Talk:Battle of Mons Badonicus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Mons Badonicus article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

---

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Related task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Contents 1 old talk 2 Quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 3 "Needs references" 4 Comments 5 Additional Link? 6 serious error

[edit] old talk

From Wikipedia:Featured article candidates (Revision as of 17:47, 8 Apr 2004) -- somehow my nomination was never added to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/Index (possibly because it gathered little interest at the time):

I am nominating this as an act of unabashed vanity -- & I'm amazed, not having read it for several months, that it still fairly close to what I strive for. I admit it needs some pictures. (I have the photos somewhere, & will scan them when I find them.) -- llywrch 23:40, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Oppose, for now. The content seems good, but the article needs to be broken up into 3 or 4 sections. Gentgeen 17:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quotation from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle

This occupies a chunk of space in this article, but this passage already appears in an annotated translation at Ceawlin of Wessex. Should this be snipped out with a note to the user to refer to that article? -- llywrch 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me, it seems to be more relavant there.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Needs references"

Please state which bits of information needs references. Anthony Appleyard 06:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

1. I think the article has taken on the appearance of an outline with too many sections. Sections should try to be lengthy narratives, not one sentence long. Section headers should not be replacements for prose.
2. Not sure why "Events in the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain" is in this article. Theoretically that section could be in every article that is mentioned. Perhaps the thing to do is make a 'list of' article, call it List of events in the Anglo-Saxon invasion of Britain then link to it from all the other articles as a central place.

--Stbalbach 12:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The translations from the ASC have become irrelevant to the point of distracting. I've chopped all of this section out, per my comments above. -- llywrch 00:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected the 'quotation' from Annales Cambriae. It has 'Bellum Badonis' for both battles, not Mount/mons or badonicus. The 'date' it gives has quite a wide range for an AD equivalent. I think the second battle of Badon is Bedanheafod of the ASC, which Plummer thought was a Great Bedwyn (covered more in my 'The Reign of Arthur', Sutton 2004, between Wulfhere of Mercia and the West Saxons. Geoffrey of Monmouth does not specify Little Solsbury Hill, just Bath. Chris Gidlow

[edit] Additional Link?

I was thinking about adding a link to http://www.dagorhir.com/badon/ in the section for popular media links. Since this is a combat recreation event named after the battle, I think it would fit in just as well as video games using the battle in them.

[edit] serious error

Only one comment that needs serious consideration: this article has a blatant error in the beginning, where the writer states that the Venerable Bede claimed in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People that Ambrosius Aurelianus as the victor at Badon Hill. This is not so. Bede makes no such claims, and he names no leader for that battle, as neither did Gildas. Bede was copying, almost word for word, Gildas's sixth century text; The Destruction and Conquest of Britain. If the Venerable Bede HAD made such a claim that Ambrosius had won Badon Hill, then there would be no great discussion as to who had won that battle today. The article writer has got their facts wrong on this account and it needs to be removed in order for it to be historically correct. The Venerable Bede did NOT claim this battle for Ambrosius Aurelianus. Wikipedia articles must be objective, with content based on evidence and fact if they are to have any value to researchers; or if Wikipedia itself is to have any value. The 'fact' of Ambrosius in this article is wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TwoRiders (talk • contribs).