This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
I don't want to edit the actual article as I have little knowledge of Anglo-Saxon history but here is a link to a BBC News article detailing a recent claim to establishing the location of the battle. Oska09:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Primary sources
"Primary sources regarding details of the battle come from the Anglo-Saxon poem of the same name that is in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the writings of Anglo-Norman historian William of Malmesbury, the Annals of Tigernach, the Brut y Tywysogion and Icelandic sagas such as the Saga of Egill Skallagrimsson, who fought for Athelstan."
This is a misunderstanding of the meaning of the term "primary sources" William of Malmesbury was not alive at the time of the battle, his writings are a secondary source, as are Icelandic sagas that may mention the battle. A primary source is a source which was present at the battle. This must be rewritten. William of Malmesbury etc are secondary, not primary, sources.--Barend17:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't disagree more. For historical purposes, those are the sources, which means they are primary sources. The secondary sources are historians who analyse the primary source material, along with the other evidence. Tertiary sources are encyclopedia/dictionary articles. Of course, Egil's Saga is fiction, and Malmesbury is a medieval chronicler, so they are not quite the same as the ASC or the Irish and Welsh annals. Still not secondary sources though. Angus McLellan(Talk)20:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I would respectfully argue that your definition is wrong. A primary source is a source composed by someone who has witnessed the events he/she describes. The poet of the Anglo-Saxon poem may well be a primary source. A secondary source is someone who bases his narrative on what he has heard from others, or read elsewhere. Historians who analyse the primary source material, as you correctly put it. Malmesbury is a medieval historian. He analysed the sources available to him, and wrote his account, which is therefore a secondary source. The same goes for the author of Egil's saga, if one chooses to regard that at as history rather than fiction (which I, and most historians, don't).--Barend23:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically you are correct, but there is of course a real difference between William of Malmesbury and modern secondary sources. Malmesbury gets analysed by modern historians as if he were a primary source. Some information on Anglo-Saxon history is not found in any source earlier than the fifteenth century; these can't be realistically treated as secondary sources, which would imply they should be assessed for reliability by the editor of the Wikipedia page rather than by a scholar. (I'm not saying you're implying this, just that the fact that William of Malmesbury is not technically a primary source doesn't automatically make him a secondary source.)
While I have the mike, two suggestions. First, the all-too brief and somewhat strained 'background' section needs to be rewritten, with for instance Peter Hunter Blair's book as a cue (mentioned at the bottom of the article though never cited). I may do this at some point. Second, there is a reference to Alistair Campbell in the 'location' section, but whoever wrote that failed to give any kind of specific information. Campbell was in fact an editor of the poem--way back in 1938. This is the kind of gratuitous reference that gives Wikipedia a bad name...207.157.121.92 (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is so bad I don't know where to begin.....
Badly in need of a rewrite with sources placed in proper places and grammatically corrected. Too many subjective sentences. White43 (talk) 00:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. It seems nationalistic at first with the following sentences:
'...the resilience of the English...' - A massive generalization! Anyway, resilience wouldn't have won them the battle, only strength in numbers and/or good tactics.
'...crushed the Brythons...' - Um, how exactly did it crush the Brythons? They may have suffered a major defeat but they weren't 'crushed'. Brythonic rule in the British isles wasn't crushed until the conquest of Wales by the Normans in 1283.--81.156.13.43 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article still needs revision, especially in light of Michael Livingston's just-published The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook, of which I have just received a copy. Any objections to a thorough overhaul? Cynehawke (talk) 03:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The more I've poked around, the more it looks like this needs almost complete re-writing in light of recent scholarship. I'm doing the work in a sandbox for now: User:Cynehawke/sandbox. I'm still new to all this, so I'd be happy for feedback/help on how to proceed. Cynehawke (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now glanced at The Battle of Brunanburh: A Casebook. As a peer-reviewed academic study, it's clearly a reliable source and should enable you to do good things for the article. Glad to see someone taking it up. Moonraker (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My sandbox rewrite is complete, and I think it is a significant improvement on the inaccurate, dated, and misleading information currently here. Given the depth of the overhaul, is it acceptable to just cut and paste the article content from my sandbox over that which is here? Or do this by sections (I kept the same sections as the original article)? Again, I'm new to the WikiLife and so would love to know how to proceed. Cynehawke (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the greatest difference between the two approaches is that if you do it section-by-section it may be easier to follow the changes made, so may I suggest that? Moonraker (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moments ago completed a thorough overhaul of the entire article. I tried to do it in pieces (as suggested above) to ease following the changes. Cynehawke (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any objections to the removal of the "cleanup" and "refimprove" tags atop the page? Given the major changes to the article, these do not pertain to the current text (or so it seems to me). Still, I'd prefer that this "final" alteration be done by someone of more experience than me (perhaps an admin?). Help? Cynehawke (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, Cynehawke. I have taken out the {{Cleanup}} template but left the {{Refimprove}} one, as better citations are still needed. I am supposing all or nearly all of your improvements rely on the new book by Livingston, so would it be possible for you to add citations? It works like this, to add a footnote reading "Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99" you add <ref>Livingston (2011), pp. 98-99</ref> where you want the superscript number to go. The numbering of the footnotes is automatic. To use the same citation more than once, use <ref name=livingston12>Livingston (2011), p. 12</ref> the first time and after that <ref name=livingston12/>. NB, I see there are some existing citations from the new book, but not all with page numbers, you may be able to supply them. Moonraker (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, Cynehawke, now that you have sorted the references I have taken out the {{Refimprove}}template, too. (I have tidied some repetitions of the whole of Livingston's new title.) Moonraker2 (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
