Talk:Anglo-Saxons

message: In other news, "Anglo-Saxons aren’t real, Cambridge tells students" according to a Telegraph article (archived copy here). TSventon (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly a bit twisted in that story but reading between the lines it seems to be about the Anglo-Saxon race idea (not their existence as such) and that idea does exist, and did get a bit of a boost in the early days of genetic studies, when there were claims that genetics could prove that there had been Apartheid and genocide. These things were much discussed among American genealogists for example. But as more data came in things settled down.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, reading between the lines is necessary. It is interesting, but not surprising, that Cambridge is trying to "address recent concerns over use of the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ and its perceived connection to ethnic/racial English identity". There is some criticism of the article at https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/142k7ed/anglosaxons_arent_real_is_this_true/ . TSventon (talk) 08:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Anglo-Saxons aren’t real"

message: The history section seems quite large and detailed given that we already have an article dedicated to the history at History of Anglo-Saxon England. Would it be prudent to merge most or all of the history here into that article in order to let this article focus on the socio-cultural aspects of Anglo-Saxon life?  Ltwin (talk) 02:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this article is just too big, and, especially for the later periods, the history coverage here seems more detailed than that at History of Anglo-Saxon England.  Perhaps some straight swopping of sections should be done. I do think there should be a substantial history sections here. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the article is much too big. It is over 18,000 words. The history coverage in both articles seems sometimes random in what is covered. I will try to work on the History of Anglo-Saxon England article once I have finished the projects I am working on, but this will be very long term. So far as this article is concerned, I suggest deleting the history and changing the title to Anglo-Saxon culture and society. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'd be very strongly against that! Much of the history here seems at least as good quality, and bigger in quantity, as the equivalent parts in the "history" article. We need an article just called "Anglo-Saxons", and this will get far higher views than anything titled "History of ..." or "... culture and society".  Johnbod (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the coverage and takes of the two articles are often rather different, with more cultural material here than the "history" article. This would seem to make a merge rather easier. For example there is a large section on the aftermath and "legacy" of 1066 here, and nothing there. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The History of Anglo-Saxon England  is pretty much the Political History of Anglo-Saxon England. I am not sure that Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language sit particularly well there! They should probably be trimmed a bit or moved here. I think that the History section here goes into a lot more detail and covers more subjects. If the political history is moved out leaving just the cultural history will that shrink the History section enough? Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm rather puzzled by this, frankly. You say "The History of Anglo-Saxon England is pretty much the Political History of Anglo-Saxon England", then seem to complain that it isn't as it has other stuff, & some of that should be moved here. Why on earth don't "Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language sit particularly well there"?  That seems an indefensibly narrow conception of "history", against all contemporary trends. I agree that "the History section here goes into a lot more detail and covers more subjects", but I don't think "de-politicizing" the "history" here is an answer. Nor do I think anything much can be moved here, as it is so much too long already. This is the main article for the topic, and following our normal editorial practices should summarize all the significant sub-articles, which certainly includes the political history. It should not just "focus on the socio-cultural aspects of Anglo-Saxon life".  Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I take Johnbod's argument that an overarching article is useful, but I doubt whether this can be done satisfactorily within Wikipedia's size limit. There are many different articles on aspects of the Anglo-Saxons, and Anglo-Saxons would be more helpful to readers as a disambig pointing readers to the particular aspect they are interested in. The history section in this article could be merged into the history of ASE article. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Christianisation, the Heptarchy, Danegeld and language" are more cultural whereas most of ASE is political. I was not suggesting that we lose them, just move them here. In return move the political history the other way. But as Dudley says that will not shrink the AS article enough. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: (ec) I don't see how the Heptarchy could be more political! And the largely top-down (at least at the start) Christianisation was highly political.  I'm not sure what was "cultural" about Danegeld.  Both articles cover the full political history, in different fashions, so either a careful merge or swops are needed. But I reject this narrow conception of "history", as I'm sure historians would. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Johnbod I probably used too much brevity trying to simplify my point? Anyway the ASE is mainly about battles and political succession. The entire History of Anglo-Saxon England (excluding references) is actually smaller than the history section here, around 900 words by my calculation! I do not have fixed views on this, I just want the best solution. It is a large body of work to fix this, we therefore we need a few ideas how best to do it. It seems to me the same is true of most people contributing to this discussion. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

text: That's actually a considerably job, if done properly. And we ciurrently don't seem to have much agreement about what "the most important information" is. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section length 

message: In case anyone is interested, there is a new article at Anglo-Saxons (slur), with a background section sourced to current affairs sources. TSventon (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxons (slur)