Talk:Alfred the Great

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alfred the Great is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
February 11, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.
This article incorporates public domain text from: Cousin, John William (1910). A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature. London, J.M. Dent & sons; New York, E.P. Dutton.

Contents

[edit] Assessment

I have assessed this as Top importance, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Assessment and Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria: subject is a must-have for a print encyclopaedia. Xn4 22:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this from the 1911 encyclopedia? Or where? I somehow doubt that it's original to Wikipedia. Representative quote: "We come now to what is in many ways the most interesting of Alfred's works, his translation of Boethius' Consolation of Philosophy, the most popular philosophical manual of the middle ages. Here again Alfred deals very freely with his original and though the late Dr G. Schepss showed that many of the additions to the text are to be traced not to Alfred himself, but to the glosses and commentaries which he used, still there is much in the work which is solely Alfred's and highly characteristic of his genius." (If 1911, or other public domain source, fine but should be noted until we add/edit enough for it to be a different article.) Vicki Rosenzweig

I agree with you that it is not an original entry, and it does read like an encyclopedia. A while ago I added the story of the cakes and a few other minor details - it seemed to me than any entry which only referred obliquely to the cakes was seriously flawed. It also referred to Asser without explaining who he was. So I've rectified that, and added a few more bits and pieces - which I hope is helpful. Deb

Yeah, this seems to be from 1911. See e.g.: http://36.1911encyclopedia.org/A/AL/ALFRED_THE_GREAT.htm
This may have been noted in the pre-conversion edit history, but

the old histories haven't been imported yet... Brion VIBBER

I suspect the "Battle of Englesfield" should probably be the Battle of ENGLEFIELDJezzabr 16:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a new section, Appearances in fiction, as I am sure that a king of such stature and achievment will have been a featured character in many books and films. I have included a book by G.G. Kay. Mindstar 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone has unanswered questions on Alfred generally, I might be able to help. His educational reform is the topic of my dissertation and I've had to do a lot of reading, may as well put it to good use! Tom, history student at Sheffield in England

This article could certainly do with a bibliography! --Pfold 11:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Burial

I have changed the place of burial in the little info box on the right of the page. Alfred is not and never was buried in the Winchester Cathedral. It would be more accurate to say he was buried in the Hyde Abbey. He was originally buried in the Old Minster, then moved to the New Minster, and then transferred to Hyde Abbey in the year 1110. His grave was subsequently disturbed. --26 Jan 2006 by Ump

[edit] Article title

In accordance with naming policy, shouldn't this be titled "Alfred I of England"? -Alex 12.220.157.93 23:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC).

List of monarchs in the British Isles comments that numbering doesn't officially begin until 1066, although Category:Anglo-Saxon monarchs shows a couple that should maybe be changed. In this case, Alfie is specifically called out as an exception in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles), because this form is so much more widespread. Stan 01:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Alfred The Great was and is the only English monarch to be given the title of 'The Great'. I think we should respect his title, for it is not easily given.

I quite agree, he should be referred to as King Alfred. Not Alfred the Great, for that is very subjective and around his 'greatness' surrounds much historiographical debate...

[edit] Where is/was Wantage?

I recently altered "Berkshire" to "Oxfordshire" on the grounds that Wantage has been part of Oxon since 1974. TharkunColl reversed this, commenting rv - Alfred was born a number of years before 1974. However, unless I'm much mistaken, Alfred was the man who ordered the laying out of our historic county boundaries - in other words, although Wantage was in Berkshire by the end of his reign, no such entity as Berkshire existed at the date of his birth. Is this correct? I have altered the wording to modern Oxfordshire for now, as Berkshire seems to me to be incorrect for both the present time and the time cited - 9th Feb 2006 Dave Taylor

The counties of Wessex, i.e. those south of the Thames, are historical divisions of Wessex that long pre-date Alfred, therefore Berkshire existed when he was born in it. The counties of the Midlands were layed out by his son Edward the Elder, mimicing the West Saxon system, and those further north later still. TharkunColl 16:02, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This seemed sensibly settled when I last looked in, but since then Owain has deleted the county description three times despite being rv'ed. Why? Undoubtedly, "historical articles deal with historical facts", as he asserts, but one must still place these general articles in a modern context for the general reader. You can't write a good encyclopaedia article for a modern reader by pretending that you were writing it 1150 years ago! In summary, this repeated deletion seems very POVish (I infer from the Traditional Counties of England content on his user and user talk pages), and I'm reverting it. Please discuss before doing it again. - Dave Taylor 3rd Aug 2006

The location of Wantage in an administrative/ceremonial/historical context is described on the Wantage page. It seems a pointless sideshow to go on about "ceremonial counties" on a page about a person who was born and died 1,000 years before they were created. Surely it is truly NPoV to mention no ceremonial/administrative/historical counties on the page at all? Owain (talk) 08:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I take your point about relevance, but I think a little onhand context for the modern reader is a helpful thing here. After all, it doesn't interfere with the dynamics of the article, and adds a little understanding to Alfred himself. What do other people think? Your point about NPoV I find a little dubious! I think "NPoV" isn't the right phrase here - maybe "uncontentious" is what you meant? DT 3/8/06 14:57 BST

[edit] Cleanup

This is a weak article given the importance of the subject and the fact that he's one of the few Anglo-Saxon kings to be widely known. I don't know how much it has been changed from the EB original - not much it seems - but it really needs updating. Surely there's someone who has time to take this on. The "In Our Time" programme on Alfred and Eddington (BBC Radio 4) gives some up-to-date background for anyone who's interested. Angus McLellan 23:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the word "Organization" to "Organisation", because, although King Alfred wouldn't easily understand today's Queen's English, I feel it more appropriate to use Standard English as opposed to US English. I also feel that this article is actually very Wessex based and not actually even national in it's context. I myself live in Southampton, part of Wessex and feel it is a very much English article. (Dazz) (BST)

[edit] "King Alfred Syndrome"

Wikipedia does not interrupt the article on Napoleon Bonaparte— to choose a parallel— to introduce a "Napoleon Complex". I have moved this assertion here. If this were a genuinely useful syndrome, no doubt it would deserve its own article, with a "See also' at Alfred the Great; if I thought so, I'd have done it myself:

"Though the story of the cakes (or loaves of bread in an older version) is probably legendary and not historical, it has given rise to the expression "King Alfred Syndrome," referring to people born into positions of privilege who find themselves in reduced circumstances and unable to cope with humble tasks to which they have been reduced."

--Wetman 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Genealogy"

If you look at the Genealogy graph on shaftesburytown.co.uk (direct link http://www.shaftesburytown.co.uk/history/history/genealogy_of_alfred_the_great.html) you will notice they are using the same graph as wikipedia, however much to their credit they have noticed that the one on wikipedia is wrong, it misses the daughter of alfred that became abbess of Shaftesbury, Ethelgiva. Please could wikipedia make the same update.


Update: I have spoken to the orignal creator of the diagram and they have kindly made the update. Issue resolved.

[edit] Name

The Russian emperors and empresses e.g. Catherine II (the Great) are refered to in the article's title by their numeral. I believe that there should be some standardisation here. I therefore propose that this article's new title should be Alfred the Great of Wessex or Alfred of Wessex

Lofty 16:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Remember that uniformity for its own sake is not a universal cultural trait. Keep in mind the title a Wikipedia reader is most likely to search for, and you'll rarely make errors. --03:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you miss the point of his title, unlike the Russian's who frequently handed themselfs impressive titles, Alfred was the only English monarc to be awarded the title "great" that alone makes it significant to keep in the title. -- 04/05/06


When was Alfred styled 'the Great'? Perhaps the nineteenth century? --24.150.16.197 04:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Beginning in the 16th century according to the intro of Asser's Life of King Alfred, so it is a far from contemporary label, but there was only one King Alfred and thus no need to distinguish him by an epithet or patronym. By comparison Æthelred was ill-advised by the twelfth century, Edgar was the peacemaker (and the sense is not far from the idea of a Colt revolver being a peacemaker, peaceable is a later error) at around the same time. Edwy/Eadwig was called All-Fair, Edward the Elder and Edmund Ironside before the Conquest. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Canute was an English monarch with the title 'The Great'. _ Hesselius

No. Canute was a Danish monarch and a monarch of England with the title 'The Great'. There is a difference. Verica Atrebatum 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that Knut the Great was a King of Denmark AND ENGLAND and thus is an English King (e.g. King of England, whether they are 'ethnically English' or not) with the title of Great. 86.154.189.220 (talk) 17:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] University College, Oxford

I am confused why there is a see also for University College, Oxford. Is there a justification for this? or shall I remove it? Waxigloo 02:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Read the second paragraph of the University College, Oxford article Verica Atrebatum 07:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I read that before and I feel like that kind of proves my point. He had nothing to do with the founding of the college, so why would a link from Alfred the great go to it? It makes sense to have that comment on the UCO page with a link here, but I don't see the logic for this link here. Waxigloo 08:33, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Random deletion?

How did this article get altered into an unverified, ancedotal story about Alfred as a beggar? I am reverting the article to its pre- October 4th state.

Djma12 02:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name Pt II

I have read contemporary Anglo-Saxon literature referring to our subject, and his name is spelt with the letter "Æ" (pron. 'ash') instead of "A", meaning the title of this article should be "Ælfred the Great" instead of "Alfred the Great". His name is a compound word of two Anglo-Saxon words- "Ælf"+"Red", being "elf"+"wisdom", or "one who has the wisdom the elves". There was differentiation in old English between the letters "Æ" and "A", just as there was between the now defunct characters Đ ("eth") and Þ ("thorn"), even though superficially they were pronounced similarly. In addition, there has only ever been one Ælfred, meaning there is no need to call him Ælfred I of Wessex or Ælfred I the Great - Ælfred the Great is sufficient. Surfren 04:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Dave (Surfren)

But the general Wikipedia rule is to prefer the title that is commonly used in English (i.e., current English). Alfred is commonly used now; and this form is easier for non-specialists and also easier to type into a search box. Generally, giving the original spelling, original script, variant forms, etc., is best done in the first paragraph of the article, I think. Andrew Dalby 14:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Addition

I believe it would be helpful if perhaps there was a section devoted to anecdotal stories regarding Ælfred - separating what we know about him courtesy of contemporary documents such as Asser's work and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; from other, later depictions where romance took precedence over academic investigation. Surfren 04:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Dave (Surfren)

Yes, that's a good idea. Mind you, there has been controversy about whether Asser is a contemporary source or not! Andrew Dalby 14:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

May I also add my support to this proposition? I think that the entry is more or less fine, but it could certainly do with more contributions from historians or enthusiasts centred on the numerous stories attached to Alfred! saintjohnny

[edit] Shaftesbury website

Earlier this month, user:Shaftesbury added links to ShaftesburyTown.co.uk to three wikipedia pages, including this one. I removed all links to that website from the site because most were off-topic, and had been repeatedly added to inappropriate pages. The user has since complained on my talk page that these were not spam, and that the articles were written by shaftesbury and are based on that site. I traced the link on this page back to 21 April 2006, when it was added by an IP whose only edits were to add links to that site. The link was added at the top of the list of links, but I can find no evidence for its importance or contribution to this article. The site itself appears to be somewhat broken. Unless anybody of the writers of this article think it provides and important and unique contribution I intend to submit it to the spam filter if, and when, it next appears? Joe D (t) 18:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad sex?

Removed "He then had sex with his child hood friend Hannah and killed her in a rage about having bad sex." as completely random pending a reference of some sort. Also, if true, it really doesn't belong in a paragraph concerning the military campaigns. Viciouspiggy 09:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Alfred jewel.JPG

Image:Alfred jewel.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 18:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Alfred jewel.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Alfred jewel.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Papa November 10:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural references

Is the cultral references section really relevant? To me this section is almost on the point of trivia and this section is what is holding this page back from becoming a featured article page. Please write your views on wheter or to delete this section with either Agree or Oppose at the begining of your comment. please would all new comments be placed at the bottom of the article or else they may not be counted. Thank you for your coperation (Electrobe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

Agree Starter of the discusssion. Reasons stated above. (Electrobe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

I agree that this section needs a major rewrite: the trivial instances should be removed and then the section refocused away from a list of appearances and towards a discussion of how Alfred is depicted and portrayed throughout history as historians and authors assess and re-assess his life. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please begin your sentense with either agree or oppose and but it in bold and then continue explanation. This is to avoid confusion over exact context of words and to make it obvious as to the general opinion. Thank You. (Electrobe (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

[edit] The Great

Various kings have also been known as the "Great"- Egbert, Cnut and William- also known as "the Bastard" (though rarely to his face) but never until much later, "the Conqueror".--Streona (talk) 09:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)