![]() | Rædwald of East Anglia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 28, 2019, July 28, 2020, and July 28, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be some discrepancy. According to this page and Bretwalda, Raedwald lived and reigned until 627. However, List of monarchs of East Anglia says that it was 617. Is there really some question in the historical record, or is there a typo here? -- Deville ( Talk) 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Lacks necessary information and organization. I have no further references pertaining to this subject, so I will be unable to add or subtract information in this article. Sorry! Did notice, however, that the birth/death date is disputed, and as it is very difficult to ascertain the exact birth/death date when it is this far back in history, an "(estimation)" note might be in order...? 67.182.132.87 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bringing discussion here from my talk page. I've done a rewrite and had some helpful comments from User:Dr_Steven_Plunkett; I will be fixing those up on a subpage of my user page and then we can figure out what can be used from that version.
Steven, how about taking it in this order:
Does that sound like a plan? If so, I'll post a note here when I've dealt with the issues you pointed out. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The draft version I've been working on is now at User:Mike Christie/Raedwald draft.
Problems identified by User:Dr Steven Plunkett are at my talk page.
I think most of those have now been addressed. Here they are, point by point, with my comments. The following notes are from Dr. Plunkett; my responses are indented below each point.
All the above changes are made in the draft version. I'd be interested in any comments on those changes. The other thing I thought might be useful was to look at the first couple of sections of the existing article and see what might be usefully added.
Right now the first section is "Chronology". This covers both the sources, and the chronology that can be deduced from those sources. I would like to add a paragraph or two about the sources themselves, since many readers won't even have heard of Bede, or know that the Vikings may have destroyed early sources, or even know about the medieval chroniclers. I think this is part of giving the reader some background on how we know what we know. Do you agree that there is room for expansion here? Mike Christie (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the above: B Yorke is a fine source and an excellent historian. With regard to HB (Yes, Historia Brittonum, i.e. ' Nennius'), his list is one that has been rendered in latin, so it goes from oldest to youngest, e.g. ' Woden genuit Casser genuit Titinon' etc, whereas the Anglian Collection version is in English and works the other way round, e.g. Tyttman Casering, Caser Uodning, etc. The spellings in the Nennius list suggest it has been copied with some mistakes, and from a variant form to the Anglian Collection one, but it comes down to about the same generation as the other, i.e. the Aelfwald date-horizon, though the last person it mentions (as son of Ealdwulf) is 'Elric' where AC has AElfwald. This is either a mis-transcription, or else Elric is a brother of AElfwald (but not necessarily a king). Presumably the HB compiler has got hold of a list and is building it into his work as best he can, but being in Wales his knowledge is less than an English compiler's might be, and he is translating. He makes the son of Hryp (Rippan) to be 'Guillem Guechan' (as if 'Uehha' was an epithet, not another person), and then says 'Ipse primus regnavit in Brittannia super gentem Estanglorum'. Therefore he has not even realised that (as AC shows) Guillem (i.e. Uilhelm) and Guechan (ie Uehha) are two separate people, though he then goes on to say that Guechan genuit Guffan (Uffa). I feel sure that Barbara Yorke has read this very carefully, but her comment is based on the assumption that AC is correct in making Wehha and Wilhelm into two people, and that, whatever 'Nennius' has written, he appears to mean that Wehha was the first to rule. The whole subject of this kind of Anglo-Saxon history is riddled with such minute inflexions of interpretation. My own book, for example, is a mass of such little interpretations, most of which have to pass unexplained, but which are based on three decades studying the subject. Quite possibly many of my interpretations and speculations are wrong, but they are mine, and that's why I put them in a book. For Wikipedia, it is essential to remove a good deal of this speculative layer, though Anglo-Saxon history does not cohere without a little grist of that kind. The art, of which after 30 years I am only a rather feeble practitioner, is to weave it all together on the basis of a very wide knowledge of sources and inferences: but to carry them only part of the way that they are capable of going, for every idea and every interpretation has its lunatic extension into fantasy - and (as Houston Stewart Chamberlain (oddly enough) said), 'fanciful history is an idiot asylum.'. To see a master of Anglo-Saxon history at work, read Sir Frank Stenton's 'Anglo-Saxon England' in the Oxford Histories, (3rd Edition, 1971), and be impressed by what he does NOT say.
The difficulty with even mentioning this viking business here, is that we don't know what may or may not have been destroyed by vikings. To say that there was information, but that it has been destroyed, is argumentative, and presumes something we cannot know. probably there was something ... possibly the vikings destroyed it... but we don't know either of these facts for sure, and wikipedia isn't the place to argue this in specific cases, because we would end up arguing the same argument in every pre-viking biography.
Concerning Bede and the mediaeval chroniclers, again, we are not going to explain these every time we mention them. They have their own articles, and one gets to a full explanation of them by a click of the cursor on the wikilink on Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, etc etc. That's how wikipedia works. Otherwise every article that uses Bede as a source will duplicate the information about Bede. It's just plain unneccessary. These are not stand-alone articles: Of course if you were writing down your version of the Raedwald story for a group of people that had never heard of Bede and didn't have access to an immediate source - in a teaching pack, for instance - then you would need to do that. But here, quite specifically, you don't want to do that at all, because the place for the explanation of who Bede is is in the article on Bede.
Do let me have your reaction to what I've put on the other discussion page. best wishes Dr Steven Plunkett 10:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you glance at what I wrote on User talk:Mike Christie/Raedwald draft discussion page? As you say, it is not really worth spilling more ink over this. I think the best thing is to follow the usual wikipedia procedure: you go ahead and make corrections to the article in any way you think fit, and others can edit in the future as they think fit. I have now retired as an editor of Anglo-Saxon articles on wikipedia (since about four months ago) and do not plan to return to the subject here. Could I draw your attention to the many Anglo-Saxon kings articles which do NOT yet exist, and which could usefully be started, or expanded from stubs? There is a wealth of work to do in this field, and in this way you could greatly assist wikipedia and enlarge your output on a broad and blank canvas, and carry your own work through from conception to fulness. Dr Steven Plunkett 07:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a serious lack of in-line citations here. When citing Bede, can you also cite your secondary source, unless you have an original copy yourself? There is also a suggestion of original research, which seems to be quite common among Pre-Norman England articles on wikipedia. WikiP is not a place to interpret sources, that is covered in the article WP:original research. Matthewcgirling ( talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eisfbnore talk 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I will review this article, section by section, but leaving the lead until last.
-- Eisfbnore talk 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 08:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 08:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 12:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall, this is a very well-written article, but the prose could be enhanced by removing brackets in the sentences, and the article generally needs more inline citations. Placing on hold. Eisfbnore talk 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has been significantly improved over the last days, and it's definitely very close to be listed as a GA. There is only one {{ cn}} tag left in the article, and a few of the notes are lacking significant information. The main issue left to solve now, is the synthesizing in the article. Combining two facts to ascertain a third is not acceptable for an encyclopædia, and must be removed/attributed to historians. I'll list the three syntesizing sentences below:
-- Eisfbnore talk 15:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It is stated in "A topographical and historical description of the county of Suffolk", by John Kirby ( http://books.google.com/books?id=vQAIAAAAQAAJ, page 123) that a crown was found at Rendlesham that may have belonged to Raedwald. Kirby cites an older source, the historian William Camden ("Cambden"). The crown weighed about 60 ounces and was sold and melted down(!) Later in his book (page 305) Kirby says the crown was found at Mendlesham. According to Westwood and Simpson, "The Lore of the Land" ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lore-Land-Englands-Legends-Spring-heeled/dp/0141007117) this discovery was made about 1687. This fact or legend may be worth of inclusion in this or some related article. 24.27.31.170 ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Eric
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rædwald of East Anglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear reader(s), I read: "There are also significant differences, and exact parallels with the workmanship and style of the Sutton Hoo artefacts cannot be found elsewhere; as a result the connection is generally regarded as unproven." Many scholars around the world have agreed, however, that the artefacts found in the mound of Wijnaldum (Frisia, nowadays Friesland in the Netherlands), especially the Brooch (that could have been made by the same of similarly inspired/trained smith) are in fact very familar to the artefacts found in Sutton Hoo. The dating is similar and fits right in the generally supported impression of a greater North Sea culture, exchanging gifts, goods and DNA. Here I submit some (rapidly collected) links, so that you may decide for yourselves whether or not to incorporate the above said in the existing text or not. [1] https://www.friesmuseum.nl/en/collection/icons/fibula-from-wijnaldum [2] https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2660086/view Addressing the (small) differences in more technical detail and dating: [3] http://www.lcm.rug.nl/lcm/teksten/teksten_uk/gold_disc_on_bow_brooch_uk.htm [4] https://www.waddenacademie.nl/fileadmin/inhoud/pdf/01-Waddenacademie/Symposium_Husum/Presentaties/16._johan_nicolay.pdf
Hope you will find it all useful.
Best, Sipke Hoekstra Sipke Hoekstra ( talk) 15:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Rædwald of East Anglia has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on July 28, 2019, July 28, 2020, and July 28, 2022. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
There seems to be some discrepancy. According to this page and Bretwalda, Raedwald lived and reigned until 627. However, List of monarchs of East Anglia says that it was 617. Is there really some question in the historical record, or is there a typo here? -- Deville ( Talk) 15:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Lacks necessary information and organization. I have no further references pertaining to this subject, so I will be unable to add or subtract information in this article. Sorry! Did notice, however, that the birth/death date is disputed, and as it is very difficult to ascertain the exact birth/death date when it is this far back in history, an "(estimation)" note might be in order...? 67.182.132.87 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Bringing discussion here from my talk page. I've done a rewrite and had some helpful comments from User:Dr_Steven_Plunkett; I will be fixing those up on a subpage of my user page and then we can figure out what can be used from that version.
Steven, how about taking it in this order:
Does that sound like a plan? If so, I'll post a note here when I've dealt with the issues you pointed out. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
The draft version I've been working on is now at User:Mike Christie/Raedwald draft.
Problems identified by User:Dr Steven Plunkett are at my talk page.
I think most of those have now been addressed. Here they are, point by point, with my comments. The following notes are from Dr. Plunkett; my responses are indented below each point.
All the above changes are made in the draft version. I'd be interested in any comments on those changes. The other thing I thought might be useful was to look at the first couple of sections of the existing article and see what might be usefully added.
Right now the first section is "Chronology". This covers both the sources, and the chronology that can be deduced from those sources. I would like to add a paragraph or two about the sources themselves, since many readers won't even have heard of Bede, or know that the Vikings may have destroyed early sources, or even know about the medieval chroniclers. I think this is part of giving the reader some background on how we know what we know. Do you agree that there is room for expansion here? Mike Christie (talk) 17:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Concerning the above: B Yorke is a fine source and an excellent historian. With regard to HB (Yes, Historia Brittonum, i.e. ' Nennius'), his list is one that has been rendered in latin, so it goes from oldest to youngest, e.g. ' Woden genuit Casser genuit Titinon' etc, whereas the Anglian Collection version is in English and works the other way round, e.g. Tyttman Casering, Caser Uodning, etc. The spellings in the Nennius list suggest it has been copied with some mistakes, and from a variant form to the Anglian Collection one, but it comes down to about the same generation as the other, i.e. the Aelfwald date-horizon, though the last person it mentions (as son of Ealdwulf) is 'Elric' where AC has AElfwald. This is either a mis-transcription, or else Elric is a brother of AElfwald (but not necessarily a king). Presumably the HB compiler has got hold of a list and is building it into his work as best he can, but being in Wales his knowledge is less than an English compiler's might be, and he is translating. He makes the son of Hryp (Rippan) to be 'Guillem Guechan' (as if 'Uehha' was an epithet, not another person), and then says 'Ipse primus regnavit in Brittannia super gentem Estanglorum'. Therefore he has not even realised that (as AC shows) Guillem (i.e. Uilhelm) and Guechan (ie Uehha) are two separate people, though he then goes on to say that Guechan genuit Guffan (Uffa). I feel sure that Barbara Yorke has read this very carefully, but her comment is based on the assumption that AC is correct in making Wehha and Wilhelm into two people, and that, whatever 'Nennius' has written, he appears to mean that Wehha was the first to rule. The whole subject of this kind of Anglo-Saxon history is riddled with such minute inflexions of interpretation. My own book, for example, is a mass of such little interpretations, most of which have to pass unexplained, but which are based on three decades studying the subject. Quite possibly many of my interpretations and speculations are wrong, but they are mine, and that's why I put them in a book. For Wikipedia, it is essential to remove a good deal of this speculative layer, though Anglo-Saxon history does not cohere without a little grist of that kind. The art, of which after 30 years I am only a rather feeble practitioner, is to weave it all together on the basis of a very wide knowledge of sources and inferences: but to carry them only part of the way that they are capable of going, for every idea and every interpretation has its lunatic extension into fantasy - and (as Houston Stewart Chamberlain (oddly enough) said), 'fanciful history is an idiot asylum.'. To see a master of Anglo-Saxon history at work, read Sir Frank Stenton's 'Anglo-Saxon England' in the Oxford Histories, (3rd Edition, 1971), and be impressed by what he does NOT say.
The difficulty with even mentioning this viking business here, is that we don't know what may or may not have been destroyed by vikings. To say that there was information, but that it has been destroyed, is argumentative, and presumes something we cannot know. probably there was something ... possibly the vikings destroyed it... but we don't know either of these facts for sure, and wikipedia isn't the place to argue this in specific cases, because we would end up arguing the same argument in every pre-viking biography.
Concerning Bede and the mediaeval chroniclers, again, we are not going to explain these every time we mention them. They have their own articles, and one gets to a full explanation of them by a click of the cursor on the wikilink on Bede, Historia Ecclesiastica, William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon, etc etc. That's how wikipedia works. Otherwise every article that uses Bede as a source will duplicate the information about Bede. It's just plain unneccessary. These are not stand-alone articles: Of course if you were writing down your version of the Raedwald story for a group of people that had never heard of Bede and didn't have access to an immediate source - in a teaching pack, for instance - then you would need to do that. But here, quite specifically, you don't want to do that at all, because the place for the explanation of who Bede is is in the article on Bede.
Do let me have your reaction to what I've put on the other discussion page. best wishes Dr Steven Plunkett 10:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Did you glance at what I wrote on User talk:Mike Christie/Raedwald draft discussion page? As you say, it is not really worth spilling more ink over this. I think the best thing is to follow the usual wikipedia procedure: you go ahead and make corrections to the article in any way you think fit, and others can edit in the future as they think fit. I have now retired as an editor of Anglo-Saxon articles on wikipedia (since about four months ago) and do not plan to return to the subject here. Could I draw your attention to the many Anglo-Saxon kings articles which do NOT yet exist, and which could usefully be started, or expanded from stubs? There is a wealth of work to do in this field, and in this way you could greatly assist wikipedia and enlarge your output on a broad and blank canvas, and carry your own work through from conception to fulness. Dr Steven Plunkett 07:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a serious lack of in-line citations here. When citing Bede, can you also cite your secondary source, unless you have an original copy yourself? There is also a suggestion of original research, which seems to be quite common among Pre-Norman England articles on wikipedia. WikiP is not a place to interpret sources, that is covered in the article WP:original research. Matthewcgirling ( talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Eisfbnore talk 11:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I will review this article, section by section, but leaving the lead until last.
-- Eisfbnore talk 18:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 08:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 08:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 09:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 12:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 12:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 13:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Eisfbnore talk 13:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall, this is a very well-written article, but the prose could be enhanced by removing brackets in the sentences, and the article generally needs more inline citations. Placing on hold. Eisfbnore talk 14:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This article has been significantly improved over the last days, and it's definitely very close to be listed as a GA. There is only one {{ cn}} tag left in the article, and a few of the notes are lacking significant information. The main issue left to solve now, is the synthesizing in the article. Combining two facts to ascertain a third is not acceptable for an encyclopædia, and must be removed/attributed to historians. I'll list the three syntesizing sentences below:
-- Eisfbnore talk 15:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
It is stated in "A topographical and historical description of the county of Suffolk", by John Kirby ( http://books.google.com/books?id=vQAIAAAAQAAJ, page 123) that a crown was found at Rendlesham that may have belonged to Raedwald. Kirby cites an older source, the historian William Camden ("Cambden"). The crown weighed about 60 ounces and was sold and melted down(!) Later in his book (page 305) Kirby says the crown was found at Mendlesham. According to Westwood and Simpson, "The Lore of the Land" ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Lore-Land-Englands-Legends-Spring-heeled/dp/0141007117) this discovery was made about 1687. This fact or legend may be worth of inclusion in this or some related article. 24.27.31.170 ( talk) 03:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Eric
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Rædwald of East Anglia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Dear reader(s), I read: "There are also significant differences, and exact parallels with the workmanship and style of the Sutton Hoo artefacts cannot be found elsewhere; as a result the connection is generally regarded as unproven." Many scholars around the world have agreed, however, that the artefacts found in the mound of Wijnaldum (Frisia, nowadays Friesland in the Netherlands), especially the Brooch (that could have been made by the same of similarly inspired/trained smith) are in fact very familar to the artefacts found in Sutton Hoo. The dating is similar and fits right in the generally supported impression of a greater North Sea culture, exchanging gifts, goods and DNA. Here I submit some (rapidly collected) links, so that you may decide for yourselves whether or not to incorporate the above said in the existing text or not. [1] https://www.friesmuseum.nl/en/collection/icons/fibula-from-wijnaldum [2] https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2660086/view Addressing the (small) differences in more technical detail and dating: [3] http://www.lcm.rug.nl/lcm/teksten/teksten_uk/gold_disc_on_bow_brooch_uk.htm [4] https://www.waddenacademie.nl/fileadmin/inhoud/pdf/01-Waddenacademie/Symposium_Husum/Presentaties/16._johan_nicolay.pdf
Hope you will find it all useful.
Best, Sipke Hoekstra Sipke Hoekstra ( talk) 15:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)