![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this article be moved to Ecclesiastical History of the English People, since this is the English Wikipedia? I know the book was written in Latin, but the article about Euclid's Elements is located at Euclid's Elements, not Στοιχεία του Ευκλείδη. – Benjamin ( talk) 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The claim here that Bede invented footnotes seems bizarre to me. I'm pretty certain that his _Historia ecclesiastica_ doesn't contain any, for a start! And I would have expected to have heard of this, since my professional research relates to Anglo-Saxon history. Does anyone know of any basis for this claim? Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.
It is bizarre, delete it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Wjhonson 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my edit note was cut off. I was saying, that criticizing Bede for not following professional historian standards is kinda anachronistic when it was standard practice by all historians of the period to simply make stuff up, lift entire passages from other works and copy them as their own etc.. "history" from the period is nothing like how history is defined today, it was akin to literature in form and function, written by people who were not part of a "historical profession" or had any standards of conduct. -- Stbalbach 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This is discussed, in general, with references, at English historians in the Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph states Beed cited his references. The 5th paragraph states Bede did not provide refernces. Which is true?...or am I mis-reading something here?
Perhaps sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't (much like Wikipedia heheh).
Either way, neither of these assertions have their own references. Not really sure what should be done here, but perhaps someone knowledgeable can clarify and clean it up? Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we move this page to
Ecclesiastical History of the English People. I see from a discussion above that this is likely to be controversial, so I am listing it using the "Requesting potentially controversial moves" method at
WP:RM.
I checked eleven secondary sources; I will give very abbreviated bibliographic info for them here but I can provide more if needed. Page numbers are exemplary to make it easy to check a ref; the uses are throughout as far as I checked.
Books using "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation", or "Ecclesiastical History":
Books using "Historia Ecclesiastica":
I think this establishes that the English form is now more current in the secondary literature.
Where the Latin form is used, it's actually cited as " Historia Ecclesiastica", which is currently a dab, rather than the full form of " Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum". I would think there's a case to be made for making this article the target and putting a dab note at the top saying "for other uses of "Historia Ecclesiastica", see "Historia Ecclesiastica (disambiguation)". I'll refrain from making that move proposal now in case it confuses the issue, but anyone who comments on this proposal might comment on that too. Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The consensus view seems to be that the article should be merged into Bede, making any page moves redundant. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Various footnotes used in this article (such as "Farmer 1978" and "Higham 2006") are links which go to nowhere. The reference system used in this article only works when there is a bibliography. I suggest that the editor who inserted these references should either use the traditional method of referencing or write a bibliography so that the links actually go to the full title of the work sighted.-- Britannicus ( talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The article says U has been at Weissenburg since the end of the Middle Ages. This conflicts with the information in the List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica article, which says U is at Wolfenbüttel and is known at one time to have been at Weissenburg. I assume (guesswork!) the Weissenburg referred to is the once-German town now in France and now called Wissembourg. Perhaps someone who knows could make the appropriate edits. Thanks.
Frans Fowler ( talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the note that read "{{#tag:ref|The traditional date is 731, which Bede gives himself. However, a Muslim defeat in Gaul that took place in 732 appears to be recorded, which gives some fuzziness to the ending date.<ref name=Nar242>Goffart ''Narrators'' p. 242 and footnote 36</ref>|group=notes}}. This refers to a passage that reads "remained for almost a fortnight. At this time* a terrible plague of Saracens ravaged Gaul with cruel bloodshed and not long afterwards* they received the due reward of their treachery* in the same kingdom. In the same year the holy man of God". The note on this in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford World's Classics) by Bede, Judith McClure, Roger Collins and Bertram Colgrave says "not long afterwards: the only events this can refer to are the defeat of the first Arab attack on Gaul at Toulouse in 721 or that of another Arab raid at the battle of Poitiers in October (?) of 732 or 733. If it were the latter, this would represent a late revision or posthumous editorial addition to the text of Book V. Bede's lack of contemporary information about Arab attacks on Gaul is also apparent in the Chronicle." [1] This does not suggest a problem with the dating of 731. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The Latin name is shown in title case in the OUP edition of the Ecclesiastical History, and it should surely be the same in the title of this article. Any reason why it is not? Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum → Ecclesiastical History of the English People – Mike Christie proposed this change back in 2007, and it was rejected on the ground of lack of consensus, even though the only editor to comment on the proposal supported it. The work is usually cited by its English name, as shown by Mike in the previous request, and people interested in the article will search for Ecclesiastical History in the great majority of cases. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ecclesiastical History of the English People's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DNB":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this article be moved to Ecclesiastical History of the English People, since this is the English Wikipedia? I know the book was written in Latin, but the article about Euclid's Elements is located at Euclid's Elements, not Στοιχεία του Ευκλείδη. – Benjamin ( talk) 01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
The claim here that Bede invented footnotes seems bizarre to me. I'm pretty certain that his _Historia ecclesiastica_ doesn't contain any, for a start! And I would have expected to have heard of this, since my professional research relates to Anglo-Saxon history. Does anyone know of any basis for this claim? Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.
It is bizarre, delete it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Wjhonson 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry my edit note was cut off. I was saying, that criticizing Bede for not following professional historian standards is kinda anachronistic when it was standard practice by all historians of the period to simply make stuff up, lift entire passages from other works and copy them as their own etc.. "history" from the period is nothing like how history is defined today, it was akin to literature in form and function, written by people who were not part of a "historical profession" or had any standards of conduct. -- Stbalbach 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
This is discussed, in general, with references, at English historians in the Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph states Beed cited his references. The 5th paragraph states Bede did not provide refernces. Which is true?...or am I mis-reading something here?
Perhaps sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't (much like Wikipedia heheh).
Either way, neither of these assertions have their own references. Not really sure what should be done here, but perhaps someone knowledgeable can clarify and clean it up? Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we move this page to
Ecclesiastical History of the English People. I see from a discussion above that this is likely to be controversial, so I am listing it using the "Requesting potentially controversial moves" method at
WP:RM.
I checked eleven secondary sources; I will give very abbreviated bibliographic info for them here but I can provide more if needed. Page numbers are exemplary to make it easy to check a ref; the uses are throughout as far as I checked.
Books using "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation", or "Ecclesiastical History":
Books using "Historia Ecclesiastica":
I think this establishes that the English form is now more current in the secondary literature.
Where the Latin form is used, it's actually cited as " Historia Ecclesiastica", which is currently a dab, rather than the full form of " Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum". I would think there's a case to be made for making this article the target and putting a dab note at the top saying "for other uses of "Historia Ecclesiastica", see "Historia Ecclesiastica (disambiguation)". I'll refrain from making that move proposal now in case it confuses the issue, but anyone who comments on this proposal might comment on that too. Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
The consensus view seems to be that the article should be merged into Bede, making any page moves redundant. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. -- Stemonitis 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Various footnotes used in this article (such as "Farmer 1978" and "Higham 2006") are links which go to nowhere. The reference system used in this article only works when there is a bibliography. I suggest that the editor who inserted these references should either use the traditional method of referencing or write a bibliography so that the links actually go to the full title of the work sighted.-- Britannicus ( talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The article says U has been at Weissenburg since the end of the Middle Ages. This conflicts with the information in the List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica article, which says U is at Wolfenbüttel and is known at one time to have been at Weissenburg. I assume (guesswork!) the Weissenburg referred to is the once-German town now in France and now called Wissembourg. Perhaps someone who knows could make the appropriate edits. Thanks.
Frans Fowler ( talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I've deleted the note that read "{{#tag:ref|The traditional date is 731, which Bede gives himself. However, a Muslim defeat in Gaul that took place in 732 appears to be recorded, which gives some fuzziness to the ending date.<ref name=Nar242>Goffart ''Narrators'' p. 242 and footnote 36</ref>|group=notes}}. This refers to a passage that reads "remained for almost a fortnight. At this time* a terrible plague of Saracens ravaged Gaul with cruel bloodshed and not long afterwards* they received the due reward of their treachery* in the same kingdom. In the same year the holy man of God". The note on this in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford World's Classics) by Bede, Judith McClure, Roger Collins and Bertram Colgrave says "not long afterwards: the only events this can refer to are the defeat of the first Arab attack on Gaul at Toulouse in 721 or that of another Arab raid at the battle of Poitiers in October (?) of 732 or 733. If it were the latter, this would represent a late revision or posthumous editorial addition to the text of Book V. Bede's lack of contemporary information about Arab attacks on Gaul is also apparent in the Chronicle." [1] This does not suggest a problem with the dating of 731. Dougweller ( talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The Latin name is shown in title case in the OUP edition of the Ecclesiastical History, and it should surely be the same in the title of this article. Any reason why it is not? Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 06:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum → Ecclesiastical History of the English People – Mike Christie proposed this change back in 2007, and it was rejected on the ground of lack of consensus, even though the only editor to comment on the proposal supported it. The work is usually cited by its English name, as shown by Mike in the previous request, and people interested in the article will search for Ecclesiastical History in the great majority of cases. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ecclesiastical History of the English People's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DNB":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)