Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wiglaf of Mercia

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 04:25, 4 November 2007.

Wiglaf of Mercia[edit]

Another King of Mercia. Comparison FAs: Egbert of Wessex, who was his contemporary; Æthelbald of Mercia, who reigned about seventy years before Wiglaf. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments In addition to the points below, I've tweaked the article a bit and left some hidden comments.

  • Is there anything that characterizes Wiglaf's notability that you could put into the lead? (Yes, I know the source material is patchy.)
  • An explanation of the population make up of Mercia would be helpful.
  • Wessex is variously called Anglo-Saxon, and Saxon and Celtic.
  • Talking about England and Wales is a bit confusing because of the intrusion of the modern boundaries (which as you know don't correspond). Perhaps South(ern) Britain and West(ern) Britain?
  • Might Romano-British be better than Celtic for the "Welsh"? (The Welsh principalities were direct successors of the three Roman administrative areas. And many of the inhabitants of "Wales" were "Britons" from "England" displaced west by the Saxons.)
  • What does "a tradition preserved at Evesham" mean?
  • Although Mercia was often at war with Powys, I don't think Powys was actually conquered (though they lost some territory west of Offa's Dyke in the C9th). Also, in 823, Powys was allied (by marriage) with Gwynedd, paving the way for Rhodri Mawr's succession as prince of Powys and Gwynedd.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. Some responses:
  • On the hidden comment about 853 and the Welsh: I've put a note on the talk page about that.
  • Notability for the lead: I saw your hidden note about Charlemagne, but I eventually decided to put in something about the impending Viking troubles as a way of expanding the scope of the lead. Let me know if you feel more is needed.
  • "A tradition preserved at Evesham": the source I used, Kirby's Earliest English Kings, footnotes this to Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, in an 1863 edition. Kirby's text is "Wigstan . . . was remembered at Evesham as a descendant of Coenred", with some additional genealogical comments. The Chronicon is available on Google Books, but it's in Latin; my Latin is too rusty for me to be able to verify this directly. I have extended that footnote to refer to the Chronicon; is that enough?
  • With regard to the "conquest" of Powys, I admit I hesitated when I put that in, but Kirby was quite unambiguous: he says "a Mercian offensive in either 822 or 823 resulted in the destruction of the fortress of Degannwy in Gwynedd and a Mercian conquest of the kingdom of Powys"; later he refers to "the conquest of Powys and the invasion of Gwynedd" (pp. 188-189). His references are to the ASC, s.a. 822, and to the Brut y Tywysogion, s.a. 823. The latter can be found on Google Books in an edition by Caradog Llancarvan, and the entry for 823 says ". . . the castle of Dyganwy was destroyed by the Saxons. And then the Saxons took the kingdom of Powys into their possession." I agree it seems a rather strong statement. It does seem supported, but it's not critical to this article, so I've done some rewording -- see what you think now.
  • The population and terminology questions are thorny. I'll go off and have a think about these and see what I can come up with that would be both consistent and clear. I agree it's confusing, partly because of the different meaning of the same terms in modern and medieval times, and partly because of inconsistent usage both back then and in current sources. I'll post here when I have some ideas about it. Mike Christie (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the terminology, I've put some notes together at a subpage of mine. Take a look and see what you think (and edit directly or post on the talk page there, if you like); when that looks right, I'll apply those rules to the article. I may also solicit some input from other editors interested in this area. Mike Christie (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I left rather unhelpful notes at Talk:Wiglaf of Mercia. Nothing Welsh and very relevant to Wiglaf's floruit turned up. Whether a vague comment regarding the takeover of Powys by Rhodri Mawr is suitable for context is open to question; I feel that it is not. I would stick with Welsh and Anglo-Saxon for this period of history. Romano-British seems relevant to a much earlier period, and the use of Britons rather than Welsh for "people living in what is now Wales" to the 7th century or earlier. Many of the comments seem tangential to the subject. Not that it's relevant to an article on Wiglaf, but Maund is unimpressed by the idea that Merfyn Frych was connected to the kings of Powys by marriage, or through his mother: "tradition, and may be simple fiction" (Welsh Kings, p.48) Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are tangential though of relevance in terms of establishing who was conquering whom or what. Thank you very much for looking into this.--ROGER DAVIES TALK
As an historicist, I prefer using the terminology of the time, so as to not introduce confusion of meaning and associations that did not exist yet. To help readers understand, maps and parenthetical explanations could be offered, but I would refrain from calling places by names that did not exist yet when at all possible. But perhaps that is the scholar in the me and not the encyclopedist. Awadewit | talk 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would give us Cymry for the Welsh/Britons and Angelcynn for the Anglo-Saxons. The corresponding Latin forms are Cambri/Cambriae and Angli/Angliae (if I remember correctly).--ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would think you would be all in favor of this level of precision, Roger! :) Seriously, though, what is wrong with using the correct names? We don't say: "The Pilgrims landed in the United States" or "The Harappan cities were located in Pakistan". Awadewit | talk 10:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's needed is a balance of accessibility and precision, rather than strict "correctness" (which gives us multiple choices anyway and isn't necessarily that "correct"). I favour everyday words over unusual or eccentric ones: the problem is achieving distance from current connotations. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed the problem. I'm eager to see the solution the editors arrive at. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and made a couple of changes to eliminate "Celtic", which I think is unnecessary and non-standard -- "British" and "Briton" are the usual terms in secondary sources. I can see some uses of "England", but they look purely geographical to me. Is there anything else that looks wrong to you? Mike Christie (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd much rather England was written around if possible not least because so many people (both inside and outside of the UK) think of England as meaning Britain as a whole. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 07:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. For "England", there are four uses left:
  • "A map of England during Wiglaf's reigns"
  • "a period in which the political map of England was dramatically redrawn"
  • "Egbert's . . . domination of southern England"
  • "the increasing Viking presence in England"
I take your point about inaccurate perceptions of England vs. Britain; I'm an ex-patriate Brit, and I have certainly run into that error a few times. However, it's difficult to fix that problem concisely. The first two uses, above, do specifically mean "England": the map shows England, not modern Wales; and it was the map of Anglo-Saxon power relations in what is now England that was being redrawn at that time. The third use could perhaps be changed to "Britain", though that seems less precise to me. The fourth use again could be Britain, since the Vikings didn't restrict their raids to England, but the Anglo-Saxons were only in England and it seems sensible to refer to the impact of their raids more specifically than "Britain", since the context is Anglo-Saxon awareness and preparedness.
If you have suggestions to improve any of these uses, please let me know; I think I'd like to hear other opinions on these, too. As I said, I agree that many people confuse Britain and England, but I'm not sure how to improve these references without blurring the intended meaning. Mike Christie (talk) 11:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the easiest way is to modify the map, adding lines (or shaded areas if contested) to mark the boundaries; across from the Humber for Northumbria, showing the line of Offa's Dyke, and wherever it ran between Cornwall and Wessex. This way (1) (2) and (3) need no text change, it's visually obvious; (4) could be changed to Britain. Is this better? --ROGER DAVIES TALK 12:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Offa's Dyke to the map, and used the caption to indicate England and Wales; I'm hopeful that that's enough to allow me to retain the second and third uses. I changed the fourth to being "throughout Britain" -- the "throughout" is motivated by the difference between "England" and "Britain" and so I think is legitimate. What do you think? Mike Christie (talk) 01:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, Mike; I'm impressed by the scholarly nature of the new caption :) What I've enjoyed about this discussion is that you've helped me clarify my own perceptions of the period considerably. It's been interesting. Thank you. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 08:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards support This is a well-written and well-researched article. I know little about this time period, so I can't speak to its comprehensiveness, unfortunately. I just have a few clarifications and nit-picks before I support.

  • Egbert drove Wiglaf from the throne in 829, and ruled Mercia directly for a year. Wiglaf recovered the kingdom in 830, probably by force although it may be that Wiglaf was a client of Egbert's. - "client"? This word sounds very modern, although it may have a distinct medieval meaning, I'm not sure I know what it is.
  • When I read "client" I suddenly started wondering if there was another meaning I didn't know; I paused there. Just another perspective. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead doesn't say much about Wiglaf himself. Anything that could be added would be good, I think.
  • Rephrasing: The lead does not reflect the article's comments about Wiglaf. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the map up for those readers who forget where different places are in the isle(s).
  • It was probably Beornwulf whose defeat of the kingdom of Powys and destruction of the fortress of Deganwy are recorded in a Welsh chronicle, the Brut y Tywysogion, in 823, and it is clear that Mercia was still a formidable military power at that time. - are chronicles italicized?
  • Wiglaf's ancestry is not known for certain, but one source of competing dynasties in Mercia may have been the descendants of collateral royal lines. - confusing
  • Could you translate the Latin words? Not that many people know Latin anymore - it being dead and all.
  • Explanations are one thing, translations are another. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you make sure that all documents and people are identified as clearly as possible? I am envisioning some poor undergraduate reading this page and confusing ninth-century sources with modern scholarship in some places.
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Wiglaf's accession in the entry for 825; this is an error for 827. - slightly confusing - what was the error exactly?
  • I would move this explanation to the main body of the text. It is jarring to have only this sentence in the text, in my opinion. Awadewit | talk 22:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images are on the right-hand side of the page. Staggering is more aesthetically pleasing. See WP:MOS#Images for advice on this.
  • The dates for the "Primary sources" look silly - 1996 for the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? Could something be done about that? Double dates perhaps? I don't know what date you would use for the "first publication" of the chronicle, but this looks odd, especially since it is listed under "Primary sources".

A pleasant read and these are just small things. I am feeling the competitive heat. :) Awadewit | talk 00:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ref: Dates for "Primary Sources": Early medieval sources like chronicles were never published in the modern sense. Published primary sources are always referenced with the year of modern publishing. When using primary medieval sources, one quotes from the edition one is using, stating amongst other things the editor and the year of publishing, i.e., the year of publishing of the modern edition. The referencing in the article is therefore absolutely correct and how it should be.Ekki01 17:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Client is the word used by Williams. What with "client state" being common enough, it seemed like it would do. "W. remained subject to E." conveys roughly the same idea, no idea if it is any clearer or not. Nothing is known about Wiglaf's personality, appearance, etc. Every Latin and OE term except the vague minister seems to be explained or wikilinked. The error in dating is described in a footnote. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to Awadewit:

  • Client: I've used a variant of the rephrasing that Angus suggested; I think he's right that the term is in general use, but if it distracts an educated reader I think the alternative is as good.
  • The lead does not reflect the articles comments about Wiglaf: could you give me an example? I'm not quite sure what you feel is missing.
  • There is an entire section explaining the speculation regarding Wiglaf's ancestry, etc., but only one sentence/phrase on this in the lead. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I added to the lead what I thought was the most interesting note on his possible ancestry. I kept this out of the lead because that section is more about historians' theories of royal houses in Wessex than about Wiglaf in particular, but I think the bit about Penda is worth mentioning. If you see anything else that would be good to put in the lead, let me know. Mike Christie (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about this as an opening paragraph for the lead:
"Wiglaf (died 839) was King of Mercia from 827 to 829 and again from 830 until his death. Because the 820s were a period of dynastic conflict within Mercia and several families were contending for the throne, his ancestry is uncertain. [Is that what you meant? Some sort of connection was missing there.] Wigstan, his grandson was later recorded as a descendant of Penda of Mercia, so it is possible that Wiglaf was descended from Penda, one of the most powerful seventh-century kings of Mercia." Awadewit | talk 03:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I used a version of this: I didn't like "because", since the connection there is not really straightforward deduction. You're right I do need to indicate a connection, though. I tweaked it and I think it's better now. Mike Christie (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are using the colon as a crutch - you rely on it to communicate too much meaning. Can you use words instead? The colon is connecting Wiglaf's uncertain genealogy and the time of dynastic conflict, but it is not entirely clear what that connection is from the sentence. Why would dynastic conflict cause uncertain genealogy? Awadewit | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maps and images: I've moved up the map and staggered the images. I was a little sorry to move the map, I have to say: it is really quite useful to the reader down in the "reigns" sections. It isn't a general map: the places identified are not the important towns of the day, but are just those places mentioned in the article. However, I also agree a map is useful early.
  • If you feel it is detrimental, move it back. It is just that I think a reader might want to know where these places are in relation to each other (if they don't already know). Most of the places listed in the "Historical context" section seem to be on the map, but if you feel it doesn't work out for the best, move it back, like I said. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The moving of the map has created an unfortunate swath of text in the "Second reign". Any other photos we could use? :) Awadewit | talk 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think the map can stay up there -- your original point was quite valid. As you say it would be good to put another image in the second reign para, but I don't think I have anything -- it's a job getting images for these kings. I could grab another image from the Chronicle page, showing the text that says he recovered the kingdom again, but that wouldn't break up the text much -- it would be the same shape as the other text chunk. I'd like to use an image of a coin, but it's not fair use and coin images are copyrighted unless the picture itself is old. So I don't think there's much to be done about this, I'm afraid. Mike Christie (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So there is no nineteenth-century image of him? No painter imagined what he looked like during the big medieval revival? :) Awadewit | talk 02:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of! Such things do exist, as you say: see Caedwalla of Wessex and Aelle of Sussex (I love John Speed's pictures). However, I know of nothing like that for Wiglaf. Mike Christie (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are chronicles italicized? Actually I don't know the answer to this; I italicize titles of books, but generally I haven't italicized chronicle titles. Angus went ahead and italicized it and I think it looks fine that way.
  • I don't know either. I was asking because I thought since they were major works, perhaps they were. Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiglaf's ancestry: I guess the statement was rather compressed. I've attempted to expand and clarify it; let me know if that's an improvement.
  • I suppose; so, "source of competing dynasties" means what exactly? (Sorry if I am being dense, I don't read about this period often.) Awadewit | talk 04:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, if it's not clear, that's my fault. Let me restate here what I'm trying to say, and you can tell me if I need to rephrase it in the article. There are two theories that I'm describing: the theories answer the question "where do the kings of Mercia come from?" The first theory is that the kings are all essentially related to the same royal line. A king whose ancestry is unknown, such as Wiglaf, might actually be the third or fourth-generation descendant of a younger son of a previous king. That's what I intended to convey by "collateral lines". The second theory makes reference to the multiple known tribal groupings within Mercia: there were lots of groups such as the Hwicce which were absorbed into Mercia over time. Not much is known about these, but it is known they existed. This second theory is the idea that these groups might have all been equally likely to provide a king -- there was no specific kin group that always provided a king, but instead just a set of competing kin groups, any one of which might come out on top in a particular dynastic squabble. Neither of these theories can be shown to apply to Wiglaf, but they seem worth mentioning just as scholarly background to the issue of otherwise unknown kings popping up in Mercia. Does that make it clearer? Please do feel free to try a rewrite in the article if you feel like it; or if you can locate the obscure section, point that out and I'll have a go. Mike Christie (talk) 02:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent explanation! It just needs to be in the article! See, you just told me "there are these two broad historical theories about the kings of Mercia" and "here is how they do (or do not) apply to Wiglaf". I think you should do the exact same thing in the article. Now that you have told me the theories, I can see them in the article, but it was hard to do so before - I kind of got lost in the details (as I said, these details are not familiar to me). For a reader like myself, I think you have to give the big picture first and then dive into the nitty gritty. Does that make sense? Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the rewrite on the talk page - I still think you should go with the model of introduce theory first and then show how Wiglaf does or does not fit into it, but the talk page version is easier to understand than the one I read originally. Awadewit | talk 00:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Latin: I substituted in one place and glossed in another; is more needed?
  • Document and people: can you give me some examples? I'm not sure what your concern is here. With regard to confusing readers, I'm actually not that worried about it: there are so darn few primary sources surviving that even a casual reader very rapidly learns what they are. When I started reading Anglo-Saxon history, what I found most confusing was references to specific editions that every scholar was familiar with, such as the Rolls editions. Anyway, give me some examples, and I'll see what I can do.
  • I know that the texts, theories, and people are familiar to you, but they will be unfamiliar to the majority of readers. They will be guessing. While it is possible to infer from the prose, it is best to be explicit, I think. Here are some examples:
  • Although one source claims that Coenwulf's son, Cynehelm, briefly succeeded to the throne, it is more likely that Ceolwulf, Coenwulf's brother, was the next king. - Medieval or modern source? Best to be absolutely clear in the article prose, I think.
I've qualified this as an "eleventh-century source", per the information in the secondary source I'm using. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next king, Beornwulf, was of no known royal line, though it has been conjectured on the basis of the common initial letter B that he was connected to the later kings Beorhtwulf and Burgred. - Conjectured by modern scholars or medieval scribes and such?
Barbara Yorke is the one I'm quoting. I don't really want to refer to her in the text, because I can't be sure she's the first person to have made this suggestion -- in fact it's unlikely that she is, since the alliteration of dynastic names is a basic fact of Anglo-Saxon royalty. So I put a little more into the footnote -- I know you wanted something in the main text, but I don't quite see how to do that without giving Yorke more prominence than I can be sure she deserves for this argument.Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "scholars"? Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiglaf's ancestry is not known for certain, but some general theories about the source of competing dynasties in Mercia have been advanced. One suggestion is that the descendants of collateral branches of the royal family competed for the throne. - Who suggested?
Here I have the same reservations as above, about Yorke, but I did change the introductory sentence to mention "historians", to make it clear these are modern theories. I've also expanded the first footnote to refer to Yorke as an example; the footnote on the second theory already had similar text (I think that was Angus's work). Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - "historians" is akin to my "scholars" recommendation above. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wigstan's grandfathers were Wiglaf and Ceolwulf I; the tradition might be interpreted to mean that Wiglaf descended from Penda, but it might also be Wiglaf's wife, Cynethryth, who was descended from Penda. - A medieval tradition?
Yes, and now so noted. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A different connection is mentioned in the Life of St. Wigstan, which asserts that the "B" and "W" families were related. - A medieval text?
Yes; again, noted in the text. I have to say this one is a bit mysterious to me: Yorke refers explicitly to a "Life of Saint Wigstan", but I'm having trouble finding much out about it. There's a book I located on Google Books: Sayers & Watkiss, "History of the Abbey of Evesham", which appears to be a modern translation of the Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham, which is listed as a reference. In that it appears that Thomas of Marlborough did not compose the Life of St Wigstan (p. xvi), but an earlier prior of the abbey had done so; but then (p. xxii) it appears he authored it. In either case that text doesn't seem to appear in that book, so I'm at a loss to locate a copy of it. However, it's clear it's a separate text, it is medieval, and it's the source of the information cited, so I hope that squeaks through. Mike Christie (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least we know it is not available at your local Barnes & Noble. :) Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 825 error: fixed.

I think that's everything. Thanks for the comments; let me know what you think of the fixes so far. Mike Christie (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry if I'm being too picky! I don't mean to be! Awadewit | talk 05:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It's always a pleasure to work with someone who has clearly read the article with care and attention. I hope I've addressed everything; I know I didn't implement every fix you asked for, so let me know what else you think is still necessary. Mike Christie (talk) 03:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So, what are we doing right and how can other people copy this? :) I am supporting the article. Awadewit | talk 03:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pass & support

  • On the basis that it's acceptable.

Remark: Just take one instance in the lead that shows it can be better. He succeeded Ludec.. His reign coincided wi... His ancestry is unknown: the 820s were a peri..." Reads not like a well-written article but rather in a point by point style. Leranedo 23:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some minor mods to the lead to try to improve the flow of those sentences. Let me know of other areas of prose that you think could be cleaned up and I'll be happy to have a go at those too. Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 03:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very good, as usual. DrKiernan 10:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well-written. Good use of primary and secondary sources. Ekki01 21:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Wiglaf_of_Mercia&oldid=1138475552"