Talk:History of Anglo-Saxon England

message: 'several modern archaeologists have now re-assessed the invasion model, and have developed a co-existence model largely based on the Laws of Ine. ... Although it was possible for the Britons to be rich freemen in Anglo-Saxon society, generally it seems that they had a lower status than that of the Anglo-Saxons.'
This isn't clearly formulated and explained at all. Invasion and coexistence do not exclude each other. An invasion can be followed by coexistence (especially an unequal one as implied by the Laws of Ine). The Laws of Ine only prove that the Britons weren't subject to complete genocide and enslavement everywhere in Anglo-Saxon England, but that's a rather low bar - not every invasion needs to be genocidal. As a matter of fact, what needs to be explained is how coexistence could have been brought about by something other than invasion. What's the theory - most of the 'promised land' was just miraculously vacant and waiting for Germanic immigrants to settle it, so the Britons didn't mind the newcomers at all, welcomed them with a Thanksgiving dinner and needed absolutely no violence to be convinced to allow huge numbers of Germanic-speaking neighbours to settle beside them and to  establish explicitly Anglo-Saxon kingdoms with kings and elites from their ranks on what had used to be their territory, while making them second-class citizens, too? It's not as if they've got an absence of agriculture and foreign diseases to explain this convenient vacancy, as in the Americas. The article should explain, however briefly, how this is supposed to make sense. --178.249.169.67 (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: IP editor, I have changed invasion model to traditional model to make it clear that it is the traditional view earlier in the paragraph that is being reassessed. The Historical context section gives Bede's account, based on Gildas, of the arrival of the Saxons as invited mercenaries rather than invaders and a later rebellion by the mercenaries. TSventon (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Not invasion, but coexistence'? 

message: This article deals with the history of Anglo-Saxon England - given that, I don't see any reason to name it "Anglo-Saxon England (410-1066)" as that is unnecessary use of parenthesis when a simpler and more useful title is available. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the date of 410 makes no sense. That is the traditional date that the Romans left, not when the Anglo-Saxons arrived. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name of article 

message: I started a discussion at Talk:Anglo-Saxons#History section length to see if any other editors felt that the history section there was too long and would be better off merged into this article.  Ltwin (talk) 02:59, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section at Anglo-Saxon article 

message: Now the short description shows as "none". The comment inside the short description template of the page did not correctly reflect the "none" option.  I removed the comments and now the page correctly states "This page intentionally has no description." The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you, I could see that the short description was tagged as "none", but not that the tag had been coded wrongly. TSventon (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  None in short desc