Talk:Anglo-Saxons

So many myths

Only perhaps 10,000 to 25,000 Angles and Saxons crossed over during the centuries of migration. These migrants settled in among the millions of people who were already there, ruling over parts of the island until the eleventh century Norman invasion.

The Anglo-Saxon cultural influence declined with the 1066 conquest by Normandy, today a region of France. The new Norman rulers transformed England and ejected the old Anglo-Saxon elite, many of whom fled the country entirely. And so the Anglo-Saxon era ended, four or five centuries of rule that ended a thousand years ago and did not appear to make a lasting or substantial impact on British genes.

At their height, the Anglo-Saxons made up less than 1% of the British population. It may have left a cultural heritage, but no genetic heritage to speak of. 89.253.73.146 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

To quote Queen Bess: I have the body of a week and feeble Western European; but I have the brains and expertise of a historian and linguist, and one specialised in this period, too, and think foul scorn that anyone should write "at their height, the Anglo-Saxons made up less than 1% of the British population" and think it holds water in any sort of way. Where did you read that? And 10-25,000 settlers over centuries? We simply do not have any sort of reliable source to estimate absolute numbers, so let's do away with flinging those about. What we can tell from our few written sources and from archaeology should make us wary of minimalist migration scenarios.

Funnily enough, this minimalist position you've endorsed is the one that dominated most of the later 20th century, as a sort of pendulum counter swing to the "völkisch" and "racial" obsession of earlier research which had stressed a direct correlation between archaeological culture and genetic descent. In other words: "People travelled! (I'm a filthy little fascist at heart.)" - "No, pots travelled! (I'm an enlightened pot-loving Hippie.)"

Over the past ten, fifteen years or so we've experienced a more nuanced levelling out of these extreme models, mainly thanks to the relatively hard evidence of Y and mtDNA research originally, and palaeogenetics more recently. Palaeogenetics regarding Anglo-Saxon migration is still very much in its infancy. Even with the facts we can hope for from that field in future, the blur of which genetic markers we identify as "Anglo-Saxon" enough to qualify will remain significant. There are a few hints that we can see, however: At the present state of error, research does not seem to agree with your position especially well, with Northern England showing up at about 3/4 "Continental North Sea" ancestry (mumbled: whatever that means) after the Migration Period. You can look up that recent study here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05247-2. So, off of that high horse, and down into the research rabbit hole with you. It's great fun! We all float down here. Trigaranus (talk) 09:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I was going to reply, but Trigaranus put it better than I ever could. Saying less than one percent of the British Population was Anglo Saxon is a curious position to take, disavowed by all modern research, and a position that only really exists as a VERY unscientific way to try to refute any connotations of people taking pride in Anglo Saxon ancestry (because admittedly, a lot of racist groups do use its imagery, but that absolutely doesn't make it OK to lie and pretend they had minimal impact).

As was said, off the high horse. There is a LOT of Anglo-Saxon DNA in the English. I honestly do not know where you deign to get those figures anon. Alooulla (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes clearly arguing against the weakest and most extreme types of statements won't help us much. I think that no one seriously doubts there was one or more movements of people from the other side of the north sea. The devil is in the detail. Some of the first Saxons probably came as Roman recruits for example, very early. Their language, and something of their culture, might have been established quite early within the Roman military. That barbarians ran the military and kept (and modified) their barbarian style to their position is known from other countries. But other groups apparently came to England later, if we believe the few medieval sources. None of these things disagree with each other. The genetics confirms things in a rough way only for now. People came from northern Europe. Extreme positions which claim that there was a genocide, or that there were hardly any immigrants, are both pretty unpopular but that does not mean we have a clear vision of what happened yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"Arguing against the weakest and most extreme types of statements won't help us much".

What Alooulla is arguing against is not an "extreme" position, but was considered mainstream less than a decade ago. It was only in retrospect, and with hard genetic evidence, that the field realized that they had fallen into a political ideology, sometimes explicitly stated, to downplay or deny the existence of an AS people.

From a synopsis: "Historian Wolf Liebeschuetz and archaeologist Sebastian Brather, to pick on just two, have both firmly insisted that archaeology must not, and cannot, be used to trace migrations or identify different ethnic groups in prehistory." DenverCoder19 (talk) 16:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

"Two medieval scholars tackle the misuse of a phrase that was rarely used by its supposed namesakes"

[1] One of the authors is Mary Rambaran-Olm, the other looks like someone as notable. So this is a reliable source for anyone interested. Doug Weller talk 08:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Related discussions

• Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 5#Removing the term “Anglo-Saxon?” in 2020
• Talk:Anglo-Saxons/Archive 6#International Society of Anglo-Saxonists name change in 2021. TSventon (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a very stringent argument to be had there: "ethnic" naming conventions are and always have been nothing more than that, and our modern ones very rarely reflect historic usage. If you had asked a Greek scholar of the Early Middle Ages, he would have divided all northern peoples into Scythians and Galatians, regardless of their ethnic affiliations, and would have called himself a Roman, even if he spoke not a shred of Latin. There is nothing to suggest that there ever was an idea of "Celts" in the heads of the historic Celts, nor one of "Germans" in the minds of the historic Germanic peoples. So no surprise there. Not even the modern Germans in the sense of Germany had a concept to describe themselves, and the association of the term "Teutonic" with the HRE (and its conflation with thuidisc) was originally negative propaganda by the popes during the time of their rivalry with the emperors. So it's absolutely no skin off anyone's rosy nose that nowadays we have both a historic and a modern convention for using Anglo-Saxon in a more or less blurry sense. Anglo-Saxons back in the day: people who spoke Old English. Anglo-Saxons around now: white-ish "English" and "American" people (give or take) who speak Modern English. It's not scientific taxonomy but conventional usage. Trigaranus (talk) 11:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the "conventional usage" as a racialist concept that's being pushed back against. That's the main motivator for these and other scholars to shift to using other terminology.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

A purely American issue; I notice no solution is offered. Resist American cultural imperialism! Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree there is not much we can do with it here. The way the article presents it, this is not one issue at all but several different ones anyway:

• Should we avoid using a term for an historic cultural group, because it is sometimes seen as a race? This question implies that when we refer to the whole Old English speaking culture we can better call them English, ignoring the other term Saxon, and potentially confusing them with the later English. I suppose anyone interested in avoiding misconceptions about cultures being continuous races, might also need to consider whether this is a good solution. In any case I think that the term Anglo-Saxon is not particularly common as a racial concept in modern contexts. I think Winston Churchill is the main inspiration for recent use and despite what the authors make out he was connecting the term to a common cultural tradition, and he was doing it in order to inspire an alliance during a war. So when people use the term these days they tend to be referring to things like "legal traditions".
• Should we avoid modern terms for historical peoples if they were not widely used by the historical people involved? I think the main reason to be concerned about such cases would be because of some other factor, for example a question about whether the ancient people involved actually existed as a cultural group that anyone at the time would have recognized. That's not a problem here, but see the next point.
• The article seems to imply that the term is also bad because it represses understanding of the different nations who had their own names for themselves. It sounds like they dispute whether there should be a generic term at all, but then in other places they seem to accept that there should be. Apart from being an unclear point, I think it also doesn't make much sense. I think the simple idea of the English having been several clearly defined peoples who transferred over from different homelands is questionable, whereas it is very clear that there was an overall group. The only term we can connect easily to a homeland on the continent is "English". We don't really know the origin of the term Saxon. The idea that the Saxons appear on Ptolemy's map is widespread but experts can't really agree about it. And this implies that the term initially came into a use in coastal France and England, apparently meaning something like viking. The term did not start being used for North Germans until much later. There was no Frisian kingdom in England, and no Mercian kingdom on the continent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think the biggest issue is that it's not yet a scholarly consensus, although things might be moving to that point. It's also the term most entrenched among the populous. Wikipedia still uses "Genghis Khan" even though most scholars now use the more accurate Anglicization "Chinggis Khan".--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 11:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest the trend is going in the other direction in this case. I'd also say that beyond the consensus problem another problem here is just working out what the point being made is when you try to boil it down to its essence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

generally used in a racist context per the linked article is quite a Ameri-centric perspective, as discussed before. That statement wouldn't be true for (at least) the UK. The whole thing is reminiscent of the Byzantine Empire nomenclature obsession of some. It's just a useful short-hand for something. DeCausa (talk) 11:56, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

The problem for me that for me the term Anglo-Saxon, in England is not elitist, it tends to be disparaging. For example if someone swears they would apologise for using "the Anglo-Saxon ". In 1066 England was conquered by the Normans, if you read Kevin Cahill's book "Who Owns Britain" you will see that a large percentage of land in England is still owned by people who's ancestors came over with William the Conqueror. They would be insulted if you accused them of being Anglo-Saxon!! The top private schools and universities were set up by people who's ancestry were largely from Norman or Plantagenet backgrounds. We still have a higher house of Parliament full of aristocrats. Check out our hereditary peers, you will see that the majority of them have Norman/ French names hidden behind their titles eg: Duke of Norfolk. That is not to say that Anglo-Saxons have not moved in the upper circles of society. There is a whole range of different terms for such folk. Example, "he made it to the top even though he was a commoner" (ie: Anglo-Saxon). "He is no blue blood!" in other words not an aristocrat (ie:Anglo-Saxon). In the last hundred years or so progress has been made. You don't have to be a major land owner or male to vote for example. So I am not sure the "Genghis Khan" / "Chinggis Khan" analogy is a good one. Outside England the Anglo-Saxon term has a bit of an elitist ring to it however in England the attitude is somewhat different. I think that most people in multi-ethnic England would not identify with being Anglo-Saxon these days. It is just regarded as a reference to people who settled these islands in medieval times (How many and for what reason is a much more interesting discussion). As long as Wikipedia includes a nomenclature in their articles, clarifying the term, I see no reason to change the terminology. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you considerably overstating the case there. Much-diluted Norman bloodlines may own a lot of grouse moors, but only a lucky few, like Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster (whose ancestor snapped up a commoner heiress to a farm that is now Mayfair and Belgravia) have really valuable urban land. On being "insulted if you accused them of being Anglo-Saxon", I remember a hilarious tv episode (probably Who Do You Think You Are? (British TV series)) with the late Robert Shirley, 13th Earl Ferrers, who treasured the idea of being properly Anglo-Saxon, based on an 11th-century female ancestor. They wheeled on a historian who told him very bluntly that her name was as Norman as they come (rather implying he ought to go around wearing a beret with onions around his neck). He was visibly discomforted. I suspect this is a more typical attitude. Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod Thanks for that!! I was making a general point. I think that DNA testing has unraveled a lot of misconceptions. The Normans tended to intermarry with the Anglo-Saxon women anyway, and I think that over the centuries it wasn't just the men of the house that were sleeping with servants etc! I didn't include the Scandinavian settlement in large parts of Northern England either. My point was that the use of Anglo-Saxon is much more nuanced in England then the US. I guess where it works is where it belongs, namely as a term of convenience for all the Germanic tribes who arrived in England after Rome(possibly some during) and before the Norman Conquest. BTW - We used to get a Breton onion seller round regularly here on his bike. They seem to have disappeared. Wilfridselsey (talk) 14:46, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in the UK "Anglo-Saxon" in a contemporary context used to mainly mean "four-letter words", but I think this is less common now. Our charming onion seller, straight out of Central Casting, stopped in the late 1960s I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Wilfridselsey I think you make a small-seeming jump of logic that is also apparently in the article when you say "all the Germanic tribes who arrived in England". I'd say that a quite early stage pretty much everyone in the rolling hills and flat country of SE England was "Anglo Saxon", no matter what their ancestry (Frisian, Italian, French, Welsh etc). Once again I'd like to point out that the old idea of identifiable tribes from different parts of Europe, who continued to see themselves as distinct in England, is not really based upon much. The only clear case of a name which had staying power was the one which also became generic, the Angles. (I think the evidence is against the term Saxon originally referring to a small Germanic people.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster I also said that Anglo-Saxon is a "term of convenience" for all the tribes. I don't believe it to be particularly representative or accurate. But we at least know or think we know what it means when use it in the Medieval England context. You say that the name Angles has staying power however in the Welsh language and Scottish Gaelic they call the English "Saxons" ( Saesneg/ Sassenach). Anyway I thought this discussion was more about the historic term Anglo Saxon vs. modern (mis)use? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but as I said, I don't think that we can be confident that "Saxon" was originally a term for a "Germanic tribe who arrived in England". Angle and Frisian were, but there was no part of England which was seen as a Frisian kingdom.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster There is a body of evidence that suggest that the Jutes came from Frisia, whether they were Frisian or originated in Jutland and travelled via Frisia, is a point of debate. The Jutes set up several kingdoms in SE England. Also, Saxon was a loan word from Latin and the annals were written in Latin, so it is understandable how its use leaked into English. As far as I know the earliest use was by George (bishop of Ostia and Amiens) in 786, when after a visit to England he wrote a report to the pope describing his trip to Angul Saxnia. Wilfridselsey (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you should double check that body of evidence. The question here is whether there is any strong academic consensus about these things. There isn't. There is was a much later claim that Kent was settled first by Jutes, but modern historians treat that with caution and in any case there is no evidence that people there saw themselves as Jutes. The etymology of Saxon is uncertain and they were first definitely mentioned as raiders in the 4th century. The term Angles was given for later settlers on different coasts, and it clearly does imply a connection to a specific region.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are out of date, there has been a lot of recent scholarship on this. They have linked the archaeology of Frisia with the so called Jutish areas in England, but not to Jutland. Have a look at these books "The Land of the English Kin. Studies in Wessex and Anglo-Saxon England in Honour of Professor Barbara Yorke (2020) - this is open source, "The Archaeology of Kent to AD 600 (2007)", "The Early Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms of Southern Britain AD 450-650 (2014)" or this paper "Saxons in the Meon Valley: A Place-Name Survey (2014)".Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are changing subject, or maybe you've forgotten what my original remark was. I pointed out that there is very little evidence for there having been multiple Germanic tribes who arrived in England and continued to be seen as members of those specific continental "arrived" groups, and distinct from other Old English speakers. Archaeology can only give vague hints about such things. Anyway, I certainly don't see anything justifying your implied claim that there is an academic consensus for the existence of a Frisian kingdom in England. No one denies that there was movement of people and material goods though, and that is not what I was talking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes we have moved off subject but I was just addressing your point about no Frisian kingdoms? Anyway, we can agree on one thing there is very little consensus when talking about Anglo-Saxon history. I did not mean that the Jutes were Frisian I said there is a growing body of evidence to support a link. In other words there is evidence to support the hypothesis. Not that it is a fact.Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes worth having a side discussion to see where we all are. (I think so anyway.) If you are interested in reports of Frisians I suppose you know about the strange report of Procopius. Sorry to Mr Sunak but I don't think anyone has ever succeeded in closing the English channel. There were Bretons and Saxons on both sides of the Romanised channel for a long times, but further north there is no doubt of contact with Frisians, Angles and Jutes (and later Flemings). My point was that the Angles are a little special in the sense that we can connect a specific sub-group in England with a specific sub-group in Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Folks, this entire discussion frankly boggles my continental European mind. I'm a historian (and Anglicist) specialised in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, and I've yet to meet a scholar who took any form of umbrage at the term "Anglo-Saxons" in historical contexts. Historians constantly use terms of convenience and convention. As do humans in general: A large part of the "English" are more Saxon than Anglish, most of the "French" are decidedly un-Frankish, and the "Russians" tend no longer to arrive in Eastern Europe in Scandinavian boats. Hell, even my own country's name is silly (I'm Swiss, but I'm definitely not "from Schwyz" -- that place is a shitshow.).

When readers *not* from the US see the term "Anglo-Saxons", they will -- provided they have some interest in history -- immediately think of stuff like Beowulf, King Arthur's wars, Alfred and his burnt cookies, guys unironically named Offa offing people, and a rather odd type of Phrygian hat. Jokes aside: if you're not American, "Anglo-Saxon" is a conventional name for a historical cultural complex. It has the benefit of having been used by contemporary scholars (Paul the Deacon) and even as a self-descriptive ethnonym in a king's titles (Aethelstan)! So what if people with idiotic mindsets also use it? The notion that we should give up its use because modern-day doofuses eat at the same lexical buffet as everyone else is, frankly or frenchly, daft. Trigaranus (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to note, as an American, when I hear "Anglo-Saxon" I also think of Beowulf, Arthur, Alfred, and Sutton Hoo. But I'm a history buff. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The whole, 'Let's look for words that people might find offensive and insist that they are not used' approach is futile; because the people who want to use words in an offensive way will just convert the new replacements into being offensive. Urselius (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

"Anglo-Saxons aren’t real"

In other news, "Anglo-Saxons aren’t real, Cambridge tells students" according to a Telegraph article (archived copy here). TSventon (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Clearly a bit twisted in that story but reading between the lines it seems to be about the Anglo-Saxon race idea (not their existence as such) and that idea does exist, and did get a bit of a boost in the early days of genetic studies, when there were claims that genetics could prove that there had been Apartheid and genocide. These things were much discussed among American genealogists for example. But as more data came in things settled down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, reading between the lines is necessary. It is interesting, but not surprising, that Cambridge is trying to "address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity". There is some criticism of the article at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/142k7ed/anglosaxons_arent_real_is_this_true/ . TSventon (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

History section length

The history section seems quite large and detailed given that we already have an article dedicated to the history at History of Anglo-Saxon England. Would it be prudent to merge most or all of the history here into that article in order to let this article focus on the socio-cultural aspects of Anglo-Saxon life? Ltwin (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this article is just too big, and, especially for the later periods, the history coverage here seems more detailed than that at History of Anglo-Saxon England. Perhaps some straight swopping of sections should be done. I do think there should be a substantial history sections here. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article is much too big. It is over 18,000 words. The history coverage in both articles seems sometimes random in what is covered. I will try to work on the History of Anglo-Saxon England article once I have finished the projects I am working on, but this will be very long term. So far as this article is concerned, I suggest deleting the history and changing the title to Anglo-Saxon culture and society. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I'd be very strongly against that! Much of the history here seems at least as good quality, and bigger in quantity, as the equivalent parts in the "history" article. We need an article just called "Anglo-Saxons", and this will get far higher views than anything titled "History of ..." or "... culture and society". Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I do agree that the coverage and takes of the two articles are often rather different, with more cultural material here than the "history" article. This would seem to make a merge rather easier. For example there is a large section on the aftermath and "legacy" of 1066 here, and nothing there. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

The History of Anglo-Saxon England is pretty much the Political History of Anglo-Saxon England. I am not sure that Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language sit particularly well there! They should probably be trimmed a bit or moved here. I think that the History section here goes into a lot more detail and covers more subjects. If the political history is moved out leaving just the cultural history will that shrink the History section enough? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm rather puzzled by this, frankly. You say "The History of Anglo-Saxon England is pretty much the Political History of Anglo-Saxon England", then seem to complain that it isn't as it has other stuff, & some of that should be moved here. Why on earth don't "Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language sit particularly well there"? That seems an indefensibly narrow conception of "history", against all contemporary trends. I agree that "the History section here goes into a lot more detail and covers more subjects", but I don't think "de-politicizing" the "history" here is an answer. Nor do I think anything much can be moved here, as it is so much too long already. This is the main article for the topic, and following our normal editorial practices should summarize all the significant sub-articles, which certainly includes the political history. It should not just "focus on the socio-cultural aspects of Anglo-Saxon life". Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I take Johnbod's argument that an overarching article is useful, but I doubt whether this can be done satisfactorily within Wikipedia's size limit. There are many different articles on aspects of the Anglo-Saxons, and Anglo-Saxons would be more helpful to readers as a disambig pointing readers to the particular aspect they are interested in. The history section in this article could be merged into the history of ASE article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language" are more cultural whereas most of ASE is political. I was not suggesting that we lose them, just move them here. In return move the political history the other way. But as Dudley says that will not shrink the AS article enough. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see how the Heptarchy could be more political! And the largely top-down (at least at the start) Christianisation was highly political. I'm not sure what was "cultural" about Danegeld. Both articles cover the full political history, in different fashions, so either a careful merge or swops are needed. But I reject this narrow conception of "history", as I'm sure historians would. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Johnbod I probably used too much brevity trying to simplify my point? Anyway the ASE is mainly about battles and political succession. The entire History of Anglo-Saxon England (excluding references) is actually smaller than the history section here, around 900 words by my calculation! I do not have fixed views on this, I just want the best solution. It is a large body of work to fix this, we therefore we need a few ideas how best to do it. It seems to me the same is true of most people contributing to this discussion. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the best thing to do for now would be to Wikipedia:Summary style the History section. Each of the current sections (Early, Middle, Late, and Post-Conquest) should shortened to include only the most important information with the more detailed information incorporated into the History of ASE article. So, for this article we would have 1 History section with 4 subsections. Ltwin (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

That's actually a considerably job, if done properly. And we ciurrently don't seem to have much agreement about what "the most important information" is. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Maybe the way we've split these articles was a bit unclear from the beginning. Basically, this is a history topic, so the "History of" sub article does not really distinguish a separate topic. Perhaps it was someone's idea that the history article should be something like a chronological account of specific events and turning points? In terms of practical ways forward one possible approach is to merge (or merge in an experimental sandbox) and then see which chunks don't fit easily? It could be that we need one main article and several spin offs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxons (slur)

In case anyone is interested, there is a new article at Anglo-Saxons (slur), with a background section sourced to current affairs sources. TSventon (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Critical review of a book in further reading

One of the "further reading" suggestions: Haywood, John (1999), Dark Age Naval Power: Frankish & Anglo-Saxon Seafaring Activity (revised ed.), Frithgarth: Anglo-Saxon Books, ISBN 1-898281-43-2 has been criticised in this review[2]. The reviewer challenges some of the conclusions made by Hayward about the superior nautical activity discussed in the book. I suggest that this means this source should be used with caution, as it is clear that contrary opinions exist on many points made by Hayward. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

John Haywood (British historian) is a fellow of the Royal Historical Society and a former university lecturer, which makes him a reliable source under Wikipedia rules, but he has published so many books on so many different subjects that I would be doubtful of citing him as an authority. However, many books we cite by experts are criticised by other experts, so I do not think we can mark out one book as to be used with caution on the basis of a review.

BTW the further reading section is a mess which combines sources and books not cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage you to read the review cited, as it gives reasoned arguments as to why his opinions are questioned. The criticisms, if accepted, are quite damning. Looking at WP:HISTRW, I am reminded that the guidance is that we need to bear in mind whether an academic consensus exists on any view put forward. This review is strong evidence that, at a minimum, Hayward's ideas are challenged by those working in the field. Further study might reveal any support or other criticism. The original post was just a case of an initial alert. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Similar arguments apply to other books, and if I cited it a source in the article then I would also need to cite the criticism. As the book is not a source, I suggest that you add the review to Further reading. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If the book is dubious, why not just remove it? I can only read one page of the review so I don't know how critical the following pages are. The essay Wikipedia:Further reading includes reliability as a criterion for inclusion in the section. Wikipedia further reading lists are crowd sourced so they should always be used with caution. TSventon (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC)