Talk:Battle of Chester

message: I did a little work on this section, which has seen some contention over the past few days. There were serious issues with the earlier version. It formerly indicated that Bede's line about the battle happening years after Augustine's death did not appear in the earliest recensions, though the Murphy paper specifically says that it did. Further, citing the same paper, the text highlighted the charge that Augustine was complicit in the massacre, but neglected to say that the charge was handily rejected by Elizabeth Elstob, despite this being the only reason Murphy mentions it in the first place.--Cúchullain t/c 01:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If possible, I would add more, as the passage is still opaque & suggestive in various directions at once. A full explanation is usually the best way out of this. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on it some more when I have a chance. I think we will be well served by a section on the date of the battle. Fortunately there are plenty of good sources for this we can use. As is the article implies that the generally accepted date for the battle is "mainly" taken from Bede, whom the text immediately undercuts. The result is it looks like a conflict between the partisan Bede and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, though really there are a number of sources that give different dates for Chester. Additionally, I know of at least one scholar (Nora Chadwick) who has argued that the date in the ASC is actually based on Bede's thoroughly inexact wording. After we get a good discussion of the date in there, we can discuss Reformation-era wrangling in a more appropriate context.--Cúchullain t/c 03:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The rationale: a modern secondary source was required to deal with the contentions of the mentioned reformation historians, some of whom contended that the mentioned passage in Bede was an interpolation. This was because the section had previously been deleted on the grounds that "no modern historian mentions it" and it did not make sense. It is obviously fine to add views of historians that militate against such contentions, once it is established how "it made sense" to the scholars in question, and that modern historians did in fact mention it. Chadwick's critique of the ASC date would, I think, be particularly welcome. I believe also that there are further primary sources that support the later date of the battle. Specious reasons for the entire removal of the question, of course, are not so welcome.Redheylin (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And who has suggested that, pray? I think you are getting confused; no one has attempted to remove it here, but from Celtic Christianity. Please be careful before you spray accusations around.  Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Reformation politicking

message: The photo used in this article is currently listed as Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2011_February_27. If it isn't free, then it'll be deleted. Even if it isn't deleted, we need something better for this article. Suggestions? garik (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Chester. 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/20110724104210/http://www.thomondgate.net/pdf/essays/essay8.pdf to http://www.thomondgate.net/pdf/essays/essay8.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Chester. 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/20110110054848/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm to http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110054848/http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm to http://www.mun.ca/mst/heroicage/issues/2/ha2pen.htm
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) 01:06, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Chester. 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://www.webcitation.org/67hhMeYza?url=http://www.chesterarchaeolsoc.org.uk/heronbridge.html to http://www.chesterarchaeolsoc.org.uk/heronbridge.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) 06:19, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This talk page will be talking about the number of casualties and combatants and also not just that but what happened in the battle. 91.110.142.194 (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have reliable and secondary sources for this information? microbiologyMarcus (petri dish·growths) 20:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So far they have not provided any sources for any information that they have added. Please see their talk page and the history of this page and Battle of Two Rivers. CommissarDoggoTalk? 22:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The number of casualties and combatants