Talk:Ecclesiastical History of the English People

message: Shouldn't this article be moved to Ecclesiastical History of the English People, since this is the English Wikipedia?  I know the book was written in Latin, but the article about Euclid's Elements is located at Euclid's Elements, not Στοιχεία του Ευκλείδη.   –Benjamin  (talk)  01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Latin manuscipts on Wikipedia are called by the Latin name, but also many by the translation, there is no definitive rule. Probably comes down to most common and/or most professional use. --Stbalbach 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the article should be moved.  In fact all articles with Latin titles should be moved, but at least this one should be.  So do it! :) Wjhonson 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  When a work is commonly known by a Latin name, that name should be preserved and used to reference the work.  Species Plantarum (Linneaus) is always referred to as Species Plantarum.  I have never heard it called anything else.  This would also be applied to Systema Naturae.  Changing these to English equivalents would create confusion rather than assuage it.  The title of each work should be judged individually rather than appling a "blanket policy" to works written or titled in another language. Arx Fortis 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree also! the work was written in Latin (as mentioned above)and so should be kept in the original language. If it was transferred to English it would lose some of its feeling in the writing. and also it wourld have been written in Old English, something that we could not understand even if we tried. In the translation from Latin to English it would lose a lot (like i already said).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.164.254 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move discussion

message: The claim here that Bede invented footnotes seems bizarre to me. I'm pretty certain that his _Historia ecclesiastica_ doesn't contain any, for a start! And I would have expected to have heard of this, since my professional research relates to Anglo-Saxon history. Does anyone know of any basis for this claim? Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.
It is bizarre, delete it.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Wjhonson 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bede and footnoting 

message: The 4th paragraph states Beed cited his references.  The 5th paragraph states Bede did not provide refernces.  Which is true?...or am I mis-reading something here?
Perhaps sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't (much like Wikipedia heheh).
Either way, neither of these assertions have their own references.  Not really sure what should be done here, but perhaps someone knowledgeable can clarify and clean it up? Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed both references.  That he did, or that he didnt, seems to be in conflict and so should have a citation itself instead of just being a bald statement. Wjhonson 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bede's References 

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. 
I propose that we move this page to Ecclesiastical History of the English People.  I see from a discussion above that this is likely to be controversial, so I am listing it using the "Requesting potentially controversial moves" method at WP:RM.
I checked eleven secondary sources; I will give very abbreviated bibliographic info for them here but I can provide more if needed.  Page numbers are exemplary to make it easy to check a ref; the uses are throughout as far as I checked.
Books using "Ecclesiastical History of the English People", "Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation", or "Ecclesiastical History":
*Swanton, Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p.129 n. 12
*Campbell, The Anglo-Saxon State, per index and p. 43
*Abels, Alfred the Great, xi (though he uses HE as the abbreviation, a relic of the Latin)
*Farmer/Sherley-Price, Bede's Ecclesiastical History etc.; throughout
*Keynes & Lapidge, Asser's Alfred the Great, generally, e.g. p.40, though the index itself gives the Latin first
*Fletcher, Who's Who in Roman Britain and Anglo-Saxon England, p. 70
*Campbell et al., The Anglo-Saxons, p. 29
*Hunter Blair, Roman Britain and Early England, p. 3
*Hunter Blair, An Introduction to Anglo-Saxon England, p. 322
Books using "Historia Ecclesiastica":
*Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p. 8
* Kirby, The Earliest English Kings, p. 25 n. 24; Kirby actually uses both forms, but the Latin is cited first.
I think this establishes that the English form is now more current in the secondary literature.
Where the Latin form is used, it's actually cited as "Historia Ecclesiastica", which is currently a dab, rather than the full form of "Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum".  I would think there's a case to be made for making this article the target and putting a dab note at the top saying "for other uses of "Historia Ecclesiastica", see "Historia Ecclesiastica (disambiguation)".  I'll refrain from making that move proposal now in case it confuses the issue, but anyone who comments on this proposal might comment on that too.  Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's currently not enough separate information in the two articles to justify a split, it's true.  In the somewhat parallel case of Asser, who is really only notable for the work he wrote, the man and his work are both covered in a single article.  However, in Bede's case, I think there is a great deal to say about the Ecclesiastical History; the manuscript history itself could take quite a bit of coverage; and Bede is important for other reasons than just EH.  Hence I think I'd prefer to keep them separate.  Mike Christie (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then the English is probably better, I agree. And if you do intend to expand this article, it should not be merged. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 1 June 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.
The consensus view seems to be that the article should be merged into Bede, making any page moves redundant. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Various footnotes used in this article (such as "Farmer 1978" and "Higham 2006") are links which go to nowhere. The reference system used in this article only works when there is a bibliography. I suggest that the editor who inserted these references should either use the traditional method of referencing or write a bibliography so that the links actually go to the full title of the work sighted.--Britannicus (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The article says U has been at Weissenburg since the end of the Middle Ages. This conflicts with the information in the List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica article, which says U is at Wolfenbüttel and is known at one time to have been at Weissenburg. I assume (guesswork!) the Weissenburg referred to is the once-German town now in France and now called Wissembourg. Perhaps someone who knows could make the appropriate edits. Thanks.
Frans Fowler (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "History of the manuscripts" section: Manuscript U at Weissenburg 

message: I've deleted the note that read ". This refers to a passage that reads "remained for almost a fortnight. At this time* a terrible plague of Saracens ravaged Gaul with cruel bloodshed and not long afterwards* they received the due reward of their treachery* in the same kingdom. In the same year the holy man of God".
The note on this in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford World's Classics) by Bede, Judith McClure, Roger Collins and Bertram Colgrave says "not long afterwards: the only events this can refer to are the defeat of the first Arab attack on Gaul at Toulouse in 721 or that of another Arab raid at the battle of Poitiers in October (?) of 732 or 733. If it were the latter, this would represent a late revision or posthumous editorial addition to the text of Book V. Bede's lack of contemporary information about Arab attacks on Gaul is also apparent in the Chronicle." This does not suggest a problem with the dating of 731. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: fwiw, many historians think the Battle of Tours was actually in 733 anyway - see note 27 in the 1st line there. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  731 and Muslim battle 

message: The Latin name is shown in title case in the OUP edition of the Ecclesiastical History, and it should surely be the same in the title of this article. Any reason why it is not? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because no one has gotten around to it. For a very long time ... italic titles were "discouraged" so a lot of articles still lack it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Ealdgyth. What do you think of reviving Mike Christie's proposal to rename as the English name? I agree for the reasons he gave, but it seems to have failed for lack of opinions either way. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think that would be a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title case 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Ecclesiastical History of the English People's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DNB":
From Geoffrey of Monmouth: J. C. Crick, "Monmouth, Geoffrey of (d. 1154/5)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 7 June 2009
From Eorcenberht of Kent: S. E. Kelly, Eorcenberht, Oxford Online Dictionary of National Biography, 2004
From John Allen Giles: 
From Augustine of Canterbury: Mayr-Harting "Augustine" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Wilfrid: Thacker "Wilfrid" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Justus: Hunt "Justus" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From John Smith (priest, born 1659): 
From Wighard: Bateson "Wigheard" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Honorius of Canterbury: Hunt "Honorius (St Honorius)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Nothhelm: Hunt and Mayr-Harting "Nothhelm" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Cuthbert: 
From William de St-Calais: Barlow "St Calais, William of" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Gesta Pontificum Anglorum: Thomson "Malmesbury, William of (b. c.1090, d. in or after 1142)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Rædwald of East Anglia: Hunt, "Redwald", Dictionary of National Biography, p. 386
From Mellitus: Brooks "Mellitus" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Deusdedit of Canterbury: Thacker "Deusdedit" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Eadbald of Kent: S. E. Kelly, Eadbald, Oxford Online Dictionary of National Biography, 2004
From Romanus (bishop of Rochester): Beazley "Romanus" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From John Stevens (translator): 
From Sæberht of Essex: Brooks "Mellitus (d. 624)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Eanflæd: Thacker, Eanflæd
From Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England: Mayr-Harting "Augustine [St Augustine] (d. 604)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From List of Henry I's new men: Doherty "Henry I's new men (act. 1100-1135)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
From Henry of Huntingdon: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Henry
From Laurence of Canterbury: Brooks "Laurence" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Ecclesiastical History of the English People]]