Talk:Ælle of Sussex

message: WikiProject Biography Assessment
Little is known about the Saxon kings. This is complete and referenced enough to warrant a GA.
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Promoted to GA. -- A-class review requested at WikiProject Biography to get final opinions on Aelle's legendary or historical status, while FA review is ongoing. -- Yamara 01:13, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A-class review closed due to promotion to FA. A-class review archive -- Yamara 04:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biography/Assessment#Class_parameter|Biography assessment rating]] comment 

message: I am not a scholar of English history, but it is plain to see that this article is biased, e.g. "That sounds more like a fairy tale than history", "The story of Ælle is a heroic Anglo-Saxon myth", etc. Can anyone contribute to this article to give it a a more neutral stance? Matt 16:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: My additions to the article reflect current academic opinion: "The folkloric arrival in three ships, and the inclusion of people whose sole function seems to be to give their names to local settlements, suggest that these Chronicle entries should be treated as later fiction rather than recorded fact" .
Hovite 20:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Credulity

message: I don't have a problem with the content of this page. Rather, I have a problem with the way that content is presented. Rather than saying "the story of Aelle is a myth", why not say "modern academic opinion is that Aelle's story is a fictional"? I think this article merely needs some revision to its language to give it a NPOV. JMHO Matt 17:53, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content vs. Language 

message: This article is listed on the NPOV backlog. My knowledge of old English history is not great, but I've tried to rearranged text and rewrite a few point-of-view sentences. (I might have destroyed the article for what I know). However, since there's no discussion suggesting a larger disagreement, the POV tag is removed. If you disagree with this, please re-tag the disputed section with  (or the article with ) and post to Talk. Also consider improving the article yourself. -- Steve Hart 23:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV cleanup 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
This section is for a discussion of the requested move from Aelle of Sussex to Ælle of Sussex.  See Talk:Æthelbald of Wessex#Requested move for a parallel recent discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No opinion on the move (some people dislike the ligatures, I believe that it's covered somewhere in WP:NC subpages, I can't find exactly where), but it's generally not a problem with the dab page: common practice is to redirect all common and similar spellings, (in this case, Ælla. Aella and Ælle) to one dab page, in this case, Aelle, especially in the cases when there are not many items to disambiguate. IOW, just as it is now. Duja► 15:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, you meant Talk:Æthelbald_of_Mercia#Requested_move? Well, wth, you can move it yourself: see WP:BRD :-) Duja► 15:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the related dabs can't be moved except by an admin; plus since Talk:Æthelbald_of_Mercia#Requested_move wasn't unanimous I thought I'd put it up for discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This article has been renamed  as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 16:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And badly done, too—without fixing the sort keys so that it would sort properly in categories.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I'm removing the material about Wlencing being obviously not the son of Ælle; I can't find any source for this, though it does seem reasonable. Mike Christie (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wlencing 

message: I have cut the para about Alastair Campbell's theory of a 28-year Easter table cycle, and the possibility that the scribe forgot to return to the story of Ælle.  There was no source given, and I can't find any other references to this. Mike Christie (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campbell and 28 year cycle 

message: It's not really necessary to go into the details of the criteria here: This article passes all of them with flying colours. Obviously, it can't be expected to reach definite conclusions, but it does a nice job of setting forth what evidence there is. Good job! Adam Cuerden talk 17:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for the positive comments.  Mike Christie (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: I've reversed part of a change made to put "three" instead of "3" in the 477 annal.  Swanton uses the digits to indicate that the original annal used Roman numerals rather than words for the numbers.  This is a distinction worth preserving in general because certain kinds of scribal error are possible with digits but not with words.  In this particular case there's no likelihood of scribal error, but since this is mostly quoting Swanton I think it should preserve his usage.  Mike Christie (talk) 12:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digits in annals 

message: Here are some suggestions for further research, copied in from the FAC discussion.  These are from Warofdreams.
#Several websites, and our own article on the Battle of Mons Badonicus, claim that Ælle may have led the Saxons there.  This is repeatedly sourced to recent scholars.  Could we find out whose theory it is, and then mention it in the text?
#:The only websites listed in that article that refers to the claim that Ælle led the Saxons is this one.  I took a look around and it says that it's based on this book, which I don't have.  Reading the reviews at Amazon, it appears to be a good faith attempt to review the archaeological data, though there are also some negative comments about speculation there.  I don't know anything about the authors or how well-accepted this suggestion is.  (It sounds plausible to me, but it also sounds like guesswork.)  I think the best thing is to put a note on the talk page saying that it would be good to add a note to this effect if it can be sourced to a scholarly suggestion rather than just speculation.  The Phillips/Keatman book might be good enough, if they hold academic positions; I just don't know about them. Mike Christie (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've finally added a rather cautious note.  If the possible source you mention turns up, those details should definitely be added. Warofdreams talk 03:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further research 

message: I mostly find the guides to pronunciation a bit redundant (Manchester, anyone?) but I think an 'IPA' would be helpful here.  Alley? Ella? Ely? Eel?  Mr Stephen (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the answer, but I've posted a question to someone who may know. Mike Christie (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Æ is the Anglo-Saxon ash, and it stands for the English vowel sound found in "bat," "fat," "hat," and "cat."  This vowel is not the same as the α found in the Continental /a/.  The double consonants indicate that it's a short vowel (not a big deal for us, here), and the terminal e was probably pronounced.  æl-le is probably accurate.  Midlands dialects would have affected the pronunciation, but also, therefore, the spelling.  I.e. there wasn't the problem then, as now, of spelling words all one way and pronouncing them any which way: the spelling would have been pretty reflective of the pronunciation.  That's my surmise, anyway.  Geogre (talk) 04:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could do the IPA transcription if desired, but would need clarification of the /e/ sound.  What words in standard British English would the /le/ rhyme with? Or is original research, if we can't find a source for the pronunciation? --Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; it would be great to get the transcription done.  Per Geogre on his talk page: "take the a sound in "ash" and then add "lluh.""  Does that suffice?  As for the original research, I think this is OK -- I don't think this is controversial, just not easy for a non-specialist.  Geogre has some academic background in this area so I am comfortable with it -- up to you if you want to ping Geogre and ask if there are references.  Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, as you can see I've done the IPA , assuming that the stress is on the first syllable and that the second vowel is a schwa,  so that the name rhymes with Bala, the town in Wales.  If this isn't right, please let me know. Slp1 (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks right to me.  Thank you for the help! Mike Christie (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation? 

message: Why not the Britons?  "British" is interpreted by most people to mean "during the time of Great Britain".  "Britons" or "early Britons" would better suggest the time period of Aelle. --69.236.163.52 (talk) 16:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British? 

message: I think it would be useful to reorder the sections in this article.
Move the Reign section to be between Historical Context and Early Sources.
I think it makes more sense to present the "facts" of the man first, and
then get deeper into the discussion of his actual existence, or lack thereof.
What are other opinions?
EAKugler (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be interested to hear other opinions, but I like it the way it is -- I think the "reign" section is where we get to assemble the information discussed in the first part of the article into a coherent, if speculative, narrative. Mike Christie (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorder sections 

message: Given that the Dumnonia article states that it's unknown whether Cornwall was ever even part of Dumnonia, would it be an idea to say something like "Dumnonia (modern Devon)", rather than "Dumnonia (modern Cornwall)"? Carre (talk) 13:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to dig out the specific references I used, but I'm pretty sure that it's not controversial to say Cornwall was part of Dumnonia.  If the Dumnonia article had a citation for that statement I could check that but as it is I think it's just as likely the Dumnonia article will change that assertion when someone gets around to expanding it and adding citations. Mike Christie (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mike;  I think it'd be worth it – take a look at the map in Cerdic of Wessex, for example.  I am far from knowledgeable about this period though, so shall leave it in your capable hands. Carre (talk) 14:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumnonia and Cornwall 

message: Substituted at 11:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: In  the author makes the case that the date of 491 for the sacking of Pevensey is 20 years too late. Morris suggests the error originated with Gildas who gave an incorrect date for when the British asked Aetius for help; this initial error effected the later chronology and was copied by Bede and then the ASC. Malcolm Lyne in  is convinced by Morris and accepts the 471 date.
I'm reading this in Lyne's book which is focused on Pevensey, so don't know the wider implications of the change in date but I suspect it might mean the a few dates in the 'Early sources' section need to be reconsidered.
On the subject of whether Pevensey was the Andredes cester mentioned in the ASC, the article mentions that there is little archaeological evidence for sustained settlement at Pevensey. Since Greenway wrote something along those lines in 1996, the results of the excavations between 1936 and 1964, and 1993 and 1995 have been published. I don't have the Fulford and Rippon volume immediately to hand but Lyne's report notes that 5th century pottery was found at Pevensey indicating occupation, and there is archaeological evidence that some buildings were burnt in the 5th century which might tally with the ASC. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The article doesn't give dates attested by modern sources; it just gives the ASC dates.  Do you have any particular edits in mind?  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of the Pevensey siege