Talk:Eardwulf of Northumbria

Background and Patrician sections

Angus, per your note, here's one comment about the article. I think it might be best to merge the "Background" and "Patrician" sections. The "Patrician" section serves well as an introduction, and in fact contains more background than the first section does. I think a good way to run them together might be to start with some scene-settings along the lines of "During the latter half of the eighth century, the Northumbrian succession saw a long series of murdered and deposed kings, as five or more royal lines contended for the throne." Then maybe give identifying names to the relevant lines: Alhred's line, Aethelwald Moll, and Eadbert; then the conflict between the lines introduces Eardwulf, as the article already has it. The new material I'm suggesting would just replace the first sentence of the "Patrician" section; I think the rest of it is fine -- it just needs more introduction and context-setting.

I think the material in "Background" might then fit in front of the sentence about Eardwulf being an enemy of the new king: that way the sequence is we get historical context first, then Eardwulf is mentioned and there's a short digression on his background, which is informed by the context; then we get his miraculous survival, and finally we get to the events of his accession.

I'll keep looking at the rest of the article and see if I can come up with any other suggestions for improvement. Hope this is useful. If you like, I can have a crack at this change myself, if you agree it would be an improvement. Mike Christie (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for the good ideas. If you would be able to make these changes, please do! I'd really appreciate it. For Eadberht's family, I wrote a Leodwaldings for some reason or other. If you don't have the time, I'll try to implement your ideas over the weekend. Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a go at it -- I'm heading out of town for the weekend, so if I don't get it done today it'll be early next week, unless the place I'm going unexpectedly has wireless net access. Mike Christie (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Osred

This sentence:

Osred, who returned from exile with a small army, encouraged by promises of support, was betrayed and killed by Æthelred's command on 14 September 792.

seems to say more than is in the ASC. Swanton's translation of the [E] text has Osred betrayed and driven from the kingdom in 790, with Aethelred succeeding, but there's no explicit statement of who betrayed Osred. Then in 792 the [E] text says Osred came home from exile and was killed, with no further details. Is the version in the article taken from Symeon? Mike Christie (talk) 00:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Ealdorman, dux, patrician

Terminology is an area I know little about, but I wonder what value there is in using all three terms: dux, ealdorman, and patrician? I understood them to be more or less interchangeable. Are we doing the reader any favours by using these different terms? Is one term predominant in Northumbrian texts, and if so should we use that in all cases? Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything written about this. The terms are reported as used, so I'm going to drop this. Mike Christie (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

King of the Angles/Angels

With reference to the quote about the King of the Angles, and the reference to Roger of Hoveden having "Angels", it might be useful to quote Forsman (in the article already cited and linked for the next note). She discusses the possible interpretations. I'm a bit surprised to discover that she doesn't mention Hoveden -- I know nothing about Hoveden, and I suppose he could have copied from Symeon, so that this is a scribal error, but I can't see that asserted in the material I can find on Hoveden. Anyway, I think the Angles/Angels question might be worth mentioning, if only in a footnote. Mike Christie (talk) 01:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Per Angus's opinion below I'm going to drop this; it's rather tangential at best. Mike Christie (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Charlemagne's illegitimate daughter

It would be good to know what the source is for the story that Eardwulf married a daughter of Charlemagne's. The source cited by Yorke is Levison, England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, 1946, which Google Books has no preview for. Not a big deal, but would be interesting if we can find it. Mike Christie (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Found and added - it only took a decade. Agricolae (talk) 21:47, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Better late than never, thank you very much for that. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

What's left for FA

I'd like to resolve the questions above (not the one about Charlemagne's daughter, but the other three). Other than that, the remaining tasks for FA seem to me to be:

• Clean up the infobox -- I'd like to eliminate the "Born" line, and the wives -- there's just too little known to be sure. I'd also like to find something we can use as a picture. I'll see if any of the ASC ms pages we have images of mention Eardwulf.
• Expand the lead. It's a bit short right now.
• Add a map. I can do this.
• Overall copyedit

Anything else? Mike Christie (talk) 02:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm rather lukewarm about the "king of the Angels" thing. Still hoping Dr. P will come up with a pic from his archives. I'll print this off tomorrow and give it a thorough read-over (you get funny some looks on the underground if you sit reading something under your breath) and general brush-up. I'll run through the post-Eardwulf articles and fix the dates in those to correspond with these. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess the "king of the Angels" point is rather tangential. The other two questions I have above may not need answers either; they're just questions I don't know the answer to, and would be interested in. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Reading through this, there's one thing I'll need to add, Vikings!. I don't recall if the ASC, Symeon, or Roger record anything specifically in this period, but there certainly are things from 792/793 which should be included as context. Oops. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

One thing that occurs to me, and none of the Northumbrian articles mention this, is the point that Campbell makes on pp. 90–92 of The Anglo-Saxon State:

The apparently sorry state of the annals may conceal, may even perhaps to an extent represent, a fairly successful system of government. They tell us nothing about the machinery of govt: though we have sufficient evidence to suggest that in large parts of the kingdom the system of administration on the small shire basis which we find in Domesdy and in later evidence goes back to, and probably indeed beyond, the period with which we are concerned. [Fn cites an article by Barrow, which I have not seen, but I do have his Kingdom of the Scots, which devotes a lot of space to the small shires.] There are some indications of something like a hierarchy of officers; the suggestion of Dr Thacker that the patricii who appear in certain periods in later eighth century Northumbria were in fact mayors of the palace raises many interesting possibilities. [Fn cites Thacker, "Some terms for noblemen in A-S England" in Anglo-Saxon Studies in Archaeology & History, 2, 1981] Possible parallels with Merovingian Gaul are of particular interest because of the way in which recent work on the Merovingian regime has suggested how the violent and unstable surface of events may in fact conceal a system for the repeated establishment and maintenance of consensus among a ruling class. [Fn cites Fouracre, "Merovingians, Mayors of the Palace..."] This reminds one of an older view, which saw the numerous depositions of Northumbrian rulers in the eighth century as evidence for formal, in a sense constitutional, action. [Fn cites Lieberman, The National Assembly in the Anglo-Saxon Period (1913)] And although one cannot set much store in the actual words used in our main source, the annals called those of Symeon of Durham, since the actual choice of words is inlarge measure that of Byrhtfrth of Ramsey wiring in the later tenth century, [Fn cites various writings on Byrhtferth's chronicle] other authorities whose phrasing is contemporary use language suggestive of the importance of assemblies. These include, of course, Bede's famous account of Edwin's council debating the possibility of accepting Christianity.[Fn cites HE] If this is not near-contemporary evidence, that of Eddius is such, when he tells us how judgement was given against Wilfrid on his return from Rome in 680; [Fn cites VSW] so too is that of the annals in continuation of Bede when they refer to Æthelwold "a sua plebe electus". [Fn cites continuation s.a. 758] It is worth recalling that one reason why so much stress is laid on the violence of Northumbrian coups, and none on the possibility of there having been something like a constitutional system, is that in recent decades dark age historians have been far fonder of feuds than constitutions, impelled in this choice perhaps by excessive apprehension of anachronism. What was that, as it were, segment of an amphitheatre doing at Yeavering, if it were not for formal meetings of some importance. [Fn cites Hope-Taylor on Yeavering notes that the royal villa of Methil Wongtun (Symeon's HRA, s.a. 758; Anonymous Life of Cuthbert, iv, 6) may mean "town of the field of discussion]

Worth thinking about, perhaps. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I went and took a look at that paper and I think we can leave this out. The only thing that struck me as possibly relevant was Campbell's comment about the changing views of historians, but I don't think it's needed. This would be good material for the parent Northumbria article, though. Thanks for the note: I'm going to go ahead and nom this. Mike Christie (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on context/background

This is just me doodling, thinking about how to address Adam Cuerden's comments. Feel free to edit. I'll fiddle around with it tomorrow when I'm more awake.

• To replace 2nd para of background

Start

Northumbria's neighbours also played a part in shaping political events. Her southern neighbour Mercia was, in the reigns of kings Æthelbald, Offa, and Coenwulf, the dominant kingdom in Anglo-Saxon England. Offa, the greatest of the three, was ruler of Mercia until 796, followed soon after by Coenwulf. Offa's dominance was secured in part by marriage alliances with the other major kingdoms and Beorhtric of Wessex and Æthelred in Northumbria were married to his daughters. Further afield, Charlemagne, king of Francia and preeminent ruler in the Christian West, appears to have taken an active interest in Northumbrian affairs. Charlemagne had a number of Northumbrian churchmen in his service, among them Alcuin, whose letters illuminate Northumbria affairs at the end of the eighth century. Shortly before Æthelred was murdered in 796 an embassy from Francia delivered gifts for the king and his bishops. When the Frankish king learned of Æthelred's killing he was enraged, calling the Northumbrians "that treacherous, perverse people...who murder their own lords", and threatening retribution. His ambassadors, who had travelled on to Ireland and were then returning home, were ordered back to Northumbria to recover the presents.

Relations between Offa and Charlemagne were generally friendly, although strained by various events. Among these were Offa's complaints that Charlemagne was giving refuge to his enemies, including a Kentish priest named Odberht—probably to be identified with Eadberht Præn who ruled in Kent for a short time after Offa's death until captured and blinded by Coenwulf— and the West Saxon exile Ecgberht, who would eventually succeed Offa's son-in-law Beorhtric. If Northumbria's two powerful neighbours differed over Kent and Wessex, it appears that they were both favourably disposed towards Æthelred. Offa died soon after Eardwulf became king of Northumbria, and Coenwulf proved not to be a friend to Eardwulf. Charlemagne, on the other hand, appears to have been a supporter of Eardwulf, and was the prime mover in his restoration to power. [It is said that Eardwulf was married to a daughter of Charlemagne.]

While the Mercian kings shared a land border with Northumbria, and could readily move armies to the border, or send aid to the disaffected, the means by which Carolingian power was exercised in Northumbria is less obvious. As Charlemagne had close relations with the Papacy, the most obvious means for him to have influenced events in Northumbria is through the church hierarchy, in particular the Archbishop of York. Equally unclear is the reason for Charlemagne's interest in Northumbria. Among the reasons suggested are a desire to counter Mercian influence in southern Britain, an area with long-standing ties to Francia, co-operation against Viking raiders, who had first appeared in Northumbria in the early 790s, or that Charlemagne's conception of sphere of his authority included Britain, which had once been part of the Roman Empire.

• Notes

End

Well, that's the best I can do for now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 04:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And Mike, feel free to say "I told you so", since you did say it needed more on Carolingian stuff. 04:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think your paragraphs above are pretty good; I'd say go ahead footnote them, and put them in. Just FYI: I've been using "Egbert" rather than "Ecgberht", as most sources seem to do -- I guess he's well enough known that the modern form of his name gets used a lot.

I should be able to have a go at Awadewit's comments later today. (I'm on UK time right now.) Mike Christie (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Start

Northumbria in the years around 800 was a kingdom of more than local significance in Britain. Patrick Wormald writes: "Charlemagne...saw England as if it were ruled by two kings only: Æthelred ruling Northumbria and Offa ruling everything to the south. The Mercian king Offa dominated southern Britain in the years before Eardwulf came to power in Northumbria. King Æthelred, like Beorhtric of Wessex, was married to a daughter of Offa and is presumed to have enjoyed friendly relations with him. Offa died in 796, and his son Ecgfrith died after a reign of 141 days. Ecgfrith was succeeded by Cenwulf, who attempted to renew the dominance that Mercia had enjoyed under Offa. On Offa's death a certain Eadberht Præn—who is probably to be identified with the priest Odberht who was an exile at Charlemagne's court and at Rome while Offa ruled Kent—seized power in Kent. He was defeated by Cenwulf in 798. In Wessex, Beorhtric died in 802. He was succeeded in Wessex by another former exile, Egbert, who was no doubt hostile to Mercia but no rival to Cenwulf in south-east Britai. Cenwulf proved to be no friend to Eardwulf and perhaps his most dangerous enemy.

While Offa and Cenwulf played a part in Northumbrian affairs, Mercia was only a medium sized kingdom, and of only local importance in the greater world of the Christian west of Europe. The key figure until his death in 816 was Charlemagne, initially ruler of Francia and parts of Italy, but by 796 master of an empire which stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Hungarian Plain. His coronation as Holy Roman Emperor on 25 December 800 simply acknowledged the facts of his authority in the west which had hitherto been exercised as "patrician of the Romans". Charlemagne was a staunch defender of the Papacy, and in the popes and the church hierarchy he had allies whose influence extended to Northumbria and beyond. Events in southern Britain to 796 have sometimes between portrayed as a struggle between Offa and Charlemagne, but the disparity in their power was enormous, and Offa and then Cenwulf were clearly minor figures by comparison. In Northumbria, Charlemagne and Offa appear to have had a common interest in supporting King Æthelred. While Charlemagne is said to have been enraged by news of Æthelred's death, and to have threatened retribution, in time he became a supporter of Eardwulf, who may have married one of his illegitimate daughters. Eardwulf's return to Northumbria in 808, following a deposition apparently engineered with Cenwulf's backing, was achieved by the Emperor working together with Pope Leo III.

• Notes

End

Well, that's plan B. I've redone this to try and make it fit in with the rest, and to answer the question "what does Ingeld have to do with ChristCharlemagne have to do with Eardwulf". What do you think? If it's not obvious, I find Dame Janet's view of Offa/Charlemagne rather more credible than P. Wormald's. But perhaps this is not the conventional wisdom? What do you reckon? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Angus, I've taken the two versions above and done some editing; see what you think of this. It's mostly your words, reorganized somewhat. I've added some comments afterwards.

Start (v3)

Northumbria's neighbours also played a part in shaping political events. Her southern neighbour Mercia was, in the reigns of kings Æthelbald, Offa, and Coenwulf, the dominant kingdom in Anglo-Saxon England. Offa, the greatest of the three, was ruler of Mercia until 796, followed soon after by Coenwulf. Offa's dominance was secured in part by marriage alliances with the other major kingdoms, and Beorhtric of Wessex and Æthelred in Northumbria were married to his daughters. Further afield, Charlemagne, king of Francia and preeminent ruler in the Christian West, appears to have taken an active interest in Northumbrian affairs. Charlemagne initially ruled Francia and parts of Italy, but by 796 had become master of an empire which stretched from the Atlantic Ocean to the Great Hungarian Plain. He was a staunch defender of the Papacy, and in the popes and the church hierarchy he had allies whose influence extended to Northumbria and beyond. Events in southern Britain to 796 have sometimes been portrayed as a struggle between Offa and Charlemagne, but the disparity in their power was enormous, and Offa and then Cenwulf were clearly minor figures by comparison.

Early evidence of friendly relations between Charlemagne and Offa is tempered by signs of strain: Charlemagne sheltered two exiles from England at his court, Odberht of Kent, and Egbert of Wessex. Odberht is probably to be identified with Eadberht Praen, who ruled in Kent for a short time after Offa's death, but was deposed by Coenwulf; Egbert was more successful, taking and holding the throne of Wessex in 802. It is clear that Mercian and Frankish interests could not always be reconciled, and Frankish policy moved towards support for Offa's opponents. To Charlemagne this primarily meant Northumbria: according to Patrick Wormald, "Charlemagne...saw England as if it were ruled by two kings only: Æthelred ruling Northumbria and Offa ruling everything to the south". Frankish support for Northumbria thus appears to have been driven by a desire to counter Mercian influence in southern Britain, an area with long-standing ties to Francia. However, it has also been suggested that Charlemagne's interest in Northumbria was motivated by a desire for co-operation against Viking raiders, who had first appeared in Northumbria in the early 790s. Alternatively it may be that Charlemagne's conception of sphere of his authority included Britain, which had once been part of the Roman Empire.

Initially, however, both Charlemagne and Offa appear to have had a common interest in supporting King Æthelred. Shortly before Æthelred was murdered in 796 an embassy from Francia delivered gifts for the king and his bishops. When the Frankish king learned of Æthelred's killing he was enraged, calling the Northumbrians "that treacherous, perverse people...who murder their own lords", and threatening retribution. His ambassadors, who had travelled on to Ireland and were then returning home, were ordered back to Northumbria to recover the presents. Charlemagne initially threatened retribution for Æthelred's assassination, but in time he became a supporter of Eardwulf. Coenwulf, on the other hand, who became king of Mercia shortly after Eardwulf's accession, is recorded as having fought with Eardwulf in 801.

End (v3)

Here are some thoughts about the restructuring.

• The outline for me is: 1st para: Northumbria's neighbours and political context -- starts with Mercia, immediate neighbour, and expands to Charlemagne, further away. 2nd para: diplomatic history, starting with Mercia/Francia on good terms, then strained, then Charlemagne focusing on Northumbria. This seemed the natural place to put the alternative theories on why Charlemagne was interested in Northumbria. 3rd para: specifics on Charlemagne's involvement in Northumbria and the gifts for Aethelred. Natural lead-in to Eardwulf's reign.
• I took out a couple of things such as Eardwulf's possible marriage to an illegitimate daughter of Charlemagne's; I can see it would be helpful but we have to leave something for the main text! I am a bit worried that this is too long and unbalances the article, but it may be just a fact that we know more about the background to Eardwulf's reign than we do about the reign itself.
• I cut a couple of things for length reasons -- readd if you think they're necessary. Examples: the sentence on Charlemagne's coronation; mention of Ecgfrith; naming Beorhtric.

I left out links and footnotes; I figured we might be editing some more and we can add those back in later. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One thought on length: when we've got the text right, how about making this a new section, titled something like "Northumbrian foreign relations"? Mike Christie (talk) 10:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I much prefer your version. I'll add that now, and then we can see whether the background really does need to be split up. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wada and Alric

I've done a rewrite of the Wada paragraph per Awadewit's comments and will post a note to FAC. Just wanted to mention that I cut the sentence about Alric, son of Heardberht, out; it was hard to make the paragraph flow with it in there and when I went back to look for justification to keep it in I couldn't really find enough. The point seems to be that Heardberht was killed by Æthelred, so Alric probably fought against him, but that doesn't mean he necessarily fought with Wada. We don't know which side he's on and we don't know for sure that his father is the Heardberht killed by Æthelred. So it didn't seem critical to keep it in there. Please re-add if you think it is useful. Mike Christie (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Map added

This time I bolded the text; it was a bit thin and spidery without the bolding. I actually like the look of the other font, but I think readability is improved this way. Anyway, comments welcome. Mike Christie (talk) 18:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Remaining three CN tags and split section

I've left in three tags. One is for the three theories on why Charlemagne was interested; I think the first could probably be supported by Kirby p. 176, but I can't find a ref for the other two. The other two tags relate to the story of Aethelred and the gifts. Again, Kirby 176 is a good source but he doesn't give the quote, and to say that Charlemagne in time became a supporter of Eardwulf may be a bit of a stretch to be cited from that page, especially if you know a better source.

I went ahead and split "Background" into two sections; it was just so much bigger than the other sections that I felt I had to. I cut the first sentence as it was a bit of context setting and I think the section title does that work. Please revert either or both of these changes if you think they're mistakes. Mike Christie (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll have a snoop around for the references as I'm quite sure I have them somewhere in my hopelessly disorganised notes. I'll add a bit on Eardwulf's coins as well as was requested. I think we're nearly done with the first lot of changes! Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I was just looking at another of Bloodzombie's points: he asked us to remove two examples of the passive "it has been argued" from the "Exile and return" section. The first relates to the possible redating of Northumbrian reigns implied by the Eanred penny; Kirby doesn't give a clear indication of whose theory this is. Blackburn and Grierson refer to "a substantial revision of the chronology such as that proposed by Pagan", but B&G cite more than one Pagan work and I wouldn't like to cite that directly anyway without seeing it -- the B&G reference isn't very clear exactly what Pagan said. The other "it is argued" seems to be Dr. P's; I don't have that with me and won't for two weeks -- can you tweak this if it is indeed him? For the first one, if you don't have anything, I think we can just ask to let it pass on the grounds that Kirby uses the passive too. And Bloodzombie's supporting already, so I think we're OK. Mike Christie (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One more note: the material of Dr. P's needs some more tweaking per Awadewit's latest comment at the FAC. I started to rework this, and then realized that without his book in front of me I wasn't really sure what "Mercian royal establishment" referred to, so that should probably be clarified. I also was unable to reorganize the material without the refs -- I think the argument is something like this:

• The church at Breedon is dedicated to St Hardulph and was founded by Mercian royalty
• It is uncontroversial but not definitely proven that the Eardwulf and Hardulph are the same person
• The dedication to Hardulph implies a saint of that name or his relics may have resided there
• There is a stone structure there with carving that can be connected to the Book of Cerne
• The Book of Cerne appears to be associated with the bishop of Lichfield, which was a Mercian ecclesiastical position
• It is plausible that Eardwulf's bones occupy the stone structure

The phrase "stylistically associated with Mercian or Lichfield patrons" seems redundant with the comment about Æthelwold; does it add anything? Also, what's the significance to the article of the connection to Mercia? It appears slightly surprising given that he was a Northumbrian; if Dr P makes any comment about this it would be good to include here. If there's no relevance, I think we can cut the mention of Æthelwold, though not the Book of Cerne. Thoughts? Mike Christie (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll read it over this evening, but I think that is right. As regards whose theory it is on the redating, I can check that. I think it was Pagan originally, now taken up by Rollason and others. Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

References added. I only have the French edition of Riché, but it would be more sensible to cite the English translation. The relevant page is the only reference to Eardwulf according to the index. It seems likely that it is p. 113 of the translation. Slightly expanded re. the coins. The source of the redating and Breedon still to do. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyediting

A few things I found:

• "Charlemagne in time he became a supporter of Eardwulf." ("Relations with other state", last paragraph)
• Is it possible to reference a more specific manuscript for the quote in "Exile and return"?
• "Within the church at Breedon is are parts of a panelled stone structure." ("Exile and return", second-to-last paragraph)
  • Consider rephrasing completely

Circeus (talk) 18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes.

• First point is fixed.
• Re the ms, here's what the note currently says: "Scholz, Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard's Histories, s.a. 808, quoted in Forsman, "Appeal to Rome"." and here's what Whitelock says in English Historical Documents: "These annals are sometimes called the Royal Annals, or Annales Laurissenses maiores (the greater annals of Lorsch), or the Annals of Einhard." There are several manuscripts; Whitelock cites a standard 1895 edition by Kurz, Script. rer. Germ. in usum scholarum, but the Scholz book cited may be a more recent standard edition than Kurz. Anyway, the point is that the name apparently isn't very fixed, and I think it might be hard to be more precise than this without getting a bit more detailed than we need to. Unless you think that the detail is needed in order to explain the relevance of a Frankish annal to English history?
• I fixed the typo in the first part of the Breedon paragraph. That paragraph's had a bit of work done on it, but no doubt can be improved further. Can you say what you think needs fixing?
• With regard to your inline notes on the Lapidge and William et al. sources, those are due to Angus. Angus, can you clarify?

Mike Christie (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Rollason, "Eardwulf" refers to the Oxford DNB article. The Williams et al reference is to the Biographical Dictionary of Dark Age Britain, s.v. "Eardwulf" at p. 119. I will change this later

I don't agree with citing Scholz's translation when we haven't seen it, and the Kurz MGH edition is in Latin without translation. If it is translated by Whitelock, it would be preferable to reference EHD as that is a standard work.

Regarding reformatting the references, I'm not convinced about this. While there are journal and book reference templates, there is, as we see here and in other articles, no particularly good way to reference individual articles in collective works. If we're aiming for perfection, the references section should list the collective work and the individual articles cited. Before it did the first and not the second, now it does the second and not the first. Without the templates it could easily have done both, but with them? Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the translation to Whitelock's and modified the cite accordingly. That also fixes one of Adam Cuerden's comments at FAC; I'll post a note there. Re the references, I agree that both goals are good; I have no strong opinion about how to achieve it. Perhaps Circeus does (he's been very helpful on reference matters on other FACs). Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I had a look at Wikipedia:Citation templates. It seems that {{Cite encyclopedia}} is what we'd need for the Blackwell Encyclopedia/Biographical Dictionary/etc. I'm rather short of time just at the moment - I've start redoing Constantine II of Scotland and would like to get the article back to a reasonable state ASAP - but I'll run through and add that here (and backfit it to Wiglaf) at the weekend. As far as further copyediting goes, I'll have yet another attempt, but it's getting so that I've read this often that I just don't see any errors that there may be. I think we need a fresh pair of eyes here. I'll try and rustle up a victimbrave volunteer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done some of the cites in that format in the reference section; not sure if that's what you're thinking of, but take a look. I would have done the Blackwell Encyclopedia cites too, but I can't find the Rollason "Eardwulf" article you mention in a couple of places -- my copy of the Lapidge/Blackwell encyclopedia doesn't have an Eardwulf article. Is this really DNB?

I can also see if there's anyone else who can take a look at that paragraph, but first I think I'll drop Circeus a note and ask what exactly he thinks the problem is -- I may be able to fix it myself. As you say, when you write something it can be very hard to copyedit it effectively. Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Etymology?

Is it worth explaining etymology? AFAICT this is the same word (or two words) as aardwolf. Wnt (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

None of my sources give the etymology; if there's a good source that does, we could add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:16, 14 May 2016 (UTC)