Talk:Edwin of Northumbria

message: Regarding the recently posted clean-up tag, could the specific problems of the article be identified? I see the article as being presently inadequate in many ways, but I see nothing to justify calling it "pure trash". Everyking 03:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a full-scale rewrite. The statement "Edwin is said to have conquered the fort located at what is now Edinburgh in 626, and it is possible that the city was named after him (one interpretation of its etymology is "Edwin's fort")." is simply pure trash; nothing says Edwin took the fort of Edinburgh at all. There is an "obsessio Etin" (siege of Etin) listed in the Irish Annals for the period 637-40, but it says nothing of a capture, doesn't identify the besieger, isn't certainly Edinburgh (although it is likely) and, moreover, dates to the reign of Oswald. The name (Din) Eidyn can be found in 6th century Welsh sources anyway, so it isn't even possible that the city meant Edwin's burgh. Although recent research indicates Cadwallon "ap Cadfan" was probably a king in central England and not Gwynedd, I'm not expecting that sort of thing to get in there; there is just an overall lack of quality. Nothing is cited, despite claims being made of sources, and statements like Since Penda was a pagan, and Cadwallon "Christian only in name", Edwin was considered a martyr"  just sum the thing up. I am currently busy, but other users such as User:Angusmclellan could probably do a good re-write. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 03:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am aware of the Edinburgh issue; I added a little about that to Oswald's article not too long ago. Nevertheless, a quick Google search turns up a good many hits about Edwin taking Edinburgh in 626. This idea must have come from somewhere. Do you have any idea where? I don't mind removing it. I am also aware of the Cadwallon claim, although I had thought this was marginal and that the evidence for the traditional identification was stronger. As you suggest, I think clearer scholarly assessments of that issue would be needed, and more credibility attached to the alternate theory, before we could begin treating it the way you'd like. I will see if I can make a few edits in the future to make the article more rigorous. Everyking 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a few changes. I don't know if they are hopeless or not. Everyking 04:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: Using of Northumbria of Edwin seems (to me) to be an anachronism. He's variously indexed as "E., k. of Northumbrians", "E., k. of North Angles", "E., of Deiri", and so on, so all things are possible, but having a king "of Northumbria" so early seems unhelpful. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 17:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[Edwin of Deira]]? 

message: This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article is a good one, although the writing could use a solid copyedit and the lead might do a better job of summarising the article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps 

message: The Staffordshire Hoard was found in, well, Staffordshire. The Battle of Hatfield Chase took place in what is now Yorkshire. There is no way that the two spots can be "less than 15 miles" apart. The actual distance is closer to 80 miles. --dab (𒁳) 11:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I've just removed: "At least an important part of the gold and silver pieces would constitute the gifts or helps sent to him from Rome by the Pope Boniface V. The Vatican has shown interest in buying the hoard in 2009."'I’ve been told that the Vatican think it may be the lost treasure of St Edwin,' she  [Deb Klemperer, from the Potteries Museum in Stoke-on-Trent] told the Sunday Mercury. [...] 'St Edwin was killed in battle with King Penda of Mercia in 632 AD, and I think it is likely that it is his hoard'"  "Staffordshire hoard is wanted by The Pope and Vatican" (Sunday Mercury, 20 December 2008), "Midlands museums face Vatican battle for Staffordshire Hoard" (Birmingham Mail, 21 December 2009)." - as it is already clear the the hoard, in contrast to Sutton Hoo, does not represent the "treasure" of an individual but the valuable bits of the weaponry & other military kit of a large number of individuals, none of which show the slightest sign of Italian style. Nor do the sources say that the Vatican has expressed an interest, they merely say that some spokesman in the UK has expressed the view that he's sure (most implausibly in my my view) that the Vatican would like to buy the hoard, or some of it.  In view of the comment above I think I'll cut the lot. Johnbod (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Staffordshire Hoard 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Edwin of Northumbria. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060515025026/http://jebbo.home.texas.net/asc/e/e-L.html to http://jebbo.home.texas.net/asc/e/e-L.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the üriest called coifi or cofi, or are these different people, or variants of the name? The article uses them both. 78.42.244.34 (talk) 13:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cofi or Coifi