Talk:Battle of Cannington

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag of Denmark Battle of Cannington falls within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a project to create and improve Denmark-related Wikipedia articles. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, all interested editors are welcome!

Satellite Image of Denmark

??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] Cannington or Countisbury?

The historians I've read identify Cynuit as Countisbury in Devon. Now I don't know much about local geography, but it seems to me that as long as the exact location of Cynuit is uncertain, the battle (and hence the article) ought to be called "Battle of Cynuit".

In general I agree a more neutral approach would be to have a main article "Battle of Cynw(u)it", with text stating it is likely to be Cannington. The evidence for a (the?) battle at Cannington is:

  • archaeological: human remains from the period in a field east of the hill fort
  • circumstantial: pattern of raids along the Bristol Channel, such as Watchet
  • strategic: Cannington gateway to the Parrett, fording point at Combwich, access to Aethelney, tidal to Langport (e.g. previous raids to Somerton), north bank at Down End and access to the Polden ridge to Glastonbury
  • name: nearby Combwich is certainly close to Cynwit

My 100-year old sources are W.H.P.Greswell (amateur, not very reliable by modern standards) and the Victoria History of Somerset (see picture credit for the map). I will try to find better archaeological references. It might also make sense to split Cannington Hill as a separate article about the Iron Age hill fort. --Mikhailfranco 15:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Juvenile historical novel?

The term "juvenile historical novel" is used in this article - is this well known term used to describe something specific like an incomplete texts?.

If it one persons criticism of the text (thus subjective), I think the term should be removed.

If it is a review of the text (by person or a body) then it should be referenced as such, with the reference given, and not reported as mere fact as is the case at present. In any case, a review of a text is still subject (no matter the source of the review) and thus should not be part of this article.

Unless strong consensus is reached contrary to my statement above, I propose removing the word "juvenile" on the basis it is subjective and contributes nothing to this article. The offending statement may have more merit for inclusion in an article about The Marsh King per se.

Wikipedi is an encyclopaedia of fact, not forum of subjective opinion. -- Quantockgoblin 14:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

A "juvenile historical novel" is a historical novel written with a juvenile readership in view. As with all children's literature, it "is a literary genre whose primary audience is children, although many books within the genre are also enjoyed by adults." Hardly a pejorative term. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection! -- Quantockgoblin 15:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)