Talk:Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia article revision

Note: The article now uses the term extermination in place of genocide. Gordon410 (talk) 12:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain Wikipedia Article Revision

Gordon410

Have you ever argued with a friend about something, only to realize that both of your views were equally valid? Afterwards, the competition was over and you likely walked away in agreement. If this ever happened to you, you may relate to the following historical debate. The section ‘Romano-Brittonic’ peoples’ fate in the south-east in the Wikipedia article, Anglo-Saxon Settlement of Britain, claims that there are two competing theories: (1) the natives were invaded, enslaved, and genocided and (2) the natives had “a strong Celtic contribution to Englishness.” The first theory was proposed by Edward Augustus Freeman, and the second was held by Grant Allen, an essayist. From the information given in the Wikipedia article, the theories of Freeman and Allen appear simultaneously valid.

The article appears to introduce two valid theories. Despite this, the theories are claimed to be in competition with each other. In order for the theories to compete, only one theory can win – this is what makes two theories compete. However, from the information given in the article, one cannot claim that one theory is definitely correct and the other theory is definitely incorrect. By making the claim that the theories compete, Wikipedia is making a generalization. In fact, according to the information given in this particular Wikipedia article, both theories may be correct. Keep in mind, only information in the article itself will be used here. It will be shown that the information given in the article concerning invasion, slavery, and genocide are not in competition with a Celtic contribution to Englishness. It seems fair that I only need to look at this particular article to see if the theories truly are simultaneously valid. If there is information somewhere else that demands the two theories must be opposing, by all means, we should not ignore it. However, this Wikipedia article ought also to include any information that demonstrates that the two theories are opposing. Yet, this is not the case. There is no demonstration in the article explaining how one theory opposes the other theory.

It is possible that the theories are in competition with each other. However, the article does not explain why the two theories are opposing. Therefore, by the information given in the article, the two theories appear equally and simultaneously valid. One must not mistake validity of a theory for truth of a theory. I am not advocating that the theories are absolutely both true. I am only saying that both theories can be true.

To go about proving that both theories appear simultaneously valid, I will expose the vagueness of each theory, and I will show how one theory is compatible with the other. First, it is important to understand the events of the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain before one can understand the validity of either theory. I would highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article first before continuing. The following account is not necessarily historically accurate, but it is my best attempt at relating the event. The information I state has been inspired by several sources; however, one should understand it is mere conjecture – not fact.

The Roman Empire controlled Britain until the Roman Empire lost control of Britain to outside forces early in the 5th century AD. Plagued by Pict and Scott invasion and famine , Britain weakened. The tyrant of Briton (possibly Vortigern ) resorted to asking the Anglo-Saxons to help defend Britain against the Picts. The Anglo-Saxons already occupied parts of Britain during the latter parts of Roman rule, and they were continuing to arrive from the continent onto the East Coast of Britain. Although the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be the protectors of Britain , the Briton civilians, natives of Britain, were suspicious of the Anglo-Saxons' true intent of protection. Likely, many of the Britons saw the protection as an Anglo-Saxon decoy to seize power of the land. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons' supplies and food. [Why are footnotes on wrong pages?] The Britons and Anglo-Saxons scuffled over the wages for defense, and the Anglo-Saxons refused to assist the Britons anymore, but the Anglo-Saxons remained in Britain anyway. The Britons resisted the Anglo-Saxon settlement for some time. However, the much stronger Anglo-Saxon army rose to prominence, built kingdoms, and established the law and government of the land. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class. The Anglo-Saxon language became dominant according to the contact and transfer principles of language. This is an examination to see if the theory that the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain works alongside the theory that the natives contributed heavily to Englishness. If one finds no fault in the two theories occurring simultaneously, he can conclude that both theories are simultaneously and equally valid theories. According to the Wikipedia article, at a high estimate of Anglo-Saxon population and a low estimate of native population, the “Britons are likely to have outnumbered Anglo-Saxons by at least four to one.” The possibility for a successful Anglo-Saxon invasion of the natives with a ratio of one to four is the matter of discussion. Until a possibility of invasion under the given population estimates is determined to be either high or low, any truth of one theory is independent from the truth of the other. However, if it is shown that an invasion could not have occurred with a minority force of invaders, the Celtic contribution may be shown to invalidate the invasion theory and vice versa. But it has not been shown to be so. Thus, the possibility of both/either theories being correct/incorrect with the given population estimates is not determined. From this, we conclude that both theories are equally and simultaneously valid.

If the Anglo-Saxons invaded, given with all research and evidence of population estimates, a strong genetic contribution of the natives is quite likely. If the two populations were split in half, two to three, three to seven, or a ratio near those ranges, the Celts would continue contributing through their genes. The words “strong contribution” do not imply a majority of contribution from the Celts. One half is equally strong as another half. If the text said “stronger”, it would imply something different. However, it merely says strong. Nevertheless, as it stands, the Celts seemed to fairly outnumber the Anglo-Saxons. If the Celts were invaded and furthermore defeated, they still remained in the land. Perhaps they lived alongside the Anglo-Saxons as slaves or as a poor social group.

The exact meaning of invasion is rather vague. Only some of the Anglo-Saxons may have invaded and it might have been a combination between invasion and strategic settlement. Who knows to what extent the Anglo-Saxons invaded Britain? The number of men could have been as low as a thousand or as high as ten thousand men. The exact figures and the extent they were successful are unknown. Even through a peaceful migration, some new Anglo-Saxons may have arrived on the shores to put down rebellious natives. And who is to say that the invasion was so successful? It may have contributed to the weakening of the native forces, but by no means must it be the only way they attacked. As they may have attacked through deception as well. Two scenarios are possible: we ignore population estimates and look at the two theories blindly. Or we can look at population estimates and compare each theory to the estimates. First, let us ignore population estimates. In that case, it is scenario one. The Anglo-Saxons invade the native’s land. The Anglo-Saxons succeed and win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land as a conquered people or perhaps even slaves. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

Including population estimates, scenario two arises. The Anglo-Saxons, outnumbered four to one, invade the native’s land. The Anglo-Saxons succeed, and they win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land and become a conquered people. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

Now, scenario one seems the more likely to happen with no other knowledge of events. Considering the Anglo-Saxons were far outnumbered, it seems less likely that scenario two could have happened. Regardless, one cannot reject that possibility. After all, the possibility for the natives to outnumber the invaders at those numbers and the invasion to still be successful is not yet determined. Is the possibility greater than 50 percent or less than 50 percent? One just cannot say. That would be entirely based on speculation and interpretation, but not fact. Wikipedia should not be based on one’s speculation or interpretation. Therefore, both theories are equally valid until the possibility can be told by a reasonable scholar. Enslavement and Celtic contribution being combined into one working theory is easy to construct. No matter what the population was, one can pretty much conclude that the Anglo-Saxons became dominant. This can be seen through language and culture. Also, we can pretty easily conclude that enslavement was somewhat alive in Britain, at least with the Welsh, whose name is derived from the word Wealas, which came to mean “slaves.”

Now, similarly to the first section, one must wonder how so many natives were enslaved by so many. But my argument is similar. We just don’t know to what extent slavery ensued. We know the natives were the poor and subservient society. Does that make them slaves? Well to some it depends on your interpretation on slavery. Perhaps, some natives may have been so desperate for food and shelter they were forced to give up their freedom and subjected themselves to slavery. The probability the slavery did or did not happen is unknown.

This is an examination to see if the theory that the Anglo-Saxons at one time committed acts of genocide against the natives of Britain works alongside the theory that the natives contributed heavily to Englishness. According to the United Nations Genocide Convention, genocide is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group". The key words are "in part". That definition of genocide does not mean a complete destruction of a people. The Anglo-Saxons may have killed off several groups or clans of the natives yet still not enough to completely wipe them out. Therefore, even with a strong Celtic contribution, genocide of perhaps maybe 10 percent of the native people would not change the fact that the Celts outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons just a little less than four to one. It may turn to 3.5 to 1, or even as low as 1 percent of the population was killed systematically which would still be considered genocide. Even though the Anglo-Saxons were largely outnumbered, who is to say that the natives outnumbered the Anglo-Saxons in all places? In certain areas, such as Anglo-Saxon settlements, some surrounding natives may have been clutched into the wrong hands as a result of the dispute of land. To teach the natives a lesson, the Anglo-Saxons may have raised a hand against the natives. Whether this was a result of possible hundreds of years of war between the natives and Anglo-Saxons or whether it was not, who is to say that no genocide ever was committed against the natives? Once again, we don’t know how likely or unlikely genocide is when in view of a Celtic contribution which would be in this case, once again, genetic.

Now, it would only be fair to put all three of Freeman’s theories, invasion, slavery, and genocide together and combine them with Allen’s theory of Celtic contribution to Englishness to see that if they all can work together in agreement and demonstrate the validity of each theory at the same time. The Anglo-Saxons, out-numbered four to one, invade the native’s land. Through acts of deception and perhaps some genocide in places, the Anglo-Saxons succeed and win whatever struggle ensues against the natives. The Celts remain in the land and become a conquered people. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class, even possibly so low they had to resort to becoming slaves just to survive. But, of course, their genes are carried on, and their strong contribution is genetic.

One doesn’t know the likelihood or unlikelihood of all these theories working together and therefore we cannot form a foundation to say they are in disagreement or that they agree completely. One just doesn’t know. He can even form a logical conclusion, but it does not change the fact that we cannot say the probability of one theory working while another theory is not working at the same time. Therefore, both theories are valid together and both theories are equally valid simultaneously until a substantial evidence shows that one theory is incompatible with the other. Each theory holds its own validity within recognition of the other. These theories are too diverse to draw any conclusions either that they completely disagree or that they completely agree. See, in order for two theories to be in competition, one theory must pose threats to the other theory. Yet they are just too different for the two of them to be competing. I have shown the methods to validate each theory to be accurate simultaneously to some extent. Therefore, a competition of the two theories is not shown to be existent in this Wikipedia article. Since both theories are equally valid, the claim that there are two competing theories is false.  

Bibliography

Wikipedia contributors, "Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain," Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anglo-Saxon_settlement_of_Britain&oldid=722397103 (accessed June 1, 2016).

Going, Chris, and Boast Robin. "BRITAIN AND ROME: A LASTING AFFAIR?" Cambridge Anthropology 17, no. 2 (1994): 103-18. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23820417.

Gildas, and J. A. Giles. De Excidio Britanniae. Willits, CA: British American Books, 1900. (Gildas, The Ruin of Britain)

Ward, John H. "Vortigern and the End of Roman Britain." Britannia 3 (1972): 277-89.

Ward-Perkins, Bryan. "Why Did the Anglo-Saxons Not Become More British?" The English Historical Review 115, no. 462 (2000): 513-33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/579665.

Higham, N. (2004), From sub-Roman Britain to Anglo-Saxon England: Debating the Insular Dark Ages. History Compass, 2: **. doi: 10.1111/j.1478-0542.2004.00085.x Page Three.

De Excidio XXI, 1, Winterbottom, Gildas, p. 24.

http://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_analysis_framework.pdf

General Assembly of the United Nations. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. 1949.

Gordon410 (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Just a short comment as I'm not an expert on this subject. My understanding is that the traditional notion is that the Anglo-Saxon immigrants almost completely eradicated the native Celtic population or perhaps also partly pushed them further into the north and west of Britain. There were various reasons for this, one of which being that philologists found very few Celtic loanwords in Old English, much fewer than they would have expected under Celtic continuity.

However, especially since J. R. R. Tolkien's famous lecture "English and Welsh", scholars have begun to re-assess the evidence and it is increasingly thought that the native Britons did remain as a class of serfs under the Anglo-Saxons, who formed the élites, and via a process of élite dominance caused the Britons to gradually assimilate to Old English. Possible reasons for the dearth of Celtic loanwords in Old English include sociolinguistic reasons (according to Thomason & Kaufman 1988, when a population undergoes a language shift towards a more prestigious language, the lexical contribution of the substratum language to the new language is often virtually nonexistent, apart from names), and the likely possibility that the Celts of the southeast of Britain first shifted to British Romance before shifting again to Old English. Also, there may have little incentive or need for the Anglo-Saxons to borrow words from Celtic because the environment was so similar climatically to continental Europe, so that there were few or no unfamiliar animals and plants (for example), whose native names one might wish to borrow. (Contrast the numerous Nahuatl borrowings in Mexican Spanish, for example.) Moreover, the substratum influence on English may have been overlooked or underestimated, and may be more in the realm of grammar, compare Brittonicisms in English. In the north and southwest of England, where Celtic was spoken longer, Celtic influence is more palpable than in the southeast.

But the main reason why the eradication narrative has increasingly been rejected is the genetic evidence, which indicates that the Anglo-Saxon contribution changed the genetic makeup of Britain very little. Archaeology similarly suggests much more continuity than traditionally assumed, and in fact, historical documents also attest to indigenous Britons living in the Anglo-Saxon domain, mainly as slaves or serfs (wealhas). Famously, however, even an Anglo-Saxon writer such as Cædmon bears a name of British Celtic origin. Therefore, the notion that a mass extermination (i. e., genocide) of native Celts took place in Anglo-Saxon England is now outdated (see Pattison 2008). I don't think anyone seriously assumes a genocide anymore in light of newer findings. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: Thank you for your comment. Please tell me why people reject the possibility of a genocide. For example, what are the "newer findings" of which you speak? Thank you for your response. Sincerely, Gordon410 Gordon410 (talk) 13:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Many archaeologists, population geneticists, and historians do reject the genocide viewpoint, others support it or variants of it (apartheid theory). It is all in the article, and it is called a scholarly debate. This is a concept that you seem to find difficult to apprehend. There is no place in any Wikipedia article that is the subject of scholarly debate for personal syntheses such as you are continuously putting forward. There is no one correct analysis/synthesis of this complex and debatable subject. Please desist from trying to impose one on the article. Urselius (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: Who are the "many archaeologists, population geneticists, and historians" that "reject the genocide viewpoint"? You and I cannot discuss this topic reasonably until we agree on the definition of genocide. You think that genocide is a complete eradication of an ethnicity/race (correct me if I am wrong). I think that genocide is a murder of an ethnicity/race either in part or in whole. Is this understandable? Gordon410 (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Francis Pryor, Bryan Sykes, Stephen Oppenheimer, Richard Hodges, Markku Filppula, Nicholas Higham etc.

Gordon 410, you miss the point entirely. "Genocide" is just a shorthand term. It encompasses a viewpoint that pre-dates the entry of the word genocide into the English language. 18th and 19th century historians and antiquarians perceived that the English did not share characteristics with the Celtic peoples of the British Isles. They saw a huge moral, intellectual and cultural gap between these two groups. The lack of apparent influence of Celtic languages on English, essentially at the vocabulary level, reinforced this attitude. Taken together, these perceptions informed the early generations of physical anthropologists - such as John Beddoe, author of "The Races of Britain" - who then considered that they could discern physical differences between the English and the Celtic peoples. To explain all of these differences, real or perceived, the theory that the English derived almost exclusively from Germanic immigrants became predominant. This theory required that the early Anglo-Saxons had exterminated or almost exterminated the native British of the future England and/or drove them into Wales, Cornwall and Brittany. The extermination theory was created to pander to essentially racist attitudes and to account for some real attributes of the English language. Urselius (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: What point am I missing? With all due respect, I correctly defined genocide, and you incorrectly defined it. I see that you have replaced genocide with the more clear term extermination. Thus, you must agree with me to some extent, is that not true? Gordon410 (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

You are missing the point that the extermination theory was created to nullify any influence or involvement of the native British on the birth of the English people. The various scholars who had this viewpoint considered that the Britons were killed or driven out of the areas the English settled, that they contributed nothing at all, genetic or otherwise, to the 'English race'. That you do not seem to grasp that this is entirely and completely incompatible with the majority modern view that the native British were largely or substantially ancestral to the modern English exasperates me almost beyond my abilities to remain civil. This has nothing at all to do with what you think or I think may really have happened, it is about presenting an article that reflects the intellectual history and current scholarship concerning a complex subject. I could write screeds and screeds about what I consider is the most likely scenario, but my opinions, equally with as yours, do not matter a jot or tittle in the context of a Wikipedia article. Urselius (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

My understanding is that the traditional view was that the Anglo-Saxons replaced the indigenous Celtic population who were pushed into Wales, Cornwall and other places or were killed or in some cases assimilated, and their language was replaced by Old English which developed into Middle English. A more recent view is that the Anglo-Saxons became the governing elite and became assimilated into the population of Albion, particularly after they themselves were replaced as elites by the Normans. Certainly it could be possible that elements of both are true, but they appear to be very different views. TFD (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: "Certainly it could be possible that elements of both are true, but they appear to be very different views." It does not matter whether they are different views or not. This is irrelevant. We are discussing the word "competing" not "differing." Might I suggest that we replace the word "competing" in this article with the word "differing"? It would be much more accurate. Gordon410 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I hate to rain on anyone's parade - but both Freeman and Allen propounded their interesting theories in the absence of the modern DNA studies (which all suggest substantial and prolonged interbreeding) and modern philological theories which reduce the use of "counting loanwords" where a society has a dominant language as a means of making such leaps. The fact that any loanwords exist is, in fact, quite important and indicate that there was no attempt at "genocide" per se, as the DNA studies confirm. In addition, the possibility of "words in common before the migrations" is substantial, as the Grimms noted in the 19th century (language is, of course, not "DNA linked"). The result of course is that the two "theories" are individually, and pretty much equally, discredited as being full explanations of the changes in culture found, and neither explains why the DNA results show as much "old DNA" as they do, just as others now have to rewrite theories about the "extinction" of the Neanderthals. The two theories, then, should be labeled as "Nineteenth century theories" and not presented as therefore actually covering what really occurred where we have genetic evidence which was not available then. Collect (talk) 12:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Thank you for your comment. Since this is a discussion about the revision of the article, how can the article be written to better state what you have said? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Simple. Place the "historic theories" into a shortened section with that name, then segue into the DNA discussions, which, as far as I can tell, make the extended discussions about 19th century theories a tad moot. Collect (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is not as simple as that. A number of modern DNA-based studies (see Weale et al. who found that in England 50% to 100% of paternal genetic inheritance was derived from incomers originating in the Germanic coastlands of the North Sea) are compatible with the old extermination scenario. A neat, old-new bipartite arrangement of the article is just not possible. Urselius (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

"Compatible" is insufficient where most current research is strongly reliant on the DNA findings which do not support a general "extermination" position at all. See (inter alia) English DNA 'one-third' Anglo-Saxon "Contrary to narratives suggesting large-scale displacement of the Britons by Anglo-Saxon invaders, the researchers found evidence of intermarriage in the earliest phase of settlement.", and so on. "Extermination" has, Dalek-wise, been "exterminated". Collect (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Guess who added the section you are quoting from? Any single invalidation of a simple old-new bipartite split invalidates it entirely as an organisational option. The organisation of the article into thematic sections - historical sources, archaeology, linguistics, molecular evidence - was arrived at by discussion. It was considered the best option for the arrangement of rather complex issues. A two-part organisation - all the evidence behind 'replacement', then all the evidence behind 'assimilation/elite dominance' - was considered but rejected. Do not imagine that I espouse the extermination theory in any way, but it exists and has to be addressed. Urselius (talk) 15:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

And when science disproves one of the "theories" (that the prior inhabitants were "exterminated") it is odd to think that the new evidence should be discounted on the basis of prior discussions on a talk page. In short - later events and tests cam, indeed, invalidate the former organisation of an article. The BBC article I quoted from is by "Paul Rincon Science editor, BBC News." The researchers directly quoted by Rincon are Schiffels and Bradley (two separate studies). Collect (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please read the article that this is the talk page of, before commenting on its organisation or content. I added a section on the Schiffels paper and highlighted some of its anomalous findings. I am a geneticist and know personally some of the authors of the papers described in the text of the article. Once again I would recommend that you read the whole article, then come back with suggestions. Urselius (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please note that I appear to have been around long enough not to be lectured to. Also note that while I have a science background, Wikipedia does not rely on what editors "know" but only on what reliable sources state as fact. At this point, the evidence of extermination seems clearly exaggerated. indeed. Collect (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what your history of Wikipedia editing consists of, or how long you have been editing. If you think that editors should not have a knowledge of the subject of any articles they are actively editing then there is very little I can say to you. The extermination view of English ethnogenesis was mainstream until the 1960s, therefore it positively must be covered in any encyclopaedic treatment of the subject. Also, although the majority of modern authorities do not subscribe to it, it still exists, though often in a modified or attenuated form. It is not given undue prominence in the article, and I do not support it myself. Urselius (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I suggest you read up on the "Five Pillars" then. The intent of Wikipedia is to use "reliable sources" which means that it is the content of those sources which gets used, and not specific personal knowledge or expertise of the editors. And yes - non-mainstream theories should get covered - in their historical context. For us to present a theory which has been discredited as though it currently has noticeable support would be to violate the principle that this is an encyclopedia - not a place to find "flat earth arguments" presented as other than in an historical context. As "extermination" has been actually disproven by the DNA studies, to present it as "possible fact" is wrong. Collect (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, who's not to lecture who? Johnbod (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: Thank you for changing genocide to extermination. However, slavery and invasion still need to be corrected to more accurate terms or omitted entirely. Do you agree? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

@Collect: Well said! I concur. If a theory has been disproven, it should not be espoused as fact. Gordon410 (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

TY - though it should still be in a "historic theories" section, of course. Collect (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Will this be a completely new section on the article entitled historic theories? Or, should the current section be renamed? Gordon410 (talk) 01:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Please understand that the extermination theory, and variations on it, is still current. Weale et al. is very recent scholarship and it claimed that 50% to 100% of English genetics derives from North Germany. Most other recent scholarship does not agree with this extreme view, but it is not unanimous. You cannot consign it to a historical theory section. Urselius (talk) 07:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

100%? This seems wildly spectacular. I would question the authority of Weale et al. Should this be recognized? Doubtfully. Extermination is not a recognizable contemporary theory. Don't listen to the 1 percent. Gordon410 (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

But we, as Wikipedia editors, are not here to create a "most likely scenario" or to say what we feel is the correct interpretation of the evidence. We are here to reflect what is in the scholarship, whether we agree with it or not. Urselius (talk) 07:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a flat earth argument to me. 67.155.22.222 (talk) 11:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is not supported by reliable sources, and probably couldn't be, remove it per WP:PROVEIT I would also suggest moving the fringe theory of extermination to the bottom, as it is a fringe theory, and you, Urselius, agree that it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories

People are just hesitant to remove it because of the scholarly source. Which people don't even think is reliable but is mentioned anyway. Does this make sense? Gordon410 (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

No - what Urselius said. The genetics have certainly not settled down yet, and "extermination" should not be taken literally. You'll notice that most larger groups who've been victims of genocide are still around, if at reduced numbers. Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you agree with Urselius you also agree that the extermination theory is quite silly. This nonsense should be removed from the article at once (except for historical documentation) per WP:Fringe_theories. The theory that the natives of Britain were exterminated is generally considered highly unlikely by all sources, except for one source claiming the opposite. I do not think one source is enough grounds for accepting the theory as necessary for acknowledgement. "Weale et al. is very recent scholarship and it claimed that 50% to 100% of English genetics derives from North Germany. Most other recent scholarship does not agree with this extreme view." - Urselius. An extreme view seems to be a fringe theory. Besides, Weale's study does not even give evidence to extermination unless the number was 100%. But the number is between 50 and 100 allowing a certain number of natives to survive. Thus, my case is that no contemporary source supports the extermination theory and should be edited for lacking sources. Okay, I realize that Weale is not fringe. But I am making a case that extermination is fringe and should be classified as a historical theory not a contemporary theory as it is now. Can we conclude on this?Gordon410 (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Drawn here from WP:FTN. Is the “one source claiming the opposite“ supposed to be Weale et al.? ISTM there are two separate issues: the accuracy of their estimate of the proportion of identifiably Germanic contribution to the English population’s Y-DNA (it’s obviously very imprecise—can we just say ‘a majority’?), and what inferences can be drawn from such figures. The authors themselves seem to favour large numbers of immigrants, while specifically disclaiming their ability to conclude how the converse reduction in the indigenous contribution may have been effected. Even granting its experimental design is adequate, it would be OR at best to claim the paper supports an extermination theory, whether or not its results are “extreme“. I agree this idea should be considered outdated unless there are other RS explicitly endorsing its continued viability.—Odysseus1479 23:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Harke in 1998 said that German scholars disbelieved the survival of any Britons, while the younger English archaeologists were reluctant to accept the arrival of any Anglo-Saxons. Both extremes of the argument are current. Both, and all the viewpoints in-between, should and shall be reflected in the article. The basic tenets of how Wikipedia works makes this unavoidable, and it is advantageous in general terms. Urselius (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

From what source did you find this information? Gordon410 (talk) 02:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Catherine Hill's book - Hills, Catherine (2003), Origins of the English, London: Duckworth, ISBN 0-7156-3191-8. I can find the page if you absolutely need it. Urselius (talk) 07:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

If it is a good source, how come it's not in the article? Gordon410 (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

The book is cited in the article several times, I think. The inclusion of screeds of references supporting the extermination/expulsion theory was not really needed, until you questioned its relevance. Anyone familiar with the history of scholarship concerning English ethnogenesis takes its position, really the default position, for granted. Urselius (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You think? You think wrong. The book is not cited. Why not? And the sources supporting the theory was not really necessary? This is Wikipedia. If you don't have sources to back up anything you say, I would question your authenticity. That is all I am doing - questioning the authenticity of an extermination theory. You need sources. Gordon410 (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at citations 96 and 132 - the book is also prominent in the 'References' section of the article. I have just added another reference supporting the continued relevance of the extermination/displacement theory to modern scholarship. There are many, many more, but what exactly would satisfy you? Urselius (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Nothing will satisfy him, we know that by now. Sources you produce will be dismissed in intemperate language with no logic, and more demanded, perhaps after shifting his ground. Meanwhile he produces nothing written in the last 60-100 years. You have done more than enough to satisfy his endless demands. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You are right. There is a pattern to Gordon 410's actions. He describes a course of editorial change that he desires to be applied here. When the people who know something about early English history, who patrol this article, show him that his ideas are inappropriate and potentially damaging he then appeals to some branch of the Wikipedia apparatus (dispute resolution/fringe theory), where he seeks support from people who know very little about the subject. I have had enough, really I'm a very temperate person, but I find my fund of civility is almost exhausted. Urselius (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, the extermination theory will inevitably be edited if there is no source implicitly supporting it in the article. Gordon410 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

My mistake. Does it support it? Gordon410 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

In other words, the article does not support extermination. You have failed to provide a source. Can we edit this? Gordon410 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

You really mean 'explicitly', because an implicit support would not satisfy you at all. You really do not have any grasp of how scholarship and scholarly debate works. Even if 100% of all the scholars in the field considered the extermination/displacement theory was totally incorrect, if they continue to mention the theory in publications (and they do!!!!!!!) then it is still relevant to modern scholarship. It needs to be in the article. Go away and do some extensive reading about how scholarship works. Urselius (talk) 07:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"Even if 100% of all the scholars in the field considered the extermination/displacement theory was totally incorrect, if they continue to mention the theory in publications (and they do!!!!!!!) then it is still relevant to modern scholarship." It is relevant to the history of Anglo-Saxon theories and is the starting point. It is a historical theory and should be documented as such. That is why I and several other editors suggest that it be documented as a historical theory and not a contemporary theory as it is now. Can we conclude with this and document it as such? Gordon410 (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

No, it remains the default position to which all other hypotheses refer, also it has not been definitively disproven. Let's put the shoe on the other foot, if you want to displace the extinction/displacement theory from its integrated place in the text of the article give universal proof that all relevant scholarship has decided that it definitely did not happen. Urselius (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I see how you turned the tables on me. I could just as easily return the shoe to its rightful owner. At this point you and I cannot agree on anything. Why don't we start with editing 6.3 like I suggested? Gordon410 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sick of dancing to your tunes, having to refute your unreasonable assertions and demands of proof. Prove your point or go away. Find reputable sources that explicitly say the extermination/displacement hypothesis is entirely disproved and that it is now solely regarded as a fringe theory or shut up. Urselius (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Do I really need to prove something is a fringe theory? That should be implied by the lack of sources supporting it. Gordon410 (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Let's ask third opinion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion/User_FAQ#What_if_my_dispute_has_two_viewpoints_but_multiple_editors.3F

I will summarize my point of view. Freeman's extermination view is a fringe theory because it is not supported by sources and should be edited according to WP:Fringe_theories.

Now you summarize your point of view. Gordon410 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What? appeal to the judgement of more people who have little or no knowledge of the subject. No, I have wasted more than enough time pandering to your demands. If you find something that will benefit this article, and you can express it in a suitable manner, I will be more than happy for you to edit it to your heart's content. There is plenty of room for improvement in the article. If, however, your edits damage the article they will be reverted, I suspect not by me only. Urselius (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

May I suggest that Gordon410 might usefully set out her edits in the form: change (a passage) to (a new passage), with suitable references, and any necessary argument? Briefly, for preference. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What are the edits of which you speak? I have not made a single edit in the original article, although I have made several suggestions. Could you rephrase your comment? Thanks. Gordon is a male name, by the way. Gordon410 (talk) 20:55, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Richard suggests for you to propose concrete changes to the article, since you obviously desire changes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I like Collect's proposal: "The two theories, then, should be labeled as "Nineteenth century theories" and not presented as therefore actually covering what really occurred where we have genetic evidence which was not available then...Place the "historic theories" into a shortened section with that name, then segue into the DNA discussions, which, as far as I can tell, make the extended discussions about 19th century theories a tad moot." His/her proposal is my proposal. Can we do that, or do you want me to explain it more specifically? Thank you for your response. Gordon410 (talk) 11:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry I've missed this conversation until now. It's hard to tell what is being proposed without hearing what's specifically being proposed for what specific material. If the goal is to remove discussion about the historical theory that incoming Saxons displaced the existing population, then that certainly should not happen. It is too historically significant to be removed outright or downplayed. If the goal is the change the way this theory is discussed here, that would be fine as long as it's supported by the reliable sources.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

As I understand Gordon, his beef with the article is that the "extermination hypothesis" is not presented as outdated and fringe (i. e., supported only by a distinct minority of current scholars), but as an essentially still viable alternative view. I agree that the article gives this impression. You also seem to agree that it would mislead the reader to portray the "extermination hypothesis" as still being a serious contender, as opposed to being an historically important but largely abandoned view. (That current scholars articulate their views with explicit reference to the hypothesis only demonstrates its vital importance as an historical hypothesis, not its persisting currency, unless a significant amount of scholars explicitly consider the extermination hypothesis not only historically important but also plausible despite all the contrary evidence.) I think we all agree about the historical importance of the hypothesis and that it is vital to understand the problem treated in this article, or do we not?

Sorry for effectively speaking in Gordon's name, but I get the impression that he finds it difficult to make himself understood here and get his point/goal across. As I am sympathetic to his concern in principle, I thought it was appropriate to try and act as his advocate here. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:11, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Though on re-reading Gordon's original comment (sorry, it's been over two months and in the meanwhile I forgot the point he was making), his original point seems to have been that the "extermination hypothesis" is not even incompatible with alternatives such as the "acculturation hypothesis". Has he changed his tune in the meanwhile?

I cannot see how to make Freeman's "conviction of the racial purity of the Anglo-Saxon people" jive with the idea of a Celtic contribution to Englishness as he suggests it. Either the Anglo-Saxons were in every sense (biologically and culturally) 100%, or close to 100%, descended from the Germanic immigrants (or even invaders) and the natives completely extermined or expulsed, or kept apart as an underclass without any (significant) admixture, or they were not.

I might note even in the USA, Cuba or Australia, such an extreme scenario has not played out, which is why I find it to havea small a priori probability, which could only be overcome with very strong evidence. I get the impression, however, that Gordon is not the only commenter on this talk page who fails to appreciate just how extreme the "extermination hypothesis" is, unless you redefine and dilute it radically to a point where Freeman himself would not have recognised it anymore. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Have you actually read the article? You seem to talking about something completely different to anything it actually says. Johnbod (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I am inconsistent with previous comments, but hopefully my point has been made - that the article needs revision, and I am doing my best to help. I am just one person and would greatly benefit from the help of others. In conclusion, Freeman is purely historical. To speak of him as modern is to break policy of WP:Fringe_theory. That is all. Repair is needed. Gordon410 (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Urselius mentioned he/she knows some of these authors personally. @Urselius: where are these authors, and what are their opinions concerning this dispute? Gordon410 (talk) 19:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You would not like to respond? Gordon410 (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

readability example

Examine the readability of

The Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain represents the change from a Romano-British structure to a Germanic ("Anglo-Saxon") culture from the end of the Roman rule in the 5th century up to the 7th century. Traditionally, this culture change was ascribed to invasions by Germanic tribes and creation of kingdoms across the south and east of Great Britain.

This assumption that the change was due to invasion and mass-migration of Germanic tribes, displacing the earlier inhabitants, has been challenged in recent decades. Some scholars believe the changes in material culture and language were mainly caused by acculturation after the arrival of a relatively small number of people. A few believe that Germanic influence was already present in eastern regions of pre-Roman Britain. The current views range from the view that Anglo-Saxon culture arose from cultural contacts across the North Sea, possibly with an influx of a small warrior elite, to a theory that Apartheid-like social systems allowed for enhanced reproductive success for the descendants of Germanic migrants. An intermediate view ascribes the changes to relatively large levels of immigration.

The level of immigration is the subject of substantial debate. There are few contemporary sources explaining the adoption of Germanic language and culture, Archaeological and genetic evidence are in conflict with the traditional views based on Bede. In particular, archaeological evidence for the formation of Anglo-Saxon kingdoms and kingship is lacking before the eve of the Christian conversion, with an essentially tribal society indicated in earlier periods.

The Flesch-Kincaid reading level of this example is 15.50 which is a very large improvement over the original level of over 21. I have tried to keep all the salient material in this example, but, of course, I am sure there are improvements to be made. Collect (talk) 14:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, but rather a lot of "view(s)". Urselius (talk) 15:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I did a quick job here - we can surely remove a bit more <g>. Collect (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I don't think it's an improvement - the reduction in the score comes largely from using shorter sentences, I would imagine. These tests penalize long sentences very heavily, and I expect a lot could be done just by re-punctuating the existing text, and this is probably a good idea. The new version also has an American tang, & the test may also have an American bias. The spelling "archeology" is a clear & basic breach of WP:ENGVAR. For example, the needlessly complicated "ascribed to" when "explained by" would do, also the use, or lack, of "the" at a couple of places. What is a "Roman-British structure"? These tests can't assess clarity. You do realize that "Roman-British", unlike "Romano-British", is not an actual term? There is a considerable reduction in meaning. The sentence "Archeological and genetic evidence are in conflict with the traditional views based on Bede" seems an especially brutal and questionable telescoping. Your "There are few contemporary sources explaining the adoption of Germanic language and culture" does not say the same thing as "there are few historical or contemporary sources relating to the anglicisation of lowland Britain", in a number of different ways. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Use "Archaeology" if you prefer - I have an auto-spellcheck on my computer. The term "Roman-British culture" is, in fact, used as an "actual term". And the term "Anglicisation" is a tortuous word indeed. It is found in about 250 books according to Google. "Romano-British culture" is found in sixty books. You may absolutely use "Romano-British" if the use of English is offensive, of course. The charge of "brutal telescoping" is absurd - the ainm of a lead is to provide a summary of the topic which is understandable to the reader, and that, I suggest, is precisely what this rewording does. "Ascribed to" is the correct wording here - as "explained by" suggests that the explanation was correct, while "ascribed" means only that someone wrote on that topic. (Ascribe: "attribute something to (a cause" Explain: "account for (an action or event) by giving a reason as excuse or justification") Collect (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Let us keep in mind that raplacing Anglicisation and the like with understandable words will not harm the article in anyway. It's merely clearing up jargon. Gordon410 (talk) 01:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't mention "Anglicisation", which I indeed don't much like. The problem is not just Roman-British vs Romano-British culture but with "structures" - the word you use rather than "culture". What does that mean, and what might a younger reader think it means? The blatently ungrammatical sentence "There are few contemporary sources explaining the adoption of Germanic language and culture, Archaeological and genetic evidence are in conflict with the traditional views based on Bede" throws up problems at every turn - there are arguably no such "contemporary sources" dealing with the matter at all. Opposing the genetic evidence to Bede is highly confusing - he actually has hardly anything to say bearing on the issues genetics addresses, presumably because by his day the whole question was in the distant past. It is probably too early to say, as a summary, that the genetic evidence conflicts with anything much at all. Does anyone at all believe that "Anglo-Saxon culture arose from cultural contacts across the North Sea" without "an influx of a small warrior elite"? I very much doubt it, and the rest of the article doesn't say so. You changed an already rather dubious "probably" to a frankly misleading "possibly". The whole para shows the dangers of just sub-editing without knowing the subject. Johnbod (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that Francis Pryor ascribes the creation of the Anglo-Saxons to cultural contacts without specifying any immigration, even of elites. In defence of anglicisation (it isn't capitalised, as it isn't a proper noun or even any type of noun) it is the only single word that conveys the exact meaning, other ways of saying the same thing involve periphrasis (if you ignore the rather horrible word "englishing"). Urselius (talk) 08:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. Let's keep working at readability. Gordon410 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

For readability

Perhaps the readability difficulty could be solved by reference to the Simple English Wikipedia. A prominent link to this might serve:

[1] Urselius (talk) 09:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Nope. By the way, note that the "simple" version is primarily aimed at people with English comprehension difficulties, and that article does not cover the same ground as this article. When an article on the main Wikipedia is unreadable to any but post-graduate students, it is clearly not serving the readers of this Wikipedia. More to the point, that article presents Bede as established fact, and does not mention "DNA" even once. Directing anyone to that "article" is a severe disservice, indeed. Collect (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Then we are stuck. The subject is complex, reliant on complex arguments based on complex and equivocal evidence, which cannot be comprehensively or effectively dealt with in simple English. Urselius (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

There is always a happy medium. We just have to work at it word for word. You can't just sweep the whole article into a children's book, but we can still work at readability. Sorry, don't understand all the fuss. Gordon410 (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Readability, bold edit

At this edit I have boldly rewritten the lede. I'm aware that there are many expert eyes on it, and I hope only to stimulate improvement. Apart from shortening sentences and avoiding the passive voice, I have tried to make the various concepts flow better, and I have removed some near-duplication. I have also removed the bit about tribalism versus kingship, which doesn't seem like much of a real contradiction - I suggest that it's based on over-simplified models of authority structures and would fit better in the main body. Anyway, the Gunning Fog Index is now down to 12.3, not perhaps as good as a porn bio but a definite improvement. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

At least one error of fact - will rectify. Urselius (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The Apartheid scenario does envisage a mass migration, but a distinct minority when compared to native numbers. I'm not sure about the prominence of this in the lead, it is really the view of one or two population geneticists, it was badly received by many other geneticists and by the overwhelming majority of the archaeology community. This is particularly unfortunate as the acculturation theory, which represents the current received wisdom/default option in archaeology, has now been given a rather low prominence.Urselius (talk) 12:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

While I've no comments on the accuracy of the text, its presentation in the form of very short bitty paragraphs is clearly contrary to MOS:LEAD. I'll try to combine a few of the paragraphs - but, as I say, without seeking to make any significant changes to content. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That will be easy enough. But, as with the attempt above, there are problems with the text. It now pretty much just covers the "clash of theories", even more than the last version. There is for example no time/geographical information at all, which readers might expect. Once again, meaning shifts - take: "An alternative view is that the migrants were relatively few, perhaps forming a warrior elite" - does any one think that migrants (if any) did not form a "warrior elite", but instead were (eg) specialist house-builders or metalworkers, or just farmers? Agree with Urselius that the current mainstream view is given least prominence. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The mass-migration view does hold that boatloads of peasants were rather expensively rowed across the North Sea. Gildas, Bede and the A-S Chronicle never mention more than about a dozen boatloads in any one event. I cannot imagine why an A-S chieftain would want to transport peasants, when there were plenty already in Britain. As long as a peasant community coughs-up the food-rents why should a war-band leader care what language they speak or what their religion is? Also local farmers would tend to know their land better, and produce more, than a bunch of incomers. Urselius (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

No doubt, but the same view very much holds that there was a "warrior elite". My point was that the "perhaps" qualifying this was a misleading weasel, when talking about "An alternative view is that the migrants were relatively few, perhaps forming a warrior elite". Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

"...,perhaps comprising only a warrior elite"? Urselius (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Woah, oaky. Who is saying much of England was cleared of its prior inhabitants? Freeman, not a primary source like you are saying in the lead. Thank you for your work at editing, but this part is widely inaccurate. Also, don't use words like "probably". Keep it neutral and backed by sources. Gordon410 (talk) 03:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I have modified the intro to discriminate original sources from later interpretations and expanded the acculturation para slightly, to give it more equal weight in this section. Urselius (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

But why are we still making historical views take precedence to more widely held views? Shouldn't the accurate theory be ahead of the less likely, or is chronology of when theories were formed the way it should read? Gordon410 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Chronology usually works best for a discussion of theories. The acculturation theory is flagged as being the currently most highly favoured. We are not here to push a particular theory, the text needs to be dispassionate. Urselius (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Urselius; theories are probably best presented in their historical order, even if the currently-most-favoured one is not the first. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain - What Really Happened

I believe that the debate about the Anglo-Saxon settlement of Britain is over. The following account is difficult to disagree with:

Early in the 5th century AD, the Roman guard left Britain to defend the weakening Roman Empire. Plagued by Pict and Scott invasion and famine, Britain weakened. The tyrant of Briton (possibly Vortigern) resorted to asking the Anglo-Saxons to help defend Britain against the Picts. The Anglo-Saxons already occupied parts of Britain during the latter parts of Roman rule, and they were continuing to arrive from the continent onto the East Coast of Britain. Although the Anglo-Saxons claimed to be the protectors of Britain, the Briton civilians, natives of Britain, were suspicious of the Anglo-Saxons' true intent of protection. Likely, many of the Britons saw the protection as an Anglo-Saxon decoy to seize power of the land. Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons' supplies and food. The Britons and Anglo-Saxons scuffled over the wages for defense, and the Anglo-Saxons refused to assist the Britons anymore but remained in Britain anyway. The Britons resisted the Anglo-Saxon settlement for some time. However, the much stronger Anglo-Saxon army rose to prominence, built kingdoms, and established the law and government of the land. Thus, the Britons were subjects of the Anglo-Saxon kingdom and were treated as the low social class. The Anglo-Saxon language became dominant according to the Contact and transfer principles of language.

Please let me know of any discrepancies or contradictions this account raises. Gordon410 (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Just one of the many holes in your argument is Vortigern, there is no absolute proof of his existence, like Arthur he is mentioned in the writings of much later chroniclers, and we are talking many centuries later, and by monks writing digests of oral legend. Gildas mentions a 'Superbus tyrannus' (proud usurper), but the identification of this person with the name Vortigern is mere conjecture. Where is your fixed and accurate historical narrative? The answer is it does not exist. Urselius (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The Britons seem to have fairly effectively resisted Anglo-Saxon expansion from c. 450 to c.570, when Ceawlin (the possessor of an apparently Celtic name) led the destruction of British polities in Lowland Britan, this is not a "little while". Urselius (talk) 13:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: Thank you for your input. The mistake has been corrected. I will say, however, that the Anglo-Saxons eventually were victorious, as we can all see by their language. This is why I included the contact and transfer of languages sentence to show that the Anglo-Saxons ultimately won the power struggle. There is really not much to argue about there. Gordon410 (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

No, it's terrible. What evidence is there for these views among the Britons? Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Why is it terrible? Evidence: Gildas, The Ruin of Britain, Part II, Chapters 23-24. Gildas writes, "[The Saxons] sailed out...as men intending to fight for the country, but more truly to assail it." (Bildas, Chapter 23) The Anglo-Saxons moved onto the East Coast of Britain claiming to be protectors against danger. "They complain, again, that their monthly supplies were not copiously contributed to them, intentionally colouring their opportunities, and declare that, if larger munificence were not piled upon them, they would break the treaty and lay waste the whole of the island. They made no delay to follow up their threats with deeds." (Bildas, Chapter 23) Eventually, the Anglo-Saxons demanded more and more of the Britons supplies and food. Is this adequate evidence? Gordon410 (talk) 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Gildas was writing over 100 years later, and your text goes well beyond what he says. You'll be channelling Bede next. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@Johnbod: I do not understand you. Please rephrase your last statements. Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me or simply making random statements? Gordon410 (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed that this is terrible and largely meaningless. What is meant by "civil war", and what evidence is there for it? What evidence is there for famine? What does it mean that the A-Ss "occupied" Britain? How can we know that the Britons were "suspicious" of the ASs? etc. etc. Gildas was preaching, not writing history. Using him uncritically is like writing the history of WWI based on Osama bin Laden's writings. --Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Also, take a look at WP policy about the use of primary sources. --Macrakis (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

@Macrakis: I suppose civil war is not an accurate term. I will leave that out. Gildas is evidence for famine. I expanded on the "occupation" above. Just because Gildas was preaching does not make him unreliable. That is a faulty notion. Gordon410 (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: Concerning Vortigern, I have edited it. My account has evidence. Possibly overwhelming evidence. How much evidence do we need? Gordon410 (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Gildas is a primary source. Primary sources need interpretation by competent, modern scholars (see our policy at WP:PRIMARY). We do not use primary sources as "evidence" in Wikipedia. --Macrakis (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

@Macrakis: I'm not concerned. Bildas is reliable. Nearly every secondary source acknowledges him to some degree and usually positively. I see nothing wrong with the man, vehement though he may be, and neither do scholars. 45.47.192.105 (talk) 23:13, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion about the "reliability" of Gildas is irrelevant. He is a primary source and thus not accepted by Wikipedia as a reliable source. If you are unwilling to follow Wikipedia policy on sourcing, you shouldn't be editing articles. --Macrakis (talk) 13:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Macrakis: This is my discussion thread; my opinion is very relevant. I am also aware of Wikipedia policy. Thank you. If I understand correctly, Wikipedia source policy applies to making changes in the article itself and not to the examination of edits as I am doing now. Gordon410 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a discussion thread on the article. It does not belong to any individual editor. And I repeat: your opinion (and mine for that matter) aren't the issue. Finally, I don't know what you mean about "examination of edits". The article needs to be well-sourced from reliable, modern, secondary sources. Of course, modern scholars "acknowledge" Gildas, and Nennius, and Bede, and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. But they certainly aren't so naive as to take them at face value. --Macrakis (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

By the way, Gordon410, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you have not convinced any other editors of your position. If you incorporate your material into the article, you will be editing against consensus and may be considered to be editing disruptively. I suggest you tread lightly. --Macrakis (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I will tread heavily. Nobody can stop me. Gordon410 (talk) 03:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

This is not true. Whilst you have not, to my knowledge, acted in a disruptive way, you have not shown much evidence of the collegiality and willingness to abide by consensus that Wikipedia demands of active editors. There are things that administrators can do to police editing. Anyone's account can be blocked from editing temporarily or, after some due process, permanently. The same can also be done to any IP address. Urselius (talk) 07:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: I know how Wikipedia works and I am doing nothing against policy. Let's try to stay on topic. Gordon410 (talk) 11:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I was merely correcting an erroneous comment, you said "Nobody can stop me", this is incorrect. If your knowledge of Wikipedia policy was extensive, you would have been aware of this. As far as I can see the topic is exhausted. You have asserted a desire to alter the article in a particular direction, three editors have told you, at some length and in considerable detail, that your intention is misconceived and would be detrimental to the article and you have ignored them. What more is there to explore? Urselius (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: I know Wikipedia policy, the topic is not exhausted, my intention is not misconceived, I have added nothing detrimental to the article, I have not ignored any editors, there is still more to explore as I have demonstrated, I will continue to explore this subject, nobody can stop me, and I appreciate any help. Please keep on topic. Gordon410 (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Macrakis: "Examining edits" refers to talking about the article critically. Gordon410 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I have evidence for the final two sentences in my original account. ("However...principles of language.") http://www.hildegard.tristram.de/media/tristram_manchester_30-07-07.pdf " The members of the evolving elite were originally speakers of prestigious varieties of Germanic (Frisian, Saxon, Anglian, Jutish, Frankish), while the bulk of the population is likely to have consisted of low prestige speakers of Late British and/or British Latin in the Lowlands and Late British in the Uplands." (pg. 194) Thus, the Anglo-Saxons were clearly dominant over the native Britons. This is difficult to argue with. Gordon410 (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

This seems likely, at least at certain times and in certain areas. The linguistic facets of the subject are covered at some considerable length in the article, but it is not suitable for inclusion in the lead. The lead is for generalisations, specific details are for the body of the article. Please read the entire article it is quite exhaustive. Urselius (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: I am not suggesting putting linguistics into the lead. However, I am not saying putting linguistics into the lead is a bad idea necessarily. I choose to be inexpressive. The problem with your earlier argument, Urselius, "There is demonstrably a range of views on the subject of this article and this must be reflected in the article, especially in the lead.": There may very well be many that have different views on the subject. However, a view/opinion needs to be vetted with some valid argument in order to be considered in the conversation. I am suggesting that for whatever reason, this vetting process has been neglected. Gordon410 (talk) 02:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

When User:Jheald, and to a much lesser extent myself, took this article in hand it might have been written in the 1950s. It had no real incorporation of any modern historical re-examination, archaeological, linguistic or molecular evidence and research. I think it is one of the best articles of its kind on Wikipedia. Have you read the linguistic section of the article? It is extensive and does include superstrate/substrate language contact (supertstrate = high prestige, substrate = low prestige languages) and their possible effects on each other. As to scholarly validity, look at the number and range of citations (179!). Urselius (talk) 07:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Not me. I have contributed very little. I think it's User:J Beake you're thinking of, who (according to X!'s tools) is identified as the contributor of 51% of the current text. I agree that he's given the article much better shape and balance and scope. A problem though is that the bulk of his text has been jigsawed together from sentences (and sometimes multiple sentences) lifted verbatim from sources, undigested citations included. As a result we really can't call it "one of the best articles of its kind on WP": on WP:COPYVIO grounds most of the prose should be reviewed and rewritten. There are also a few cases I've seen where, by changing the context of a borrowed sentence, he substantially changed its meaning. Jheald (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

That's right, I mixed you two up - probably because of the initial 'J'. I have no great interest in anything other than content, and from a content point of view the article is good and reasonably comprehensive. My own edits are, excepting when quoting, in my own words. As a scientist I'm very aware of plagiarism issues in reviews and suchlike.Urselius (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

@Urselius: I am inexpressive about the quality of the writing for the contents of this article. The second paragraph in the lead is written poorly, and I have given valid reasons and suggestions for revision which have been neglected for unknown reasons. I urge you to look at that.

@Jheald: Thank you for your input. My goal is to make this article better. Gordon410 (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

As I have previously stated, people do not assume that the Anglo-Saxons "largely displac[ed] the native people." That is a traditional view and can be discarded. Why is this "assumption" mentioned at all in the second paragraph? It is about as needless to say as the linguistics part I was talking about. Urselius, I know you do not care about grammatical edits or good writing, so I hope someone who does care will respond. Thank you for your participation. Gordon410 (talk) 02:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

You are wrong, the idea that the Anglo-Saxons arrived in huge numbers, and then killed-off or displaced the native Britons is still a widely held belief. If you think that a majority of the population of England, or the UK, are well-read on cultural assimilation theories you are sadly mistaken. I have authored many scientific papers, book chapters and a PhD thesis, and I even won an international prize for an article I wrote on Napoleonic history (a hobby); my credentials as a grammatical and accurate exponent of English are fairly sound, what are yours? However, in this particular case, I think you are right. I have changed the paragraph in question, shortening the sentence structure. Unfortunately, the introduction developed from the input of a number of editors, then others insisted on changes somewhat later. As a result it lost some of its clarity and precision. Urselius (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)"

Wait, what are you talking about? You insist I am wrong and then you admit I'm right in the same paragraph? Gordon410 (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit assumption. Gordon410 (talk) 15:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

comment I suggest opening an RfC. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What? Gordon410 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)