Talk:Danelaw

message: Things will depend on how much of the current History of the Danelaw article we want to keep, and how much it will grow. There is some overlap which will reduce the length of a merged article, but I'm coming round to the opinion that a merger will unbalance this article. I'll give it maybe a week before removing the proposal for a merger; in which case the History of the Danelaw section of this article should be a general one with the History of the Danelaw article being more specific.Koonan the almost civilised 01:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage blending the "History of the Danelaw" article into the main "Danelaw" article. I'm of the humble opinion that the content is not broad enough (at the time of writing) to warrant multiple seperate articles. However, I do agree with your concerns regarding a potential unbalance - perhaps the merger could create a new 'Timeline of the Danelaw' subsection in the main article?
Ghost 9 06:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with History of the Danelaw

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: The map image presently used in this article for the Danelaw in England is from a bit of a sloppy scan, and is fairly low resolution. I've just uploaded this image: it's a scan of a slightly older map, but it's pinpointed at the same date (878 AD), it gives essentially the same boundaries (but not quite), it's much more detailed, and it offers a much higher resolution. You might want to use it instead of the existing image. Nortonius (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map available 

message: :Category:Anglo-Norse England is itself a category within :Category:Anglo-Saxon England. — Robert Greer (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Anglo-Norse England]] vs. [[:Category:Anglo-Saxon England]] 

message: This piece contains the following statement: "Polabian Slavs (Wends) settled in parts of England, apparently as Danish allies.[8]" The footnote is not an academic nor scholarly source, but apparently a blog. To make such an assertion, this statement needs to be backed up by a scholarly source. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have replaced the citation with a citationneeded tag. If noone can find a reliable source for this I propose that the statement is deleted. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slavs settling the Danelaw 

message: "The treaty outlined the boundaries of the Danelaw and allowed for Danish self-rule in the region."
What does this mean, exactly?  Was the Danelaw a separate state in the midst of England, run by the Danish settlers?  Or was it a part of the Kingdom of Denmark?  I realize that "Denmark" was probably a pretty loosely organized polity at the time, but I am wondering if the Danelaw was even notionally a part of it, or if this was just a new state for the invading Danes. --Jfruh (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Denmark's ties to the Danelaw could be compared, without controversy, to England's relationship to Normandy in France. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Danish self-rule" 

message: This piece on the Danelaw now contains assertions about Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans? And lots of other unrelated nonsense as well. This entry has gone off the rails, and needs serious editing to bring it back in line to what the Danelaw was all about. I'll try to get to it, but hopefully an editor who monitors this entry regularly might beat me to it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So you believe that when foreign cliques of dictators overthrow the people, that they forever erase the landscape of the said people, that they disappear? Since the article already mentioned the existence of legal recognition in paper for quite some time after the Conquest, would you whine and cry so bitterly that there exists a context by which to discuss the Danelaw's new establishment of barons in this time period? At which time is the drop off, that the Danelaw exists no more and the people vanish from history? Would you tell the West Countrymen that they are not Anglo-Saxons or at least West Saxons? You would be put in the stocks in Oliver Cromwell's time. Be reasonable. Your editing "contributions" consist chiefly of altering other people's edits, rather than providing any substantial reservoir of information for the benefit of Wikipedia. On what high ground do you attack my significant efforts to bring this article's nature in the real world to life? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted your edits because they're POV, poorly sourced and not in the interests of an encyclopedia. Moreover, you ought to be careful before accusing other editors of making no contributions. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: You need to read the rules of wikipedia. You apparently believe you are on some crusade to set the record straight. That's fine, but then you need to learn to provide some sources. It would also help if you became a registered editor rather than posting from an anonymous IP address. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: What exactly does the Danelaw have to do with Bush administration policies in Iraq? MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: While all contributions to wikipedia are welcome, keep in mind that this is a collaborative enterprise. One should be prepared to offer sourcing for statements in the articles. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

text: For reference, this IP was blocked indefinitely after this and other POV-warrior diatribes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.27.52 (talk) 03:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off the rails 

message: It is claimed that the personal pronoun "she" is derived from Old East Norse. I doubt this, given that the standard Old Norse pronoun is "hon" (still in use in Scandinavia), whereas the word "she" has cognates in other West Germanic languages, such as "sie" in German and "zij" in Dutch. The other words should be correct, though.
Sixtensson (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I would like to improve the article by separating the references cited from the article's footnotes. (see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(footnotes)#Separating_reference_lists_and_explanatory_notes) Please reply to my proposal if you have any strong feeling one way or the other. --Hel-hama (talk) 07:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do so! — Robert Greer (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References section 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Would someone mind reconciling the geographic info in this article?  I came to this page trying to understand the history of the Danelaw with regards to Lancashire.  The first image (in the summary) showing the Danelaw is quite helpful, but the adjacent paragraph refers to fifteen shires in the present tense, and Lancashire is not included.  The image and text in the Geography section seem to imply that the Lancashire/Yorkshire area wasn't really a part of the Danelaw.  Some clarification for we non-experts would be appreciated, even if it is a statement acknowledging there is some ambiguity.  Thanks!  Kduckworth (talk) 20:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geography 

message: Guess that's not important /s  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.175.159 (talk) 00:37, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: No mention about Sweyn Forkbeard or Canute or Aethelred's massacre in the timeline?

message: Would the meaning behind the name Danelaw have anything to do (etymologically) with the ancient abodes of the Wicklaw Hundreds in Southeast Suffolk? If so, maybe some kind of link to the Wicklaw Hundreds in Suffolk would be fitting... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.247.107 (talk) 08:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My first guess would be "no", given that "law" in English place-names frequently refers to a hill, and "wick" can refer to a settlement of some kind or to wych elm trees. There is some support for that here, where it is suggested that the meeting-place for Wicklaw may have been at a site near Wickham Market "known as Gallow Hill": that name is highly suggestive to me of a place associated with hanging, as would have happened through the deliberations of a hundred court. "Gallow" is an acceptable early form of "gallows" according to my dictionary. And hundreds were commonly named after the places where their courts met. But I haven't found a clear answer, and that is just the best I can do. I hope it helps. Nortonius (talk) 18:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any Danelaw link with the Wicklaw Hundreds of Suffolk? 

message: Establishment of Danish self-rule
The opening statement of this section is: "This peace lasted until 884, when Guthrum again attacked Wessex. Alfred defeated him"
As far as I know there is no contemporary evidence for this. The Chronicle does state that 'the raiding-army in East Anglia broke the peace' but there was another raiding-army active in the east of England which had come across from the Continent and besieged Rochester in late 884 and was confronted by Alfred the following year. In 886 Alfred seized the Roman garrison in the City of London. The Danelaw negotiations were not undertaken till after this time. 
"This peace lasted until 884, when Guthrum again attacked Wessex. Alfred defeated him, with peace codified in the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum.[17] The treaty outlined the boundaries of the Danelaw and allowed for Danish self-rule in the region.[18] The Danelaw represented a consolidation of power for Alfred; the subsequent conversion of Guthrum to Christianity underlines the ideological significance of this shift in the balance of power."
Guthrum 'converted' after being defeated in the Battle of Ethandun in 878, not subsequent to the creation of the Danelaw! And the treaty also "represented a consolidation of power" for the Danes! There was no shift in the balance of power and Guthrum did not convert at this time. 
Dantes Warden Dantes Warden (talk) 20:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Guthrum did not break the peace he agreed in 878 and I have deleted the paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guthrum and Alfred 884 

message: Shoebury as shown on the map is incorrectly positioned; Shoebury is on the northern bank of the Thames Estuary where the river meets the North Sea. It is about thirty (30) miles to the south-east of where it is on this map. 94.196.193.58 (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map: The Five Boroughs and the English Midlands in the early 10th century[21] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Danelaw. 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/20110727170304/http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=1461548&search=all&criteria=thynghowe to http://www.pastscape.org/hob.aspx?hob_id=1461548&search=all&criteria=thynghowe
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) 00:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The map used at the head of this page is inaccurate. The boundary between Wessex and the Danelaw began at the River Lea where the Lea drains into the Thames, opposite the Dome. This is east of Poplar, which is east of the City of London, which was controlled by Alfred and Ealdorman Ethelred. The Lea runs almost due north from Poplar and into Hertfordshire while the map on this page puts London well into the Danelaw. A better map is required. 
Dantes Warden (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of problems with maps and very few experts to assist. See Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop, where requests rarely seem to get a response. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding to this, Cornwall and west Devon should be shown as Celtic Ohworkbtch (talk) 00:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map delineating the Danelaw 

message: Some of the maps show modern coastlines, but the coastlines were different at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Getting accurate maps is difficult unless you can pay someone for a good map. See the discussion above. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coastlines 

message: The Danelaw was basically in Mercia, at this point in history Angle-land did not ecist. Also Angle-land is not Great Britain as Great nritain did not exist for many centuries later eg 1707. Alba became Scotland in the 9th c ad. So lindisfarne was part of the Kingdom of Northumbria in 793 ad when Danes invaded Lindisfarne.Please make necessary adjustments and investigate history a bit more thouroughly.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:168C:EB00:288A:66B1:B6E5:4967 (talk) 16:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Please specify more and also keep in mind Wikipedia operate by WP:COMMONNAME. TylerBurden (talk) 20:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Several things incorrect with your statement - please see the relevant articles before sputtering rubbish.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.27.52 (talk) 03:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danelaw 

message: Cornwall was never a dependency of wessex.
Around 710, Ina, King of the West Saxons, attempted to destroy Dumnonia. Over the next fifty years, several battles took place with the Saxons mainly victorious. However, in 722, Roderic, King of the Britons in Wales and Cornwall, repelled Adelred, King of Wessex. In 807 Viking Danes formed an alliance with the Cornish against the Saxons. The Saxon, Egbert of Wessex conquered Cornwall in 814 but was unsuccessful in subjugating the people despite having laid waste the land. The Cornish eventually rose against Egbert only to be defeated at Galford on the River Lew in West Devon.
In 838 a Cornish-Danish alliance was initially successful in a number of skirmishes with Egbert, but was eventually defeated in a pitched battle at Hingston Down, near Callington. This was the last battle against the Saxons. 217.39.18.126 (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cornwall 

message: I notice in the section "Danish–Norwegian conflict in the North Sea", there is a statement suggesting the relationship between Harald Hardrada and Magnus is that of brothers ... but on Harald's page and on Magnus' page, it says the relationship is of uncle-nephew.  As I don't know which is correct, can someone look at this? Billy Tallent (talk) 04:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article says Harald Hardrada is Magnus I's brother?