cultural depictions of the Battle of Edington. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:09, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either this sort of material is encyclopedic or it isn't. Some reasonable quality articles do include a "popular culture" section e.g. Henry III of England. Whether this material is hived off is a separate issue, mainly determined by the length of the articles. PatGallacher (talk) 17:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Henry III has a popular culture section as text (not a list) with reliable references explaining why the depictions are significant, like Henry II but with a slightly different title, and as I suggested for this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Trafalgar and Battle of Flodden have similar sections, a list of occurrences in popular culture. I'm not disputing that this could be improved, but that doesn't justify taking a hatchet to it. PatGallacher (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether some articles have lists is not relevant. Many articles have unsatisfactory sections, but that is not a justification for adding more. Referenced discussions of a subject in popular culture are a useful addition to articles. Lists of unreferenced trivia are not. Our aim should be to make Wikipedia a first rate encyclopedia, not a ragbag of trivia. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

Battle of Edington

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review
Previous peer review


I've listed this article for peer review because I am trying to turn this to FA. Any constructive feedback is welcome.

Thanks, Thelifeofan413 (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

The referencing is very far from FAC standard. It has a mixture of sfn and non-sfn styles but you should use one style consistently. There are a variety of different sources used by various editors of inconsistent quality.

The standard source on Asser is Keynes and Lapidge, which is sometimes used, but is sometimes cited as Asser and sometimes as Keynes/Lapidge. It should always be cited as Keynes and Lapidge. All citations and quotes from Asser should cite this book.

The best editions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are those of Swanton and of Whitelock and one of those should always be used.

Nineteneth century speculation on the location is not significant for this article, although it would be for a separate article on that subject.

You should not use popular books such as that by Horspool, especially as there is such a vast literature by academic historians.

The article needs a thorough rewrite but you have only done a little light editing. I suggest that you withdraw this PR and thoroughly work through this article, removing all non-academic sources. You will also need to remove sources you cannot get access to and check, as they may have been added by an editor who did not check them properly. If you live in the UK, you should be able to get almost any source by inter-library loan from your local public library.

These are of course my personal views and other editors may disagree with some of them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:24, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished most of your comments.Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are still many errors in the citations and sources. For example, several sources listed are not used and Keynes and Lapidge is listed twice, neither correctly. It can be listed as * {{cite book|editor-first=Simon|editor-last=Keynes |editor2-first=Michael |editor2-last=Lapidge |title=Alfred the Great: Asser's Life of King Alfred & Other Contemporary Sources |publisher=Penguin Classics |location=London, UK|year=1983|isbn=978-0-14-044409-4}}
There are two common reference formats. One is used in the article, e.g. <ref>Sawyer, Illustrated History of Vikings, p. 52</ref>. This is preferred by some first class editors. Personally, I prefer the sfn format (seeTemplate:Sfn) as it highlights referencing mistakes and makes it easier for readers to find sources. Sawyer would then be cited as {{sfn|Sawyer|2001|p=52}}. Keynes and Lapidge would be {{sfn|Keynes|Lapidge|1983|pp=176-177 and 323 n.90}}. If you use sfn, you need to install the HarvErrors script User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors in User:Thelifeofan413/common.js in order to be alerted to errors. See User:Dudley Miles/common.js for an example of a common.js page If you want further advice on this please advise. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I put the 1st example into the article. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think this article is ready for WP:GAN, and if not, are there anything extra I have to do. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:57, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have only looked at the sourcing so far, and this is still very unsatisfactory. The bibliography lists several excessively dated sources, some of which are not used. You need to weed them out. The Domesday Book is cited as a sole source, which is not allowed as it is original research. There are several editions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle listed. There should only be one, Swanton, and it should only be cited in conjunction with secondary sources, not as a sole source. If you install the harv script I mention above, you will see that the bibliography is showing many error messages. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the other versions of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. I have added a common.js to my account and am currently working on the article. I am still working on the several excessively dated sources, which I am thinking means outdated references. Also, I do not know to cite the Domesday Book, if not as a single source.
If I have done any mistakes, let me know. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should delete the Domesday book ref 29 and the statement about Edington which it supports. It is just the entry about Edington, with nothing about the battle. Citing it without the support of a reliable secondary source is original research, which is not allowed.
A similar objection applies to ref 7, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Citing it on its own is original research, and in addition no edition or page number is shown. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the other references of the other Anglo Saxon Chronicles, and Swanton has already been labelled. I don’t know how to label it then. I need advice on how to cite it.Thelifeofan413 (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the Swanton source and put it in its correct alphabetical place. I have also changed ref 19 which cites Swanton to Template:Sfn, which is the method I use, although of course you do not need to use it. You also need to add a secondary source to ref 19 as you should not rely only on a primary one such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
As I wrote above, you can get books through your local library if you live in Britain. Some good sources are Abels, Richard, Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England, 1988; Abels, Richard, Alfred the Great, 1998; Huscroft, Richard, Making England, 796-1042, 2019; Keynes, Simon & Lapidge, Michael eds, Alfred the Great, 1983; Lavelle, Ryan, Alfred's Wars: Sources and Interpretations of Warfare in the Viking Age, 2010; Naismith, Rory, Early Medieval Britain, c.500-1000, 2021; Swanton, Michael ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, revised ed., 2000. Of course, you do not need to use all of these books, just some of them. You do need to have copies of all the books cited in the article so that you an check that the citations are correct, so you should delete any you cannot get hold of .Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are there anything else I have to do? I am going to start working on sources, turning them into harvard citations. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are almost certainly other things you need to do. I have only looked at the sources so far. I think it is easier to take a bit at a time. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have turned many of the citations into sfn style, to ask of you to review on my edits, and what to do differently. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 09:41, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen your previous comment on the ref 7, the source was a collection of the other versions of the Chronicle in favour of Swanton. I then do not know how to cite it not overusing the reference. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to ref 7, do you have access to Swanton? If so you can replace each ref with the correct page in Swanton. But as I wrote above, you should not only cite the AS Chronicle as a source, as that is original research, but also find a secondary source confirming the point. You also need to check the other refs. E.g ref 2 is dead, refs 18, 21 and 26 should be sfn, refs 24 and 27 are to Asser and should use the Keynes and Lapidge edition, ref 30 should use Swanton. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the book. If you have the book, may you fill the information?
Other than that, I am going to start to edit. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Battle_of_Edington&oldid=1280154941"