# Talk:England in the Middle Ages

"Mediæval Britain" is a term used to suggest that there is a unity to the history of Great Britain

What does "unity to the history of Great Britain" mean? This seems kind of POV'ish. Don't people use the term simply as a neutral descriptor of convience marking a passage of time?  "Crossbows were in common use in late Medieval Britain" --Stbalbach 20:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
"Ethelbert held the largely honorific title of among the kingdoms, and the re-Christianisation of England spread in the south from Canterbury.

This articles existence is unfortunate as it repeats exactly what is already in other articles, in more and better detail. However the term "Medieval Britain" is certainly valid. Would anyone be opposed to basically deleting this articles content and making it a disambiguation page pointing to the other articles which cover this period? Or is this a valid article, and if so, why? Stbalbach 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree, especially following the discussion on the Anglo-Saxons page. 'Britain in the Middle Ages' should point to the histories of England, Scotland and Wales (though not Ireland). I think History of Scotland is particularly good; History of England goes into far too much detail on things like 'migration', and would benefit from a trunk page on the Later Medieval Period (i.e. 1000-1500); all there is currently is a link to Anglo-Norman and Angevin. Harthacanute 20:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok just did a big cut see how it goes. Please add/adjust as you think it could be improved. I think keeping this article focused on the historiography of the term "medieval britain" along with pointers to the complete treatments to avoid duplication is the way to go. Stbalbach 22:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I've changed all the references to "mediaeval" and "Mediaeval" to "medieval" (except obviously where ordinary capitalisation rules apply).
"Mediaeval" was obviously used as being more British than medieval. Whilst it is true that mediaeval is relatively more common in the UK than the US, it is still far less common than medieval in both countries. Furthermore, a great many formal British institutions - The Institute for Medieval Studies, University of Leeds for example - use the simpler, more modern spelling of medieval.
In other words, medieval is:

Significantly more common than mediaeval in the UK (factor of 10); and
Fully acceptable in formal and scientific language.
(Incidentally, the use of mediæval - with the a/e ligature - really isn't acceptable in modern English.) El T 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it should be midiæval, because that's how it has been and the only reason it was changed to midiaeval was because of typing problems and then later changed to midieval because of shortening.  Midiæval is just as short as midieval and we don't have typing problems.Cameron Nedland 01:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should be Mediæval. That is the traditional, British spelling of the word. Just because the world has become Americanised, that's no reason to ignore the original spelling. EuroSong talk 14:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have always (at least inadvertently) spelt "medieval", mediaeval or mediæval (when the æ was available). In many books I have read the spelling was often mediaeval and sometimes mediæval. At the very least the article should show that there are a few widely accepted spellings and considering this article is not specific to the United States it should be 'mediaeval' or (as I would prefer) mediæval. Kyle sb 11:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it wrong to talk of John Knox's Reformation in Scotland.  He was an important figure, certainly; but he would have got absolutely nowhere if it had not been for the hunger for church land, extending from great noblemen to minor barons.
It is also wrong to say that Orkney and Shetland were 'returned' to Scotland in 1471 for the simple reason that they had never been part of the Kingdom of Scotland in the first place.  The earlier Pictish settlers were displaced, from the eighth century onwards, by a Norse influx.  In the fifteenth century the islands belonged to the Kingdom of Denmark, and were pledged to Scotland in lieu of a dowry payment.
Rcpaterson 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think it's appropriate to have medieval England and England in the Middle Ages redirect here. England, Wales and Scotland had quite separate histories. They deserve their own articles.
Peter Isotalo 08:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Most uses of the term "Medieval Britain" restrict its use to the post Norman Conquest period. Both the start and end dates of the period vary in different applications. Therefore I tried to add an explanation to this effect to the article but this has been deleted.  The reverted article only gives one of the ways of using the term and is unsatisfaactory. Adresia (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted because I don't believe the term is used mainly in that way, do you have a source saying that? "Medieval Britain" refers to Britain during the Medieval period, which is variously defined, but I don't think the Norman Conquest is an acceptable cutoff point.--Cúchullain t/c 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
My Concise Oxford Dictionary defines "Medieval" as relating to the Middle Ages, and defines the "Middle Ages" as the period of European history from the fall of the Roman Empire in the west to the fall of Constantinople (1453) or more narrowly from c1000 to 1453. However, this is really applicable to continental Europe not Britain.  If you do some research as to how the term is used in relation to British history, as I did, you will find that generally it is used as I said and related to British events, mostly in its narrower sense. Adresia (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have sources to back that up? I've done quite a bit of research on this topic, and I've never heard "Middle Ages" referring only to the later medieval period and not the rest of it. At any rate this article is intended to discuss British history through the entire period, and provide links to other, more specific articles, like Scotland in the High Middle Ages and History of Anglo-Saxon England. If you want to suggest a better title, go ahead, but I can't imagine a more appropriate one for this subject.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
One example of a website that uses the later sense of the "Middle Ages" is www.bbc.co.uk/middle ages.Adresia (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't find what you're referring to, as you didn't post it as a link. At any rate, I don't think one BBC link establishes that this use is common among scholars. There are plenty of others who use "Middle Ages" in the usual way - that is, for the whole Middle Ages. And again, whatever we call it, this article is meant to cover the entire period, and  I don't think there can be a more appropriate title than the one we already have.--Cúchullain t/c 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There are many other websites which use the restricted sense. I do not argue that it is ONLY used in this way but that BOTH ways are used. There is a larger world outside academia. Some other examples of websites are britannia.com, britainexpress.com, wsu.edu, timeref, VL History UK and Channel 4. If you do a search on Google books you will find many books that use the narrow sense. Some examples are Medieval Britain by Walter Robson (used for Keystage 3 in British schools), Medieval Britain - a very short introduction by Gillingham and Griffiths (OUP 2000), Medieval Britain by Loyn and Sorrell (1977). I dont disagree that the article should cover the wider sense but mention should be made of the other ways it is used. One view should not be pushed. If the wider view is taken then the labels for the sub-eras should be included, but the title should be kept. Adresia (talk) 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC).

Is this page really necessary? I'm not really sure what function it's currently playing, other than to duplicate other content in a small way. If it was about a theory of medieval history using "Britain" as a geographical approach, then fair enough, but I'm not sure this really exists, and there's certainly nothing in the article hinting in that direction. It would anyways be the British Isles rather than "Britain". Is England that's actually intended? That at least is what the interwikis are about. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Deacon of Pndapetzim, I tend to agree with you when you ask "is this page really necesary?" but would also ask why you didn't thoroughly revise the text and change the categories after moving the article? Due to the change of name the subject was changed and yet it still read like a description of medieval Britain rather than England alone and gave the impression that Wales and Scotland were part of England. I just hope it didn't get too many hits before my revision; there are enough people who think England is just another name for Britain as it is! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian.  I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries.    The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The previous map was incorrect as it shows Cornwall as included in Wessex - this map indicates that this was not the case in 1035.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EmpireNorth.JPG  -- William of Malmesbury, writing around 1120, says that King Athelstan of England fixed Cornwall's eastern boundary at the Tamar in 936 after the remaining Cornish had been evicted from Exeter and the rest of Devon in 927 - "Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race". (ref: Professor Philip Payton - (1996). Cornwall. Fowey: Alexander Associates). In 944 Athelstan's successor, Edmund I of England, styled himself 'King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons' (ref: Malcolm Todd -- The South West to AD 1000 - 1987), an indication of how that accommodation was understood at the time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.175.157 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just made an edit to get rid of the worst of the opening: end of the anglo-saxon period is NOT 1500AD, there has never been a Kingdom of Wales etc. It's still pretty horrible - and without citation. Whole article needs to be re-written or deleted but unfortunately I don't have the time...DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at expanding the article, following the model at Scotland in the Middle Ages and similar "..in the Middle Ages" articles. I think I've covered most of the bases, and I *think* I've caught references for everything stated, but I might well have missed something. It could do with a decent copyedit and check over for balance, etc. I've tried to get a range of pictures into the article, balanced across the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Good job. I will take a look and ce when I am actually awake. Excellent work.--SabreBD (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Just gave it a quick read - it looks like a nice job on a page that really needed it, and I like the methodical sourcing. All too rare on WP. I'll give it a careful read in slower time. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:England in the Middle Ages/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Frickeg (talk · contribs) 12:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Will review over the next few days. Frickeg (talk) 12:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cheers! In terms of my noting the changes made, do you have a preference whether I indent the response after the point you raised, or would you prefer them grouped together at the end of the page? I find the former easier to keep track of, but happy to work with whichever you'd prefer. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I also prefer the former, for exactly the reason you said. Frickeg (talk) 23:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Right, I think the changes etc. are now up to date, as per below. See what you think! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Initial note: the references contain three deadlinks. Frickeg (talk) 12:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
Notes as I go along (will do lead at the end):

Political history
Early Middle Ages
Inconsistent capitalisation of Roman empire - "Roman empire" in the lead, "Roman Empire" in first paragraph.
Fixed throughout. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
With glossing terms, it's sometimes "term, translation" and sometimes "term, or translation" (emphasis mine). It should be consistent. (I would suggest brackets to reduce the number of commas in the text, but this is a personal preference.)
Think these are all caught now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I was going to say something about how the article doesn't mention bretwalda as a term for king, but then I looked up that article and realised that my education had led me astray on that point. You learn something new every day! So this is a plus, clearly.
Wessex expanded further north into Mercia and the Danelaw, leading to England becoming one of the wealthiest kingdoms in Europe. Cite or evidence for "one of the wealthiest kingdoms in Europe"?
I can't find it... grrr... I've removed it until I recover where I got this from! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Inconsistency in the spelling of Sweyn in fourth paragraph.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Swein was followed by his son, Cnut, who liquidated many of the older English families after his seizure of power in 1016. "Was followed by" gives the impression that Danish rule from Swein to Cnut was uninterrupted. Perhaps reword?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
High Middle Ages
Did not know about Stephen of Aumale. Very interesting!
I enjoyed uncovering that one. :) Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Maybe refer to King Stephen as "Stephen of Blois" at first occurrence to differentiate from the above?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Might be worth very briefly noting why she's called the Empress Matilda.
I've added it in as a footnote. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Matilda's son, Henry II, finally agreed a peace settlement at Winchester and succeeded as king in 1154.[33] First, this citation is formatted differently from the rest and one of the cites is not included in the bibliography. Secondly, I'm not sure about describing Henry as "Henry II" here since when he made the agreement he wasn't king - probably should be "the future King Henry II".
Changes made, missing volume added - I couldn't see where the citation was formatted differently from the others though (it's probably right in front of me!). Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
It's the only one with a link in it. Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Why is he described as "Count of Angers"? I've literally never heard that before, and the article is at Anjou.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
"Intervening in Ireland" - should really say what Henry was intervening in - maybe "intervening in the disputed rule of Ireland" or "Irish succession dispute"?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Several revolts broke out, led by Henry's children who were eager to acquire power and lands, sometimes backed by France, Scotland and the Welsh princes Runon sentence.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Late Middle Ages
Point out that Richard III was Edward IV's brother (since this was noted with George earlier). He should also be referred to as "Richard III" somewhere.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The article initially had Richard defeated by an invading Henry VI! I've fixed this. It might be worth mentioning the word "Tudor" in that last sentence somewhere, though.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Will continue tomorrow. Frickeg (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Government and social structures
Early Middle Ages
Previously Anglo-Saxon words were italicised. This should probably be standard (thegns, ealdormen, churls, geburs, etc.).
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
In choosing kings, maybe mention the witan?
Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Third paragraph - link Wessex again? Relinking is something that may be worth looking at - there are quite a few places where something pops up again four or five subheadings down, and it's useful to link them again there. I'd say maybe the first occurrence under each first-level subheading? (Other examples include the kings, Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, and terms like the Danelaw.) This applies throughout the article.
Third and fourth paragraphs - inconsistency in spelling. Thegn or thane?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Moots as a redlink - is there something this could link to?
Fixed; the wiki version doesn't have a space in it. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
High Middle Ages
Italicise "villeins", "eyres"?
I was inclined not to, as they are later English terms which appear in more modern language (albeit specialised, in the the case of eyres), as opposed to being Anglo-Saxon terms. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Late Middle Ages
Link chivalry?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
What are "round table events"? Is there something this can be linked to?
Finally found it! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Women in society
less access (first paragraph) - lesser access? My grammatical sense is failing me on this one.
I've had a go; see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Identity
Angle and Saxon kingdoms - why not just "Anglo-Saxon"?
I was trying to draw a link with Bede; I've made this more explicit. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
This is now the first occurrence of Bede, so he'll need a link. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Parisiens - link, and also, should it not be "Parisians"? And actually, why are they referred to as such at all - why not just Normans?
I couldn't find an easy link. Changed to -ians as suggested. The source was saying that the Parisian French mocked the English (including, presumably, any left over Normans); shout if you think I need to clarify this. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Jews
Nothing I could find in this section.
Rise of Christianity
Note Roman Empire capitalisation.
helped by the conversion of the Franks in Northern France, whom carried considerable influence in England. Is this "whom" correct? It seems to me that the Franks are the subject of this fragment, although I can see the alternative argument.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Second paragraph - capitalisation and hyphenation of "South-East" in contrast to "western", etc., previously. Again with North-East in the third paragraph.
Religious institutions
By the turn of the century monastic lands, financial resources and the quality of their religious work had been much diminished. Whose religious work?
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
As someone who reads a fair bit in this area, it took me a long time to click that West Saxon is the demonym for Wessex. Is there some way of making this clear in the article?
I've gone for tweaking the text to avoid the construct - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
No problems. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Note non-capitalisation of south and east.
I think that's consistent with the rest of the article ("south of" being non-capitalised as an adjective; "South England" capitalised as a location) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The monasteries were brought firmed into the web of feudal relations ... "Brought firmed"?
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Church, state and heresy
Capitalisation of Church/church is inconsistent throughout this section.
Successive kings and archbishops clashed over rights of appointment and religious policy, and successive archbishops including ... Repetition of successive.
Sorted. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
... were variously forced into exile, arrested by royal knights and even killed. "Or" even killed, surely?!
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Third paragraph - inconsistency in the spelling of Wyclif(fe). His article has Wycliffe.
Thought I'd caught all of those... :( Done now! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Pilgrimages and crusades
Some pilgrims travelled further, either within to more distant sites within Britain or, in a few cases, onto the continent. Repetition of within.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Capitalisation of crusades inconsistent (inc. in heading).
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
peregrinatio - Latin?
Can you remember which template this takes? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a clue, but the change made helps with clarity. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Taking up the Cross - this probably needs to be clarified as the way in which one accepted the calling as a crusader.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Geography
Bears, beavers and wolves - should be able to pipelink to the species in these cases.
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Slightly more land was covered by trees than in the 20th century, and bears, beavers and wolves lived wild in England, bears being hunted to extinction in England by the 11th century and beavers by the 12th. Two other issues with this sentence: first, I think it's best to avoid comparisons with the 20th century if possible (after all, it is the 21st now). Second, repetition of England.
I agree in principle, but the source explicitly compares with the 20th century, and I can't find a similar reference comparing with woodland cover in the last ten years. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough. Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
The road system was adequate ... Adequate for what?
Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
For much of the Middle Ages, England's climate differed from that in the 21st century. Again with the comparison.
Again, capitalisation of South-West.
... but earlier versions of parks, such as hays ... Never heard of "hays" in this context before. Can we link to something?
I've added a bit to another article and wikilinked over. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Economy and demographics
Fourth paragraph - link Great Slump?
I've created a stub article and linked to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Technology and science
... one of his often cited conclusions." Should be oft-cited?
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Link Bede.
Has Oxford been linked before? Should be here anyway.
Armies
Continuing a (very) previous point, no italicisation of Anglo-Saxon words here. Should be consistent throughout the article.
... but some Anglo-Saxons did fight from horseback. "On horseback"?
"from" is slightly more "Brit" in my experience. Either is equally correct from a military history point. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
I bow to your expertise! Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Navies
These early fleets were limited in size but grew in size ... Repetition.
Again with the Anglo-Saxon terms.
Haven't heard of buisses - link?
I've simplified. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Fortifications
Back to italicisation of Anglo-Saxon.
the collapse of the Roman way of life - is this the best way to describe it?
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Art
The Bayeux Tapestry was actually woven entirely in Normandy, was it not? Should be mentioned.
I don't think so (but I could be out of date, as scholarship shifts...) - I had thought it was made in SE England; the current wikiarticle also goes for Kent. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Literature, drama and music
... such as the guitar, harp, pipes and organs. Why are pipes and organs linked and not guitar and harp? Also, why are the latter two plural and the former two not? (I understand pipes, I guess, but organs?)
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Architecture
... the quality of these houses improved after the years of the Black Death ... Is there a reason for this?
Expanded. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Historiography
Late-Victorian historians continued to use the chroniclers as sources, but also deployed documents such as Domesday Book and Magna Carta, alongside newly discovered financial, legal and commercial records, producing a progressive account of political and economic development in England. Runon sentence.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Popular representations
Becket here is a good example of the need for a little more linking. He was linked way back up in the religion section, and the reader shouldn't have to scroll all the way back up there to find out more about him. As I said before, this kind of thing is a persistent issue throughout the article.
Mention of the UK - this would probably be better as England.
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Miscellany
For such a long and comprehensive article, an external links section may be worth considering - just links to the key sites for medieval English sources and history. Since the bibliography is so (impressively) huge, a further reading section with the most basic and influential general texts could also be helpful.
This is a monstrous pain of a job, and I feel horrible for suggesting it, but in the citations there should really be a space between the p. and the number (i.e. "p. 45" rather than "p.45"). I'm not going to hold up passing the article for this but if someone has the inclination it would be really nice to get it done.
Think I've caught all of these. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Lead
Having whinged about underlinking above, I'm going to whinge about overlinking here - or rather, inappropriate linking:
"Economy" links to Economy of the United Kingdom, which is about an entirely separate entity and has no relevance to the historical period.
I've tried an alternative. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"England's population" links to Demography of England, which is almost entirely about current demography, or that since 1801.
It ought to cover the historical period as well... I've left this one in for now . Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
"Governance" links to Governance of England, which is explicitly post-1707 in focus.
I've removed. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Again it might be worth using "Henry Tudor" rather than "Henry VII" in the last sentence just to emphasise the delineation (and the identity of the next period).
Otherwise good.
Frickeg (talk) 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Rather horrified to stumble across the fact that the underlinking problems I identified would be technically in contravention of MOS guidelines. While I've rarely found something in the MOS I personally disagree with more, you should obviously feel free to ignore the bulk of those points, with the exception of the Bede one (because he was actually linked below the first occurrence rather than above) and the Oxford one. Frickeg (talk) 06:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm with you on the MOS being over-strict here; I'd prefer it if the MOS gave a broad guideline, but was then flexible if the reuse of an additional link would make a particular difference to the reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
I believe all the points have been dealt with, so I'm passing this. It's an outstanding article - well-written, detailed, comprehensive and meticulously referenced - that was a pleasure to read and to review. Thank you for all your work! Frickeg (talk) 08:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Langbarthr, you couldn't point us in the direction of the current literature that lay behind the last edit, could you? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article take 600AD as the start point for "medieval England"?  In an English context, I've seen "medieval" defined as starting at either: the end of Roman rule (410), the Fall of Rome (476), or the Norman Conquest (1066).  600AD also significantly pre-dates the establishment of "England" as a kingdom, but also significantly post-dates the arrival of the "English" or the establishment of the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.  In short: there are lots of dates that could be taken as the start of "medieval" "England", but 600AD doesn't seem to fit any of them.  Iapetus (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

A lot of the specialist literature on medieval England starts at 600 AD, rather than at 410 or 476, which is why I originally went for it, but you're right, there's no magic number. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This article does not feel like an encyclopedia article but rather it feels like some notes or aide-mémoire intended for readers already familiar with the subject. Alternatively it feels like an article intended for children. It relates events in a very terse manner without providing sufficient context. For example, much of the related events take place in France, but the article does not say a single word about the situation in France or the relationship between the English and French kings. For example, it is unclear from the article whether France had any kings at all during these events. The article keeps referring to wars in France but it does not even say against whom those wars were fought. (We cannot tell from the article whether they were fought against French, Germans, Italians, or Muslims.)
Other major defects in the article include,

1. The article refers to kings only by their first names. For example, Richard the Lionheart is simply called "Richard."
2. The article does not explain the fact that all those kings ("Richard," "Edward," etc.) belonged to different royal dynasties, and it does not indicate the names of the dynasties nor the beginning and endpoints of each dynasty.
3. There is some childish nationalistic sentiment when talking about the Danes and French, which is anachronistic and adds to the other problems of the article.--HD86 (talk) 00:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
summary style applies here, HD86: no article on a long period of history is going to be able to cover every detail, particulalry since this is not an article on political history; User:Ealdgyth faced some similar issues on the Middle Ages, and may have a perspective. You'll hopefully find that the links go to articles which provide more of the information you are after. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Exactly, I totally agree with that, but that is not the problem with this article. I am not saying that the article should cover every detail. I was quite specific about the missing info.
I have read quite a few articles on history in Wikipedia (and I have contributed some articles and sections myself). Just recently I have read the History of France in the French Wiki. The scope of that article is much larger than this one since it covers the entire history of France, yet the medieval section in that article does not suffer from the problems which I pointed out here.
Again, this article feels like a jungle of war names and king names with little of actual information. It is uninformative to the reader and unpleasant to read (it irritated me enough so that I had to start this discussion). If the article mentions the name of a war, the article must also provide a little bit of info on that war. You can't just throw the name of a war and move on without telling the reader what that war was about. Also you cannot throw the names of about 50 different kings in such an unorganized and confusing manner to the reader.--HD86 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I have narrowed down the issues to just two:

1. Context of the wars in France (this is necessary because a significant portion of the article is about those wars).
2. More info about the royal houses.
--HD86 (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The spelling of "Sweyn Forkbeard" is changed in the next sentence to "Swein." Should this be changed or is it correct? Mulstev (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A missing aspect of this topic is the knowledge/perception of the wider world by people in medieval England.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DC87:4001:A495:DE17:1A5E:AB43 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC) 

The full citation of the reference number 335 (Mers) is missing in the bibliography. Taddah (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I suppose it's actually the same as the previous citation (Myers). I think just the letter y is missing there. So, I'll fix it. Taddah (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)