Talk:Tribal Hidage/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Sarastro1 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It may take me a day or two to get to this properly, but noticed a couple of dab links in the checker tool: Paulinus and Spalding. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Links sorted. Hel-hama (talk) 17:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Lead

• There were one or two things in the lead I wasn't convinced about and have changed or moved around. Please revert anything I have messed up or that you are not happy with. The main one was to remove the words "Recension A" etc from the lead (although I have not touched the information) to keep it accessible at this point.

Quite happy with the improvements you have made in the lead section. Hel-hama (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Are we sufficiently confident to say "7th or 8th century" in the lead? Featherstone plumps confidently for the 9th. (Not sure, just asking...)

Agreed - 9th century added. Hel-hama (talk) 18:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• More to come on this one, but possibly add something to the lead on what the TH has been used as evidence for/proof of?

done Hel-hama (talk) 22:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The hide assessments

• Are we confident that the later definition of hides was the same as the definition in the TH?

no, so I've said so Hel-hama (talk) 11:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The following lists gives the names of each of the 'tribes' as recorded in the earliest and most complete version of the Tribal Hidage:" Why is "tribes" in quotation marks (I took this out of the lead), and why are "lists" and "names" plural?

sorted out Hel-hama (talk) 17:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• My main issue here is why do we need to list the contents of the TH at all? I would say this is unnecessary in an encyclopaedia. Additionally, quoting the Anglo-Saxon version (and incidentally, no-where does the article talk about the language that the document was written in) seems a little silly. Anyone who can read the Anglo-Saxon version is unlikely to need wikipedia and it seems a trifle ... showy? At the very least, I would take the Anglo-Saxon out, but my preference (which you can freely ignore!) would be to cut this completely and replace it with a prose summary. The list does not really give the reader any information they might need.

I agree with deleting the list, for the reasons you give, but I still think readers might want to access the TH's details. A list seems a good way of providing links/information for all the tribes. How about retaining the map but creating an article that lists all the TH tribes? Hel-hama (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've four suggestions here; first, create an article along the lines of List of tribes in the Tribal Hidage, but I'm not sure it warrants it's own article and may end up being merged back here. Second idea, if you think we really need such information here, maybe putting it in a table (along the lines of that in Featherstone but obviously different enough to avoid copyvio) would be a little neater. Third idea is to put the text somewhere else, for example wikisource. However, I have no idea how that works and I suspect it would have to be taken from a book published pre-1923 and could not simply be listed there as it is in the article. To be honest, I think this is a bad idea, the more I think about it! Final suggestion, leave it as it is but take out the Anglo-Saxon. My preference remains to lose it altogether and replace it with a prose summary, but that is merely my preference and I do not expect you to agree blindly! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to cut out the list without creating a new article to replace it, but hide the work I did using < !-- -- > for the present, prior to deleting it. I think you're right about writing a prose summary. Hel-hama (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Repetition of "at this point".

sorted out. Hel-hama (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• If the TH contents remains, what is the source for the information and the translation?

n/a, as the list has been removed. Hel-hama (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• "It is not clear why these larger regions were juxtaposed alongside numerous smaller ones": Wordy. "Juxtaposed alongside" is a tautology; "these larger regions": which larger regions; "numerous smaller ones": does this mean there were lots of smaller ones or does it mean "various"?

sentence removed. Hel-hama (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Barbara Yorke suggests that the -sætan/sæte form of several of the place-names are an indication that they were named after a feature of the local landscape and that they were dependent administrative units and not independent kingdoms, some of which may have been created as such after the main kingdoms were stabilised.": Long sentence, and the way it is written suggests that the two elements of her argument are connected. I cannot see a connection between the two ideas though, and maybe this could be clarified.

done Hel-hama (talk) 20:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The minor peoples in the region around Middle Anglia seem to constitute a "lower level of social organisation", according to Blair.[9]": What minor peoples? And how does this argument arise from the TH?

sentence removed - it didn't seem to fit in anywhere. Hel-hama (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The surviving manuscripts

• "The grammar used shows the Latin context of the text": I don't quite understand what this means. And I'm not quite sure it reflects the source, which suggests he may have copied a Latin text, but may have added Latin "embellishments" himself.

text amended to clarify section. Hel-hama (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Recension C consists of six Latin documents, each being grouped with the Burghal Hidage" This is a little hard to follow. It appears from the article so far that Recension C was one TH document; how it can consist of 6 documents, and how each can be grouped with the BH, makes it slightly confusing. My reading of the source is that "Recension C" is the same text which exists in six versions, but it is very possible I am wrong. If this is the case, could it be made clearer? --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

done Hel-hama (talk) 08:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

General points

• This article seems very dependent on a few sources, and relies VERY heavily on Featherstone. To me, it seems that the main articles on the TH are "The Contexts of the Tribal Hidage" by Davies and Vierck, and the Cyril Hart article. I appreciate that it may not be possible to access these articles, and it would not be essential for GA status, but I think they should be at the very least alluded to somewhere. What did they say and what opinions did the authors have? Even if these two are unavailable (and there are people on WP who could probably get them: User:Ealdgyth comes to mind), there are certainly other historians and works which could be used. The most obvious one is Campbell's Anglo-Saxons, which is listed in the sources but does not seem to have been used. Also, I'm not sure the Blackwell Encyclopaedia is the best source to use here. My knowledge is around 10 years out of date, so I'm not sure what is currently the best material, but I'm sure Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England would have something in it (how up to date it may be is another matter) and another possible source could be something like (plucked out of the air I'm afraid as my copy is missing, presumed dead) Stafford's "Unification and Conquest". In short, I think it needs more sources.

Featherstone reduced, Stenton introduced, other changes to follow. Hel-hama (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Cyril Hart article used. Hel-hama (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Blackwell reduced to 'Further Reading' status. Hel-hama (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons included in article. Hel-hama (talk) 07:46, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Davies and Vierck included in the article. Hel-hama (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• One thing missing (it may not exist: as I say, I'm out of date!) seems to be the historiography of the TH. What did past historians think it was? What (probably strange) uses did they put it to?

done Hel-hama (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• One thing I am fairly sure of is that the TH has been used as evidence for lots of theories about England at the time (as one of the few pieces of available evidence). I don't think the "Importance" section covers this enough.

The 'Importance' section has been enlarged. Hel-hama (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• With these points in mind, I think the article is struggling to meet 3a (main aspects of the topic) at the moment. Feel free to argue! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but it should be possible to put things right with a bit of effort. Hel-hama (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a bit more to come later, but please disagree or get back to me on any of these points so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarastro1, I'll get started on acting on your suggestions. Hel-hama (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Importance

• "that larger Anglo-Saxon kingdoms contested the small bordering territories": Not quite sure what this means; which kingdoms (I assume the "big three" but clarification would help) and what were the small territories bordering on? Is this saying the "larger kingdoms" fought over the overlordship (or simply outright possession) of the small areas on their borders? Or does it mean the territories which were "in between" the big ones?

clarified Hel-hama (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• Also, the Woolf book cited here is not listed in the sources.

done Hel-hama (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• Further to my point in the section above, I think this section needs expanding. The TH has been used as speculative evidence for lots of things and can be used to cautiously suggest many others. I think we need more examples or a longer general discussion. It is controversial and not really understood. I think this article needs to get that across more clearly.

this section is quite big enough now, possibly. Hel-hama (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Purpose

• "and has long been debated by scholars": This is what we need to be told about in more detail.

Nearly all historians explain their preferred purpose (inevitably the tribute list idea) and don't discuss the other possibilities! Perhaps the word debated is misleading. Hel-hama (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• As with "Importance" this needs expanding to give more indication of theories. At the moment, we have Higham's and Yorke's. Who else has a view?

2 other opinions added. Hel-hama (talk) 13:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Higham notes that the syntax of the text requires that a word implying 'tribute' was omitted from each line and so it was "almost certainly a tribute list".": This rather implies that Higham's view is the standard one. Is this the case? I always thought it was less clear cut than this, but I ask because I don't know!

amended to avoid implying that 'Higham's view is the standard one'. Hel-hama (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• "unusual circumstances": This is hard to understand. What are these circumstances and why does it make her think that?

sorted Hel-hama (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Origin

• "Some of the Tribal Hidage": Which parts? This should be more precise.

that bit's now gone. Hel-hama (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• "minor principalities": A little vague and may make modern readers think of Wales.

sorted Hel-hama (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Some of the Tribal Hidage, which may originate from several sources, comes from a period when the minor principalities had social and political importance." What is the connection to the origin of the TH?

sentence removed. Hel-hama (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

• "is almost exclusively of peoples who lived south of the river Humber." For the benefit of the casual reader, maybe make explicit the location of Mercia in relation to this. It is worth spelling out.

done Hel-hama (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Who is Brooks? Explain that here as otherwise it is just a name that could belong to anyone.

named amended Hel-hama (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The Northumbrian origin theory has not been generally accepted as convincing." Says who?

Kirby's name added. Hel-hama (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• This section has more coverage of the ideas. However, is it fully (or as fully as necessary to tell the story in a GA) representative of current scholarship? The Paulinus idea seems a little outlandish to me!

Paulinus paragraph removed. Hel-hama (talk) 19:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Other historians' views summarised, more detail can be added if necessary. Hel-hama (talk) 07:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

References and images

• "Yorke, in Frazer and Tyrell, Social Identity": Assuming that she had a chapter in this book, it is this chapter which should be in the sources, as the ref does not give her full name or the title of the chapter.

sorted Hel-hama (talk) 20:02, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not too sure about the licensing information on the Spelman image but the image itself looks fine. The Britain 802 image is a little more dubious. Although it is on Commons, it looks suspiciously like a scan from a modern book and certainly not something user-created. But the license says it was uploaded and released by its author. Not entirely convincing in my view. The other two images look good.

Britain 802 map replaced. Hel-hama (talk) 22:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

On hold

I've checked through the whole article now and will place it on hold for the moment, initially for a week but for longer if necessary. Spot checks so far have been fine, but I will do a few more when/if more sources are added. Let me know if there are any problems. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Notes

• I've moved the information on hides to a note so that it does not interrupt the flow. Hopefully it is an improvement, but please revert if you don't like it.

looks great there. Hel-hama (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• "The very large hidage assessment for Wessex was considered to be an error by the historian J. Brownbill, but Cyril Hart maintains that the value for Wessex is correct and that it was one of several assessments designed to exact the largest possible tribute from Mercia's main rivals." By placing this here, we are saying it is a tribute list and it also contradicts the later "symbolic value" idea. Should this be moved to the later sections on purpose, or origins?

sentence moved to 'Purpose' section. Hel-hama (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Originally, the assessments would have appeared in Roman numerals, as Arabic numbers were not used at the time: according to Hart, both the use of Roman numerals and the large size of the hidage numbers explain why the hidage figures were added incorrectly." In the current version of the article, this is the first instance of mentioning that the figures are added incorrectly in the document and so is a little confusing. Also, possibly it is not needed at all?

On second thoughts, probably not needed, so paragraph removed. Hel-hama (talk) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "is one of a very few to survive out of a great many records that were produced by the administrators of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms." A little too certain for my liking. How do we know they were produced if they do not survive? It is very likely but not as strongly as this suggests.

As I've described what Campbell discussed in The Anglo-Saxon State and the reference points to his discussion, I'm keeping the sentence - but modified it to suggest that this is what Campbell believed. Hel-hama (talk) 17:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "He considers the possibility that many of the tribes named in the Tribal Hidage were no more than administrative units and that some names did not originate from a tribe itself but from a place of authority, eventually coming to signify the district where the tribe lived." I'm not quite sure I understand what is meant by "a place of authority" here.

re-phrased accordingly. Hel-hama (talk) 18:30, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• "Scott DeGregorio has argued that the list can be linked with the assessment of individual settlements": by who? Is this assessment by kings? (I dimly recall arguments that the TH can be used to demonstrate the power/influence/adminstrative sophistication of whoever wrote it.)

sentence rewritten. Hel-hama (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've re-ordered the sections to what I think might be a more logical order: I've put origin before purpose and moved the importance to historians to the very end. I also altered the lead to reflect this.

No problems. Hel-hama (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

• One thing I noticed browsing through Campbell is a nice section on p. 61 which notes that it looks like it is an administrative document and a nice quote: "[If it is early] whatever it is, and whatever it means, it indicates a degree of orderliness, or coherence in the exercise of power..." He also suggests that the implied "order" would have affected England's subsequent political development. Worth including or is it already covered enough?

The decent quote has been added, but I don't think the second part's worth adding. Hel-hama (talk) 18:57, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

• Spot checks reveal no problems.

I'm just about ready to pass but will give you time to check my changes and respond to the last points. Great work, by the way. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, passing now. Well done and thanks for putting up with my endless list of suggestions. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)