Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aldfrith of Northumbria

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:53, 11 February 2008.

---

Aldfrith of Northumbria

Check external links

Co-nomination with Angus McLellan. For comparison, the only other Northumbrian FA is Eardwulf of Northumbria, who is rather later; FAs of contemporaries and near-contemporaries of Aldfrith include Wulfhere of Mercia, Cædwalla of Wessex, Ine of Wessex and Wihtred of Kent. Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is obviously a well-researched article, but the prose seems to me far from compelling. It tends to clunk a bit, and assume an awful amount. The lead could particularly do with a good re-write. Sentences appear disconnected, Bede is mentioned three times, and "The Northumbrian Golden Age, which saw the creation of works of Hiberno-Saxon art such as the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Codex Amiatinus, began in Aldfrith's time." sounds like something out of 1066 and all that. I suggest a good copyedit is needed. However, this is a good, balanced and informative article.--Doc^g 19:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had a go at rewriting the lead; could you take a look and let me know if this is movement in the right direction? If so I'll make another pass at the rest of the article. I left the "1066" sentence in -- I'm not sure what the problem is (though I read the book years ago so I understand the sort of point you're making). Could you clarify a bit? It's accurate factually; is it pompous? Hard to parse? Does it mention too many unfamiliar terms in too short a space? Mike Christie (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Leaning towards support This is an interesting article, but I was left feeling that I knew less about Aldfrith than I wanted to. Is this because there isn't much known about Aldfrith? If that is the case, perhaps more could be said in the article about the dearth of knowledge we have on Aldfrith?

There really isn't much known, and what is known is here. I think perhaps the problems with organization, which you comment on below, contribute to this feeling. Let me know if it persists after the other points are addressed. I'm hesitant to add more "not much is known"; as you know from the other Anglo-Saxon king articles, that's true for almost any king or any topic of the period. Still, if it needs it, we can add it. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I reread the article and I think this feeling comes from the article being "background heavy". The Aldfrith-centered material, where, for example, Aldfrith is the actor in the events, seems to be scarce, particularly at the beginning of the article. I don't think there is any way around this, but I think that is how I got the impression that not much is known about Aldfrith. Awadewit | talk 17:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel like the first paragraph of the lead should address Aldfrith's importance more directly. Currently, it focuses on his genealogy.

Reorganized a little to make the first paragraph more directly about Aldfrith. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Aldfrith was on Iona shortly before the battle, according to a near-contemporary chronicle; he was recalled to Northumbria at about that time and became king. - Could we link Iona or explain where it is?

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• According to Bede's account of his reign, written in the early eighth century, Aldfrith "ably restored the shattered fortunes of the kingdom, though within smaller boundaries". - Needs a citation, since it is a quotation

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The sentences and paragraphs in the lead feel disconnected - they don't flow into each other as well as they could. There is no arc or overarching narrative that the reader remembers.

I've made a stab at this; let me know if more work is needed. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• His name sometimes appears as Aldfrid and as the Latin Aldfridus, while in Classical Irish sources he is known as Flann Fína mac Ossu. - This sentence still feels tacked on.
• Oswiu eventually succeeded to the throne of Northumbria and reigned until 670, while Aldfrith, who had been educated for a career in the church, became a scholar. - It is jarring to the reader to talk about Oswiu's reign at the beginning of this paragraph when the previous paragraph ended talking about Aldfrith. Perhaps invert this sentence? Discuss Aldfrith the scholar first and then his father's reign?
• In 685, Oswiu's son, king Ecgfrith, was killed at the battle of Nechtansmere. - This is jarring because the reader may not know Oswiu even has another son (I didn't). You may need to introduce the son earlier or say something like "Oswiu's eldest son" - anything to contextualize the sentence in terms of Aldfrith's story more.
• Aldfrith was on the Hebridean island of Iona shortly before the battle, according to a near-contemporary chronicle; he was recalled to Northumbria at about that time and became king. - Was this because Ecgfrith was killed? If so, it might be good to explicitly state that - this is the lead, after all. :)
• The Northumbrian Golden Age, which saw the creation of works of Hiberno-Saxon art such as the Lindisfarne Gospels and the Codex Amiatinus, began in Aldfrith's time. - "began in Aldfrith's time"? Surely we can say something more exciting than that! Note that the sentence subordinates the exciting art and gospels. Awadewit | talk 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was slightly confused as to why the places mentioned in the first paragraph of "Background and early life" were not labeled on the map in that section (I know the map is the late century, but it would be helpful!)

I added Lindisfarne, and the rivers Forth, Mersey, Ouse and Humber. The Don is really too small to add. The only other places that could be added would be Bernicia and Deira, but that would be difficult because they're the north and south half (respectively) of Northumbria, and there's really nowhere for those labels to go. I was hoping to not put them on, since during Aldfrith's reign it was a single kingdom. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that is sufficient - the rivers are now marked and Northumbria is marked. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The details of the early Middle Ages in north west England and south west Scotland are more obscure - "northwest" and "southwest", perhaps, or is this BE?

I'm not sure if it's BE, but I changed it to "northwest" etc. Mike Christie (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Northumbria's southern frontier with Mercia ran across England, from the Humber in the east, following the River Ouse and the River Don, to the Mersey in the west. - It would be nice if these places were on a map somewhere in the article.

See above -- I hope the Ouse and Mersey are enough. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Don is a border, it would be nice to include, but if it is too small, it is too small. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraphs in the "Reign" section have no transitions between them - they need to flow a little bit better.

I've done a bit of moving around of material to try to improve this. This section was a bit of a grab-bag of everything left over; I split a "death and succession" section out at the end, which is reasonably coherent. There's a paragraph on his wife and sons, and I added that to the last section too, on the grounds that his sons are a natural connection when talking about succession. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Another major ecclesiastic figure in Aldfrith's reign was Wilfrid, the bishop of York, who had been exiled by Ecgfrith. - "Another" is a weak transition because it can be used additively (and another, and another, and another...). Can you come up with something stronger?
• The last three paragraphs of "Reign" have no transitions at all. This creates a "list" or "bullet-point" feeling in the writing.
• I think that the new section works well. Awadewit | talk 21:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of rework on this section; take a look. One problem is that I need the coin image where it is, but I can't get the text to flow around it -- it acts as though there's a paragraph break at "8th century. ¶ This was marked by" I'll see if I can figure out how to fix that, but if you happen to know, please tell me what to do about it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

You have just really joined the paragraphs together - now it seems like all of these elements are supposed to be part of one large argument (I don't think that is the case). The smaller paragraphs were fine - you just needed to add linguistic connectors. I would take a two or three days to work on this section - it is a tricky problem to fix. Awadewit | talk 00:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is proving tricky. I've had another go now; take a look. Summary: there's now a "Relations with the Church" section, which serves to tie together the comments about Wilfrid with the initial support Aldfrith received from other churchmen. I left the note about Aldfrith being a scholar in that section, and tried to connect it via an introductory sentence pointing out that Aldfrith's interest in the writings of Aldhelm and Adomnan differentiates him from the typical Anglo-Saxon warrior king of the day. The material on the Golden Age has been expanded by Angus and is now in its own section; I think that the paragraph on coins belongs here as naturally as anywhere else, since it relates to the cultural and economic state of the kingdom. I didn't really want to create a separate "Coinage" section just for that paragraph, though that would be a possibility. I moved the paragraph about "rival claimants" to the end of the "Background and early life" section, since that already talked about his accession; I renamed that section "Background and accession" to reflect that change. Since that paragraph ended with Moisl's speculation about the Picts supporting Aldfrith, it seemed a natural place to put in the note about the battle with the Picts too. I think that covers most of the disconnectedness -- let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is wonderful! It flows so much better. The only suggestion I would make would be to add any scholarly speculation as to why a "Golden Age" started at this time. Also, this sentence sounds a bit odd: Few architectural or monumental remains from the period remain. Awadewit | talk 17:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll drop a note to Angus about the Golden Age question; not sure what the answer will be on that one. I've tweaked the awkward sentence. Er, can I check that this is the only outstanding point now? I have scanned up and down and I see some unstruck comments, but I think everything's addressed except this issue -- let me know if not. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had struck everything else - this is it for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awadewit (talk • contribs) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked with Angus and he hasn't found anything that would be useful to cite on the reasons for the Golden Age starting at this time. He said he'll keep looking, but since his current reading matter is a book entitled "Northumbria's Golden Age", I wouldn't be confident anything on this will turn up. Mike Christie (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's the way the Golden Age crumbles. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

• The paragraph on the "Golden Age" in the "Reign" section could be expanded a little for readers unfamiliar with Anglo-Saxon history. A couple of sentences describing the texts, the art, and the missions would help.

Angus is going to take a crack at this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See above. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why most of the "References" are in MLA style and a few are in something like Chicago style.

Angus fixed these, I believe. Mike Christie (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I see that they are all now in some sort of APA style. Here is a helpful site listing the rules for APA. (There should be periods instead of commas and other small details.) Sorry to be picky, but I do think we want to look as professional as possible. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. They all use the {{citation}} template; typically I use {{cite book}}. I would assume that the "citation" template is MOS-compliant, but I'm happy to change them all to "cite book" and "cite web" if you feel they look more professional. I don't want to hand-code the references, though; the templates do have the benefit of encouraging consistency. Let me know if you feel "cite book" looks better. Mike Christie (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That is why I don't like those templates and I type all my references by hand. I don't actually think that the templates are necessarily MOS compliant, as the MOS doesn't dictate one referencing style over another (too bad, really). However, it does state (somewhere) that the style should be a generally accepted style. That's all I'm saying here - choose one. I won't endorse any of the templates because I happen to know that they all have problems and none of them are consistent with Chicago, MLA, or APA (I most unhappily know many of the rules for all of these styles.) It is possible to fiddle with the templates to make them work, but it is much easier to just type the entries in by hand. I'll do it if you want. Awadewit | talk 21:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if you could fix them as you see fit. However, just a word of warning for possible wasted effort: I've sometimes had editors come to the articles I've worked on and re-organized the references, regularizing them all to use the same form of citation template. I think there's some risk that if you do change these, someone will eventually change them back. That's why I don't worry about it too much. But if you'd like to make the changes, please do; and thank you. Mike Christie (talk)

Will do. I usually add a hidden note - it usually keeps the templaters at bay. :) Awadewit | talk 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Awadewit | talk 00:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- I know this was a lot of work. Mike Christie (talk) 13:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Another fine Anglo-Saxon article, which I look forward to supporting soon. Awadewit | talk 04:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• An excellent article, which the editors have only improved over the past few days. I am happy to support it. Awadewit | talk 20:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been a little Bold with the lead. I was trying to relate it directly to the subject and remove all but the most important facts. What do you think? --Doc^g 21:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a coincidence: your edits and Awadewit's notes came at almost exactly the same time, and your edits were prescient in addressing Awadewit's concerns. I am happy with your rewrite of the lead. Awadewit, it seems to me that Doc glasgow's version addresses most of your points; would you agree? Perhaps only that last one about the golden age could still be looked at, and that might be addressed when Angus has a chance to update that section of the body of the article. Mike Christie (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I think those edits were an improvement - the lead now has the narrative arc I think it needs for the reader unfamiliar with the topic. Awadewit | talk 21:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Interesting, well-written article (as always). Karanacs (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comments.
  • Can you expand at all on the status of his parents' relationship? Does "contemporary Northumbrian churchmen" mean Oswiu's contemporaries, or 20th/21st century people?

The former; I've changed this to "Northumbrian churchmen of his day", which I hope is less ambiguous. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Can you mention in the text that Oswiu had (another) wife and that he had children by her? It is in the chart, but I'd like to see it made more clear before the article begins talking about their children; I assumed at first that Ecgfrith was Aldfrith's full brother.

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • I don't like the wikilink of Cuthbert in Life of Cuthbert. Can you move it to later in the sentence (Bede's Life of Cuthbert recounts a conversation between Cuthbert...)

Agreed, this was a mistake. Fixed by DrKiernan before I saw your note. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• • Is it necessary to the article to include that Aldhelm received an Irish education? I would probably remove that sentence.

I'm leaving this in per DrKiernan's comments below for now; let me know if you still think it's unnecessary detail and we can talk. I tend to agree with him that it's useful context.

Karanacs (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support with some comments Like Karen, I too feel that the mention of Oswiu's other "true" wife should be in the text, however I'm happy for Aldhelm's Irish education to remain in, as that sets the scene for Aldfrith's place in the disputes between the various churches. I didn't like the Cuthbert wikilink either, so I've changed it. Is anything conjectured about why Aldfrith and Cuthburh separated? You should also mention that this would have been another of Aldfrith's key alliances (with Ine). DrKiernan (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added mention of Eanflaed. Thanks for the wikilink fix. I know of nothing about the reasons for the separation of Aldfrith and Cuthburh, but it's quite possible that the decision for Cuthburh to become an abbess was the reason for the separation, rather than the other way around. Aethelthryth, for example, who married Ecgfrith and then separated from him to become a nun, had made a vow of perpetual virginity before marrying (Yorke describes it as "one of the least successful royal marriages on record"). Unfortunately I think it would be speculation to talk about the reasons for Cuthburh's decision. Mike Christie (talk) 11:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment A very thorough article which not only covers all the known facts about Aldfrith but sets him in the Northumbrian, Irish and Pictish context. I'm close to supporting but have a handful of points and queries.

Some addressed below; I'm leaving some for Angus, who has the expertise on a lot of the Scottish/Irish/Gaelic issues. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

• England was conquered before the year 600 by Anglo-Saxon peoples who had come to Britain from northwestern Europe. This strikes me as somewhat imprecise: obviously, it wasn't England until they had conquered it. Also, it depends what is meant by "England", since parts of present-day England were not conquered by that time. And "northwestern Europe" seems unnecessarily vague for where those peoples came from.

Reworded. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I expect Angus is only too familiar with all the geographical, political and racial nuances at play, but perhaps the article needs a little more clarity about and explanation of the polities and races mentioned. A map of the relevant band of northern Britain and Ireland would be helpful, I think. Some particular wordings might raise questions in the reader's mind (I know the answer to most of them, but the general reader might need support):

With regard to the map, can you tell me what's needed beyond the existing map? I will add Austerfield to the map of Northumbria, but I think that's about the only remaining place identified in the article that's not on one or other map already. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The first thing that struck me was that Dál Riata was marked in Scotland but not Ireland: I have always thought it covered parts of both coasts at this time, but I may be wrong. The presence of the single, large word "Brega" on the map of Ireland did not strike me as luminous mapmaking. Perhaps the Uí Néill should be shown, and, maybe, Tara (I don't know what Irish sources tell us geographically about this period).

The article overlooks the fact that Bede says that after Nechtansmere "some part of the British nation recovered their independence": the maps do not show a British nation. There is a noticeable absence of Alt Clut from the map (one could mark Dumbarton: it should perhaps be remembered that Bridei was from the Alt Clut royal family, so that nation was not insignificant). The article mentions "the many obscure and nameless Brythonic kingdoms in what are now North West England and southern Scotland": so some indication might be shown of who controlled the Ayrshire area, which at the moment is a blank on the map, despite its obvious strategic importance. Galloway is trickier, I admit (was it Brythonic, Anglian, a mixture?) but is it OK to place Whithorn on a map "in the time of Aldfrith"? Archaeology would suggest it was British in Aldfrith's time. Maybe Northumbrian expansion there owned more to the opportunity opened up by Beorhtfrith later. (Even an expression of doubt or possibility there might help.)

I feel that Forfar could be better marked, as it seems to be placed at Dundee at the minute. I also think that Bernicia and Deira (and possibly Lindsey) should be shown. qp10qp (talk) 01:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made several changes to the maps in the article. Austerfield is now shown, and there's a detailed map of Ireland. I have switched to a general map of Great Britain that shows the general kingdoms, but this does not show some of the details on the previous map. This means that Iona and Forfar are not on any of the maps. I'd considered adding a map of central and southern Scotland that would show the locations of those two places, and would also show the extent of Dal Riata, however, I think the article can't fit in another map. Can you let me know what you think? Forfar is described as being in Pictish territory, north of the Firth of Forth, and Iona as a Hebridean island, so perhaps these descriptions suffice in place of a map. Mike Christie (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The map of Ireland helps, because I can now see the link between the southern Uí Néill and Brega, and I can see Dál Riata. It does seem a shame to me though that the map of England and Scotland does not contain a part of Ireland. Ireland is not marked at all, so it seems there is more sea than is possible. Since it is only northeast Ireland that is relevant to the article, I would have thought Britain and part of Ireland could be shown on the same map. I do still feel it's a shame that we don't have any mapping of the British kingdom centred on Dumbarton. Well, we have Strathclyde, but as it stands that is anomalous unless reference is made to it in the text and to other terms for it. By the way, Stenton seems to feel it was much smaller at this time. I feel some way should be found of showing Iona, Forfar, and Dumbarton, at least, and of making it clear that Dál Riata is on both sides of the water. It must seem as if I am fussing, but any article that dabbles in this geographically and politically complex region must surely attempt to elucidate it. This is not a deal breaker, so ignore me if you are getting fed up. qp10qp (talk) 22:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I'd far rather work the maps till they're right; if you have the patience to continue to comment, I would really appreciate it. I have taken another pass and expanded the northern Britain map, and added Ireland back to the British Isles map. The extent I show for Strathclyde comes from Blair's map in Roman Britain and Early England. If you can point me at a source that gives a reduced extent for this date I can certainly change it, but it does represent Blair's map accurately at the moment. I am delaying corresponding changes to the text till I have the map right, so let me know what you think. One particular point: is Brega clearly enough separated from Tara? That part of the map is a bit congested. Mike Christie (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aha, now we're talking. I like that map very much. Brega and Tara are clear to me. Now the reader can see how close Ireland was to Scotland and why it came into the Northumbrian sphere of concern, and also the links between the Dál Riatas, and the accessibility of Iona from Ireland and its safety from Northumbria. We can never be sure about the extent of Strathclyde/Al Clut, but it might be prudent to shrink the word closer to Dumbarton, judging by what Stenton says (Stenton, pp 85–89, is informative on the regional powers); the word should not, in my opinion, be visually separated from the area of the Clyde Valley—my instinct is that the Southern Uplands would represent the furthest likely southern boundary of Strathclyde, though there may have been British sub-kings on the Solway. Great work! qp10qp (talk) 16:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I moved Strathclyde a bit north. I also renamed "Forfar" to "Nechtansmere"; Angus suggested "Forfar" was a little anachronistic. Mike Christie (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That's excellent now, in my opinion. I am certain it will help the readers, who would naturally want to look at maps of these unfamiliar areas. (One small typo I noticed: "River Firth" should be River Forth.) qp10qp (talk) 16:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 17:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• ''Both spent their exile among the Scots of Dál Riata. Oswiu was a child when he came to Dál Riata, and grew up in an Irish milieu. Here Dál Riata seems to describe a place, in other spots, a people. It is not always made clear to those who may think in terms of modern Scots and Irish, how terms like Scots, Irish, Picts, and Britons apply to the geography and polities of the time.

I've gone through and tweaked slightly to make the references to Dál Riata consistently to the kingdom, and I've glossed it at the first appearance. I removed the use of "Scots" to reference to the people of Dál Riata, since as you say it requires explanation but I don't think it's necessary for this article. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's helpful, I think. qp10qp (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Irish law made Fín's kin, the Cenél nEógain of the northern Uí Néill, responsible for his upbringing.. Where were the Uí Néill based, for example? Where did Irish law apply?

I hope the map provides the answer to the first question. Does the second question need a specific answer in the article, or can the map serve for that too? The source is here, in section 23; unfortunately I don't have any of the reference Grimmer gives for his comments about Irish law so it's hard to be more specific. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. As the maps have emerged, it has become clear where the northern and southern Uí Néill were. The only remaining enigma is why Ecgfrith attacked in the region of the southern Uí Néill, but I suppose they may have been one polity. I was wondering whether Irish law applied in Scottish Dál Riata: presumably. No matter. qp10qp (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• A collection of wisdom literature attributed to Flann Fína, the Briathra Flainn Fhina Maic Ossu, has survived in a Middle Irish version. What is "Middle Irish"?

I've had a go at rephrasing this. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That's helpful. I think its always important to note when sources were written, with explanatory phrases where necessary. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• his dominance extended beyond the Anglo-Saxons to the Picts, the Gaels of Dál Riata, and the many obscure and nameless Brythonic kingdoms in what are now North West England and southern Scotland. The term "Brythonic" is not explained: what distinguishes it from "British"? What does the Gaels of Dál Riata refer to in this context? If these distinctions are worth making, they will be worth explaining to the reader, I feel.

I've changed "Brythonic" to "native British", per comments below about "Brythonic" being jargon. For "Gaels of Dál Riata", is the term "Gaels" really not well known? The map gives the location, now; is what's needed an indication that the dominance only extended to that part of Dál Riata that was in modern Scotland? Mike Christie (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Things are much better now! My problem was that at one time the article was referring to the Scots, the Irish, and the Gaels in the same region. Each description is justifiable, but it makes sense to keep the terms straightforward and to add explanations where there are differences from the modern use of those terms ifor specific geographical areas. "Gaels" is known up to a point, but not everyone grasps that Gaelic culture spread to Scotland from Ireland. It is good that "Brythonic" has now gone, since in a sense its precise counterpart is the word Goidelic, not Gael[ic]. I see "Goidelic" and "Brythonic" as linguistic and cultural terms rather than geographical, while "Irish" and "British" comfortably cover both and are gentler for an encyclopedia. This is not to say that the words "Goidelic" and "Brythonic" shouldn't be used, just that they need to be explained en passant if they are. qp10qp (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• it has also been suggested that Aldfrith's ascent was eased by support from the Uí Néill, the Dál Riata, and the Picts. Are we to think of the first two as "Irish", in this case, though earlier we heard of the Scots of Dál Riata? What does "Scots" refer to at this period?

I rephrased this to "Dál Riata, the Uí Néill, and the Picts" to make the references to Dál Riata consistently to a kingdom rather than a people. I don't think there's a need for the reader to interpret these as "Irish" or "Scottish", particularly. Again I hope the maps will supply what the reader needs here. Mike Christie (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

With the various changes and maps, I think the reader can grasp this now. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The raid may have been intended to undermine support for Aldfrith. What support? I felt this came out of the blue. Was Aldfrith scheming for the throne?

Yorke comments that one reason for the raid might have been "[d]esire to forestall any claims Aldfrith might have had to the Northumbrian throne". I think "undermine" implies a definite plan; "forestall" does not, so I've changed the wording to "discourage" to avoid the unnecessary implication of a scheme. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

More comfortable now. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• He was thus a cousin . . . If his mother is not certain, then nor are his cousins on her side, surely.

Added "probably". Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oswiu's overlordship was ended in 658 by the rise of Wulfhere of Mercia, but his reign continued until 670, when Ecgfrith, one of his sons by his second wife, Eanflæd, succeeded him. This omits to say whether he died then or not; it's the same in the lead.

Fixed in both places. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Worth it, given the number of Anglo-Saxon kings who abdicated. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Forfar. It might be worth noting where this was. I've added where Austerfield was: I think such little markers are helpful. By the way, the note tells us about Dunnichen, but not the main text, so the insert in Moisl's quote may appear opaque.

I glossed Forfar when it appears. I also changed the insert in Moisl's quote to be "Nechtansmere", which is already mentioned in the text, as well as being the more familiar name in secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fine: Principle of least astonishment qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• Moisl's quote talks of Aldfrith being in Iona the year before, but where was he when Ecgfrith died? Bede says, in the life of St Cuthbert, "the next year Ecgfrith was slain by the Picts and the throne went to his bastard brother Aldfrith recently returned from his studies in Ireland". Your note from Cramp perhaps alludes to this, but the possibility may be worth mentioning in the main text. Does Moisl get his information from the Life of Cuthbert or other sources?

I feel that whatever sources there are on this point should be spelt out. The Blackwells Encyclopedia says that "in the Spring of 685, Oswiu's Irish-born eldest son Aldfrith was staying in Iona when when his brother King Ecgfrith's body was brought to Iona and Aldfrith was hailed as his successor. During the next two years Abbot Adomnán of Iona twice visited England, on the first occasion as an ambassador for the Southern Uí Néill king to recover captives". I don't know which source they get this from (who brought Ecgfrith's body to Iona?), but the latter point relates to my question about geography, and I think it would help the article to join up a dot or two here. Specifically, it might be mentioned that Iona was not, as might be thought from our map, under Dál Riata, but under the Uí Néill. This information would make it clearer why the Abbot of Iona would be working to repatriate Irish hostages; it would also reinforce the possibility that Berht's expedition was in some way related to Aldfrith's claim to the throne. (And if the attack on Ireland was directed against Aldfrith, his move to Iona would make sense, since it was buffered by the other nations of the region against an attack from Northumbria.) qp10qp (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think it might be worth making clear that when Aldfrith reinstated Wilfred, the division in the diocese remained or was quickly reverted to. The division in the diocese was behind all Wilfred's other complaints, so it provides context, at least, for his falling out with Aldfrith. He complained, according to Eddius, that Ripon had been made into an episcopal seat, which relates to the same issue.

Done; I've expanded the section on Wilfrid a little, with some more detail on the sources of conflict with both Ecgfrith and Aldfrith. Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's just about OK, though I would have liked to see more joining up of the dots. One of the problems was that once the diocese had been divided up, the bishops in the new seats were opposed to Wilfred, because if the division was reverted, they would lose their bishoprics (and, one guesses, enormous land and wealth). This is why they were only too pleased to oppose Wilfred at Austerfield and slam the door after him with an excommunication. It is also an indication why this pious and scholarly king Aldfrith could never get on with Wilfred: it had become politically impossible for him to agree to his or the pope's demands. qp10qp (talk) 19:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• with a presumed royal centre at Dunbar. What's a royal centre? The seat of a sub-king . . . one of the king's headquarters?

• and perhaps native Brythonic clients. I think that for an encyclopedia this may count as jargon.

I've reworded this; without access to the source, which is one of Angus's, I had to be cautious about the rewording, but I think it's unexceptionable. I made "Brythonic" into "British"; I'm not sure "Brythonic" conveys much and from what I can tell it is primarily used in the literature as a subdivision of the scope of "British", e.g. for linguistic discussions. The terms "British" and "Briton" seem to still be current, so I'm inclined to stick with them. (At some point it might be good to have a Wikiproject standard on the usage of these terms, but I don't see that happening soon.) Mike Christie (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. qp10qp (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• also of Irish sympathies. Does this refer to the Easter controversy, to upbringing, to culture? For me, it's a little vague.

I've cut this phrase. It doesn't appear to be supported by the reference; I'm sure Angus had a source for it, but for now I've cut it. From what I know, it refers to the controversy with Wilfrid, who was often hostile to the Celtic Church, and places Eadfrith with Aldfrith as a supporter of the Celtic Church. However, I'll check with Angus and restore some version of this when I have a source. Mike Christie (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. qp10qp (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• ''an early example of the Anglo-Saxon philosopher king. This jars with me a bit, since I can only think of Alfred in this category. Reading the note, I am not sure that it quite supports this wording.

I reworded this to make it clearer that it is an opinion, and cited Blair directly for it in the text. Mike Christie (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That nails it. qp10qp (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• Is it worth mentioning that in his letter to Egbert, Bede specifically dates the growth of bad practices in the church from the death of Aldfrith?<

I added a note about the lay control of monasteries to the paragraph on Bede's comments on Aldfrith, and cited it to the letter. I would have liked to include a quote ("our province has been [...] demented with error") but I don't think it's really relevant enough. Mike Christie (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Neat. qp10qp (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• The big quote looks very narrow on my screen. Perhaps that is just my problem, but it doesn't happen with blockquotes.

Not sure which quote you're referring to here. The one next to the family tree? That uses Template:Imagequote, which is basically blockquote plus an offset. The other two are both blockquotes. Can you describe what you're seeing, exactly? Mike Christie (talk) 02:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's about eleven letters wide "But" said/she "I . . . etc., over to the right. Probably to do with my settings, but I have never seen this on a wikipedia quote before. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Support. A very enjoyable and absorbing article. qp10qp (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll get on with resolving the issues you've identified as soon as possible. Thanks for the helpful comments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• with a presumed royal centre at Dunbar. What's a royal centre? The seat of a sub-king . . . one of the king's headquarters?

  • and perhaps native Brythonic clients. I think that for an encyclopedia this may count as jargon.

  Oh please, give me a break! You can only take dumbing down so far. The article already makes it appear as if it covers Aldfrith better than it really does because of the huge background section, and so many other digressions.

And you can only take the stupiding up so far—in other words, the use of terms the average reader will not understand. Orwell, of course, said, "Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent". For an encyclopedia, it is often necessary to do so, but only if you add a discreet phrase of explanation. That's one of the most difficult challenges in writing an article and the opposite of dumbing down. Before you can clarify a term to the reader, you have to clarify it to yourself. And there's the rub. qp10qp (talk) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• his dominance extended beyond the Anglo-Saxons to the Picts, the Gaels of Dál Riata, and the many obscure and nameless Brythonic kingdoms in what are now North West England and southern Scotland. The term "Brythonic" is not explained: what distinguishes it from "British"?

  Brythonic is a stupid term, but if they'd written "British" they'd have gotten another commentator saying they were confused by that. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

But the art is to use both and illuminate them, so that the readers are given the information they need in order to understand the terms. qp10qp (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment The church section has (to me) significant deficiencies. Just to start, the opening line may appear to some to be contradicted by the following text. That aside, why was Wilfrid in conflict with Aldfrith? The section has no explanation 'though explanations are readily available in the sources the article uses. There's nothing in the gigantic background section either to explain the Wilfrid Ecgfrith conflict.

I have expanded the section on Wilfrid to give the sources of the conflict both with Ecgfrith and Aldfrith. Regarding the opening line, can you be specific? Are you referring to the conflict with Wilfrid? Mike Christie (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The oldest of the bishoprics in Northumbria was Lindisfarne

Is it? The Saintly being of Paulinus might have something to say about that, as might Ninian/Finian/Uinniau or other Britons who allegedly existed in the region before the coming of the English.

I removed the comment. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is doubly unfortunate coverage-wise because the literature on Wilfrid and the Northumbrian church during Aldfrith's reign is quite substantial. See the collection of essays St Wilfrid at Hexham esp. Kirby's "Northumbria in the Time of Wilfrid", or esp. Goffart's controversial but highly relevant and acclaimed essay "Bede and the Ghost of St Wilfrid" in The Narrators of Barbarian History. There are also the many essays in Famulus Christi (a good book to aquire for lots of these topics btw).

Ecgfrith was killed during a campaign against his cousin, the King of the Picts Bridei map Beli, at a battle known as Nechtansmere to the Northumbrians, generally thought to have been fought near Forfar [citing Dunnichen Moss in Angus is the preferred site.]

According to whom? Easy enough to fix, but I should note that Woolf posits a location much further north in his Fortriu paper (though it is just a suggested alternative and has not become AFAIK widely accepted).

Cited to Kirby. Kirby uses "Dunnichen" rather than "Dunnichen Moss", so I switched to that. Without some more support for Woolf I don't see a reason for including his suggestion in an article about Aldfrith rather than the battle itself. Mike Christie (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite this suggestion of an allegiance to the Picts, a battle between the Northumbrians and the Picts in which Berht was killed is recorded by Bede and the Irish annals in 697 or 698.[23] No other battles are recorded in his reign.

Erm ... this appears to be there as a way of balancing Moisl or contradicting him, but digresses into a statement that should be further down the page and moreover does not cite any source which uses this event as such an argument. If that's why it's there it should be removed as it is spurious. Moisl or anyone else would just point out that Bridei had died years before, Taran had come in his place in the mean time, and that battle occurred shortly after or around the accession Bruide mac Der-Ilei, probably from a branch of the Dal Riata [which rivalled the ruling branch to which Aldfrith had presumably been connected and which had been allied with Bridei m. Bili?]. Moisl's statement is already balanced by other assertions further up; it doesn't need OR if that's indeed what this is.

This wasn't intended as a rejoinder to Moisl's comment, but I agree it appears that way. It is simply an attempt to find a place to mention the battle of 697/8. Because Aldfrith's reign is peaceful it wasn't easy to slot this sentence in, and I meant to use the mention of the Picts to connect the two comments, not to deny Moisl's point. I've changed "Despite this suggestion of an allegiance to the Picts" to "Subsequently"; I hope that removes the implied OR. Mike Christie (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Aldfrith appears to have been a close friend of Adomnán, Abbot of Iona from 679, and may have studied with him

Aldfrith was a close friend of Adomnan. See Vita Columbae where Adomnan himself calls Aldfrith "my friend Aldfrith" (ii. 46). I think when you get the man himself saying it, even in dark age history, you can go for something stronger than appears. Less reliably, the Fragmentary Annals of Ireland call him Dalta Adamnain, "Adomnan's pupil".

Agreed; I made this definite. Mike Christie (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is very good, but I'm not convinced it had to be forwarded for FA yet. It's coverage of Aldfrith is very choppy. The Iona thing should be discussed systematically at one stage. We've got assertions that he knew Adomnan, got educated in the Gaelic islands and was in Iona the year before his accession scattered across the article (which, being in the Anonymous Life of St Cuthbert iii. 6 shouldn't only appear in quotation of a historian regarding a different topic). Mike Christie won't be surprised to here me say: it does not discuss the sources and their nature! Maybe I'm a bit looney, but this I regard this as highly appropriate (and necessary) for topics such as this. Such coverage would significantly improve the article, something which suggests the article has some way to go before it covers its topic adequately. Knowing Angus and his editing as I do, I've got a feeling he would have done this if Aldfrith became a priority for him in his own time; he's done it for all his other FAs. As it is, I get the smell that the article's being pushed to FA for the sake of it. I'm not going to oppose the nom though, as there are many other FA articles (even in this topic area) that are worse (.. and there are some better, such Flann Sinna ;) ) ... but as you can see alot in this article displeases me. I could go on, but like I said, it is a very good article and there are other worse ones with FA status. Hope I don't come across as too critical. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair criticism. Although I disagree about the cause and also about Flann, I don't have a very positive feeling about this article. I'm really pushed for time just now but as soon as I can I'll get to work. There's not much I can do about Wilfred at Hexham or Moisl's article in the meantime, but it should be possible to resolve the other points you and qp10qp have raised. There's nothing like the prospect of being hanged tomorrow to focus the mind, so they say. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.