Jump to content

Talk:Tamworth, Staffordshire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


[Untitled]

[edit]

I've removed the pronunciation note; I'm from Rugeley, and I've always heard it as "tamw'th", not "tammoth". It's not an exaggerated pronunciation, for sure (not "tam worth"), but the "w" is definitely audible. sjorford (?!) 12:56, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

i'm tammie born 'n' bred and i can assure you it's pronounced 'tammoth (as well, of course, as tamworth) in tamworth...

I'm from the area and I think the "w" is usually sounded. Obviously there's a range of views on this.

I edited the culture Section regarding the so called recent arrival and quite derisery section about indie music. There has been for a very long time an indie, rock, goth sub-culture in Tamworth, since the Robert Peel was Hamlets and closed down in the 90's the community went looking for a home as Hamlets became an Irish theme pub. The current owners remember hamlets and looked to revive some of that feeling, a task which they have done a reasonable job of. I only removed that section as I don't think I'm at all qualified to discuss Tamworth culture and judging from the original article neither was the original author. Tamworth has had a very changeable night life and culture, in the 70's/80's/90's Tamworth was home to a thriving local music scene, it still has a local music scene today a little worse for ware since the council have sold off nearly all the venues. While I feel well versed in this past there used to be theatre in Tamworth, there is a museum in the castle there have been picasso exihibits, I know about it but its not current info or accurate to be in a "pedia". Its pronounced "Tammoth" although the "o" has a slight "u" sound to it, unless of course I'm speaking to those outside of the area when I would say Tamworth.

I've always thought that people said it "Tamw'th", like Sjorford said.


I'm a bona fide Tammie lad, and both pronunciations are used in Tamworth. "Tammoth" is principally used by the older generation, and "Tamw'th" is what most of the younger population use (including myself!).

More on talking in Tamworth

[edit]

I usually heard it called Tammuth or Tamuf. Me, being a tammie meself call it Tamuf. It would be interestin to know what you call it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emos rule (talk • contribs) 18:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'd say "Tammuth". "Tammuf" just sounds to brummy to me. I'd also say "meesen", "hizsen" not "meself", and "hiself". I also use dain't as well as ain't, come as the past for came, 'er for she (eg. 'er come = she came) and negtives of the past of to be with "were" andpsitives with "was" regardless of person: "I was" / "I weren't". Towel and owl have two syllables and the number "one" rhymes with "want" and "wan" whereas "wun" doesn't (that rhymes with "done", "come" and "scum"). --84.78.78.41 16:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from the nearby village of Warton, and we always pronounced it "Tammuth", too. But then I'm also from a slightly older generation, so younger people may have a different pronounciation, especially as a lot of the people now living there are Brummie by origin.

I've lived here only 35 years now and I say Tammuth, I agree the Tammuf is mainly from those that hailed from birmingham. Today with so many imports I hear allsorts. But more importantly is how do you pronouce Wilnecote. If you've been here a while it only has two syllables.

Suburbs/Areas

[edit]

Riverside is more of a houseing estate, would it not be better to includ Mercia instead as that would include the whole area from between the railways line and the river. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.241.209 (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

I don't know who's responsible for saying that the population has fallen since the 2001 census, from 74,531 to 74,200. This is obviously complete nonsense. The town has probably grown by at least 1,000 since 2001.

Image

[edit]

One of the photos shows people quite close to the camera. It would probably be best not to show peoples faces. Can the photo be replaced? Snowman (talk) 10:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blurred them. G-Man ? 02:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

[edit]

Yeh i'm from Belgrave and loads of older people still say Win'cut and 'Tammuth'. As well as things like 'Shant' (for shall not) and pronouncing 'going', 'Gooin'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fwoar! (talk • contribs) 19:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Grazier

[edit]

Why no mention of Colin Grazier GC on this page? And what about Sir William Peel VC? Samuel Parkes VC is there.91.110.205.188 (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Mile Oak.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:16, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road names

[edit]

Why are so many roads in Tamworth not called 'road' or anything like that? They tend to be called just things like 'Willowbank' and the like. Of course there are roads like that in every town, but seemingly a much higher percentage in Tamworth than anywhere else Martyn Smith (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC) (Sutton Coldfield boy)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move; no clear primary topic. Will also move Tamworth (disambiguation) to Tamworth. Cúchullain t/c 19:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth → Tamworth, Staffordshire – The Tamworth in New South Wales is just as well known. 58.7.145.197 (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Malformed request are you proposing to move Tamworth (disambiguation) to Tamworth? (NB Tamworth UK 74,531 Tamworth NSW 47,595 people. The vast majority of GB hits [= vast majority of Google Book hits are related to the English town]). In ictu oculi (talk) 07:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page will of course have more hits than other Tamworth, as people searching for any other topic are forced here rather than elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.145.197 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Many of the people who arrive at the Tamworth page will have selected it from the options in the search box (where Tamworth, New South Wales is listed separately), or from a link in another article. Peter E. James (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • IIO, when you say "vast majority of GB hits", which city are you referring to? Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Inserted "[related to the English town]" above - history, architecture, bios of people - the things that are more likely to accumulate for a town with 1,500 years history - part of it as royal capital of the Kingdom of Mercia before the Normans, and sizeable population centre in the Middle Ages - than a town with only 150 years history. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:46, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. A world-wide google search gives, in the top 30 results, equal numbers (11) for Australia and England, with smaller numbers for pig (4), USA (3) and Canada (1). Given also the historical importance of the English Tamworth, no good reason for such a change at this time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan1nad (talk • contribs) 09:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aussie Tamworth hosts the largest music festival in Australia, Which is what I was looking for when I got pushed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.145.197 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition to that, I am assuming from your userpage, Jan1nad, that you are in the UK. Google can detect this and will give you results to match. For example, because I'm in Australia, nine of the first ten results for me are about the Australian Tamworth. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Tamworth has more page views than Tamworth, New South Wales, but the number is quite close, and when the other articles at Tamworth (disambiguation) are added it drops below 50% in some months, making it likely that there is no primary topic. Google.com search for "Tamworth" also returns similar numbers of results associated with both places. I'm not sure about the "historical importance" - is it just because the the UK town existed before the others and the Australian city was named after it, or is there something of more importance? Peter E. James (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The English Tamworth is the original, an historic town and considerably larger than the Australian Tamworth. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)-[reply]
  • Support. Having seen all the arguments I now support the move --palmiped |  Talk  18:39, 6 JulyAugustdia|talk]]) 21:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No clear primary topic: page views and google searches are similar between the two cities, and that is without taking into account the other articles listed at the dab page, so I do not think the UK city meets the "usage" criterion. The second criterion is "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value". It is a common misconception at RM that this simply means "older", but this is simply not the case with Boston being one of many examples. I see the articles as quite similar in "enduring notability" and "educational value" – although the UK city is larger, the Australian city is much more well known than most cities of its size due to the Tamworth Country Music Festival and the fact that it is the "home of country music in Australia", similar to Nashville in the US. Jenks24 (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jenks24, out of interest, does Google Books also adjust to the searcher being in Australia? How many UK vs Aus Tamworth do you get from the first 20 results, for example? In ictu oculi (talk) 16:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, There doesn't appear to be a PT so maybe best dismabig. Zarcadia (talk) 21:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - for there to be a primary topic, one of the articles has to be much more important than the others, and looking at the evidence above that doesn't seem to be the case here. (And this surprised me, as I'm from Staffordshire, myself.) Interplanet Janet (talk) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are a lot of places in the English-speaking world which were originally named after British (and sometimes Irish) towns. We often see, from the perspective of British users, these attempts to demote the significance of the original historic towns based on pure google hit arguments, and the usual British response is to complain that (a) we were here first, and primary can mean first chronologically; (b) by virtue of its longer history the British town has more significance. And these arguments are simply batted away by the claim that that doesn't matter now, here, today. Isn't the google hits argument just as reasonable? Is it not reasonable to take into account that Tamworth Staffs. has given the world so many more things, Sir Robert Peel, Thomas Guy, even the Reliant Robin, compared with a country music festival? Is it not inconsistent to say that notability is forever (so someone famous in the 16th century but forgotten now would still be notable for inclusion) but in terms of primary topics, only today's google hits matter? Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability has nothing to do with primarity, which has nothing to do with reliability, which has nothing to do with precision. These are unrelated concepts. Sources used on Wikipedia depend on reliability. Article existence depend on notability. Article placement depends on primarity. Article naming depends on common names. Disambiguation of names and length of names depends on precision. These are all different factors. And as for forgotten things of the past, even that does not ensure notability, because WP:NOTNEWS cuts off some of those forgotten things as news events. Let us not forget about WP:Systematic bias of having old things be primary for no reason than being old and storied. And WP:Recentism of having new things become primary just because they were in the news. And ofcourse anything British or American needs to be determined if they suffer from a need to globalize the view looking from implicit bias of being old or from the most powerful and influential English country. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No clear primary topic. Ignorant Armies (talk) 05:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

As a result of the recently completed page moves (see above section) links to the Tamworth disambiguation have rocketed up to #2 on the Disambiguation pages with links Top 500. Please help lower this page's ranking by working on the Disambig fix list for Tamworth using Dab solver. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This DAB currently has five hits on the front page of my watchlist. None are by anyone who proposed, supported, or executed the move. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed (except Talk:Saint George#Patron Saint of Tamworth). SchreiberBike (talk) 06:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tamworth, Staffordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tamworth, Staffordshire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:24, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The Borough of Tamworth seems to be more or less coterminous with the town of Tamworth. All the places in the borough which have separate articles are described in those articles as areas or suburbs of Tamworth. The article on the borough is all about governance of the town and does not seem to justify its own article, so would anyone object to it being merged into this article? --Mhockey (talk) 17:54, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with the merge because Tamworth is the Borough of Tamworth and the Borough of Tamworth is such a small article that is would fit well into the Tamworth article. 2A00:23C5:7312:B900:65B2:C213:16E6:E750 (talk) 17:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge now completed.--Mhockey (talk) 21:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UKDISTRICTS I think that Tamworth satisfies all 6 of the criteria for having just one article unlike Chesterfield and Corby for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Area Merge proposal

[edit]

I propose merging the Tamworth Built-up area article into this one. There isnt much in the built-up area that isnt already in the borough and covered here except for the Fazeley Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support we don't need 2 articles for different definitions of a place and unlike Birkenhead (which arguably should be merged) its unlikely people would object to Frazeley being treated as part of Tamworth. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or could I suggest making a new tab with the information in the article and a mention of it in Fazeley article. RailwayJG (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what a merger probably would entail, all the info would be in this article I'd probably put in the geography section, feel free to add an urban area mention to the existing Fazeley article. Eopsid (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Capital of Mercia

[edit]

My edit correcting the statement has been reverted on the ground that it was unexplained and badly execcuted. I agree that it should have been explained but if badly executed then how? The statement that Tamworth was the capital is incorrect. Historians of Anglo-Saxon England say that the courts were mobile and there were no fixed capitals. I have the book cited for the statement that Tamworth was the capital but the reference was vague and had no page number. I found a statement that Tamworth was the principal administrative centre in the pre-Viking period - not afterwards when Mercia lost its independence - and amended and cited with the page number accordingly. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are countless references to it being capital of Mercia, these for example. [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Also (according to my history book) It was the centre of royal government from the time of Offa and his successors, and the principal royal residence. There are 15 surviving Royal charters issued from Tamworth, and was the location of the principal royal mint. That would appear to justify claims of it being a capital. Also, your edit wiped out blue links to King Offa, meaning the sentence no longer made any sense. G-13114 (talk) 07:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are specialist historians of Anglo-Saxon England. This issue has been discussed on numerous occasions. See for example Talk:Winchester#Winchester the Anglo-Saxon capital?. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:41, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for sources, I've given you multiple sources which describe it as the capital of Mercia, quite what the difference between 'capital' and 'principal administrative centre' is I don't know. Also you have re added your linkless version which makes no sense to the reader. G-13114 (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia requires reliable sources, that is specialist sources on the period. None of your sources comply with that. I have just checked Mercia. an Anglo-Saxon Kingdom in Europe, Leicester University Press, 2001, a collection of essays by specialists. It nowhere refers to Tamworth as the capital. Thomas Charles-Edwards says that Mercia had three zones: "In the centre was Mercia proper, including such places as Repton, Lichfield and Tamworth". (p. 94). Janet Nelson describes Tamworth as "favourite residence of the eighth-century kings". (p.131) Martin Welch describes it as "one of the most important Mercian vills". If Tamworth was the capital, it would certainly have been mentioned in this book. (p. 157) Dudley Miles (talk) 08:15, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There weren't any formal capitals in Anglo-Saxon times, so technically this is correct. However, it meets a modern definition of a capital, as a centre of government. Multiple modern sources refer to it as such. G-13114 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G-13114, your sources are all of low quality and some are simply not seondary. The use of such references causes many problems through wikipesia. Ten of them would not trump a peer reviewed article by a reputable academic from a reputable publisher. In addition, and on a personal note, I have always been uncomfortable when the phrase 'capital city' is used to describbe a main settlement in antiquity. I might be wrong but to me 'capital city' is a more modern term, meaning its use is often anachronistic. But as I said, I might be wrong on that point. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's open to varying interpretations I guess. Anglo-Saxon kingship was certainly itinerant, so the point about anachronism is a fair one, but that doesn't mean that there was no hierarchy of settlement, and it's pretty clear that for Mercia at least until the 9th century Tamworth was pretty much at the top of it. Hart unashamedly talks about "Tamworth, the Mercian capital" in Dorniers book of essays on Mercia [7] while Stenton talk of it as "Tamworth, the chief residence of [Mercia's] kings". [8] Is that a "capital"? It's certainly pretty arguable. "Capital" certainly feels less problematic than "principal administrative centre" further down, which makes it sound like there was some sort of civil service going on! And "Tamworth was by far the largest town in the English Midlands when today's much larger city of Birmingham was still in its infancy", errrm, really? When? There is pretty much no evidence of urbanity anywhere in early medieval England until the rise of the emporia. And what's the relevance of Birmingham at a time where there's no evidence it even existed? And don't get me started all the mentions of the heptarchy, a thoroughly discredited concept that seems to be all over Wikipedia. On balance I think the use of the word "capital" here is the least of its problems. JimmyGuano (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We can all have our own opinions whether it is arguable to say that Tamworth was the capital, but we have to go by the sources, not our own interpretation. Modern expert sources are clear that there were no capitals in Anglo-Saxon states. I agree on Birmingham and have deleted the comment. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do indeed go by sources, which is why I added a couple of pretty authoritative ones, one of which directly attests the word! Stenton is probably the classic work on the subject and Cyril Hart is not exactly negligible in his reputation. And in fact another essay in the exact work you have cited does use the word "capital" of Tamworth.(p145) Don't get me wrong, I am not denying the pitfalls of "capital" in this context and would like to find something better, but "principle administrative centre" feels if anything worse - I don't think many scholars would argue there was a Mercian "state" - and it's also a poor paraphrase of the text in the cited source, which actually describes Tamworth's status as "the principle centre of the old Mercian regime". How about using John Blair's interpretation: "Pre-eminent is Tamworth, which emerges from 799 as a major Mercian royal centre, more like a ‘capital’ than any other English place before the tenth century.", which I guess is half capital and half not-capital and feels a nuanced interpretation by a highly respected scholar. Being a centre of royal power feels a more appropriate idea here than suggestions of bureaucracy. We do need to specify a time period too - there were large parts of the early medieval period when Tamworth was pretty marginal. JimmyGuano (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, link would be helpful wouldn't it - [9] JimmyGuano (talk) 21:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source cited Edward the Elder with no page number and I changed it to what I thought was the correct wording of the source, adding 'administrative' because that word is used in the line above, but I agree that it is clumsy. I do not like Blair's wording as it seems to imply that there was a capital by the tenth century, which no reliable source says so far as I know. How about quoting "the principal centre of the old Mercian regime", with time qualification as you suggest? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A phrase like "Principal royal centre of Mercia" might work as an intro, maybe cited to Blair and Stenton? It needs the qualification: it wasn't, for example, the principal ecclesiastic centre or the principle economic one. However even if we don't use the word "capital" (though I've now provided four attestations of the word, all from academics distinguished in this field), there is an important sense in which it was a capital that we need to capture in the wider text. Here's John Blair again, in a more recent book specifically about the development of the Anglo-Saxon landscape: "Six miles southeast of Lichfield was Tamworth, which from King Offa’s later years in the 780s and ’90s—but probably not before that—was a stable royal centre of an apparently new kind. It seems likely that Offa’s quasi- imperial ambitions and expanding territorial interests led him to establish a new ‘capital’, near Lichfield and the southward routes, on a site that had hitherto been peripheral."[10] JimmyGuano (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a 'principal administrative centre' and a 'capital' is really splitting hairs. Of course technically it was never formally a 'capital' of anything, since the modern concept of a capital city didn't exist in the 8th century. However, it is probably was the closest thing to a modern concept of a capital, it is a modern term and concept applied retrospectively.. Modern non-specialist sources almost universally refer to Tamworth as the capital of Mercia, including the BBC, the Staffordshire County Council website and the Historical Association among others (including the sites I linked earlier). I don't think we can simply ignore the modern description. I would suggest that the best solution would be to restore the capital description, but qualify it by putting it in quotemarks to denote that the description is a modern and unnoficial one. G-13114 (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "principal centre" but 'capital' in single quotes obviously can be supported if other editors prefer it. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:24, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both seem perfectly reasonable to me. Maybe the 'capital' phrase makes more sense when we have space to explain the ambiguity that it's representing? Perhaps the sentence in the lead could say "Tamworth was the principal centre of royal power of the Kingdom of Mercia during the 8th and 9th centuries" (replacing the mention of the "heptarchy", and using the more precise wording where we don't have room for detailed explanation), the subheading in the body could be "Mercian 'Capital'" (where the existing convoluted subheading phrasing really doesn't work) and then in the body would could point out that Anglo-Saxon Kingship was generally itinerant but that under Offa Tamworth emerged as a stable power centre that was a 'capital' in some ways that hadn't been seen before. That way we should get something that reads easily but explains what ways it was and wasn't a 'capital' and what was significant about that? JimmyGuano (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine so long as there are specialist sources to support the explanation without OR or SYNTH. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not an unreasonable request! Do those changes seem like a reasonable reflection of some decent sources? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They look OK to me. I have made changes to dubious edits by other editors. Blair says that Tamworth seems to have been Æthelflæd's capital. I have not quoted this as other historians regard Gloucester as more important at this time, but his opinion may be worth citing if he gets support for his view. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

G-13114 you may be interested in [11]. I am doubtful about the statement that it was a ruin until Æthelflæd fortified it. I wonder whether the comment is based on archaeology or just lack of information. The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia just says that it was a frontier town in the period. I can send you a scan of the page if you wish. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct, that's just how I read my source, it says it was in no mans land on a lawless frontier for 40 years with its former royal buildings in ruin. However it doesn't say it was depopulated. I would logically imagine that not many people would have wanted to live under those circumstances though. But yes it isn't stated that it was abandoned. G-13114 (talk) 20:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vikings sacked Tamworth

[edit]

G-13114. You reverted my deletion of the sacking of Tamworth in 874 with the comment that it is in the source. I have several sources on the Viking invasion and Tamworth is not mentioned in 874, only Repton. It is not in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and Frank Stenton in his history says that the details of the fall of Mercia are not known. I assume that you are referring to the Stone's History, which I do not have. Can you advise what source he cites? Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of Tamworth. If you have a reliable source saying that there was a battle of Tamworth you can contribute to the discussion. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll quote from page 9 of Stone's History of Tamworth book: "The last of a series of 15 surviving royal charters issued from Tamworth is dated 857 and signed by King Burgred. In 874-75 a Danish army plundered deep into Mercia. Royal Tamworth, a tempting prize, was looted and burned to the ground. Burgred fed to Rome and never returned. With a pragmatic mix of armed resistance and bribery, Alfred, King of the West Saxons maintained control of Wessex and part of south-west Mercia. The rest of England, broadly all the land north and east of Watling Street, came under Danish rule and became known as Danelaw. For forty years Tamworth lay in no-man's land, the royal buildings reduced to blackened ruins on a lawless frontier."
There's a lengthy bibliography towards the rear of the book, which I could type out if you really want, but that exact passage doesn't have a direct cite. This does however establish that reliable published secondary sources support that this happened, which is what Wikipedia is here to report. G-13114 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are experts on the period, such as Frank Stenton and Richard Abels. They both just mention Repton. Stone appears to have copied one of the claims in popular sources going back over a century that the Vikings burned Tamworth, but there is no evidence for it, just a myth repeated again and again. An unreferenced claim by someone who is not an Anglo-Saxon specialist is not a reliable source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really can't say whether it's a myth or not, I guess no-one knows for sure. But then It's not Wikipedia's job to decide on whether a historical claim is factual or not, but to repeat what has been written in reliable published sources. The fact is, this has been repeated as a statement of truth in numerous books etc. What you are suggesting is getting dangerously close to original research. G-13114 (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is Wikipedia's job to rely on experts such as Stenton and Abels, not unreferenced claims by non-experts who are not reliable sources on Anglo-Saxon history. Relying on experts in their field rather than regurgitating popular myths is not OR. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dudley; non-expert books on Anglo-Saxon topics are not reliable sources. You can still find books that repeat the claim that Alfred the Great founded Oxford University, for example. Popular histories should not be used as sources for Anglo-Saxon history; there are many, many reliable sources available. I think the phrase should be removed from the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources you've mentioned make the claim that it didn't happen, they just don't know and don't mention Tamworth (as is unsurprising for something that long ago). So removing the claim would be clear original research, especially as it has been repeat verbatim in multiple published sources. As I have pointed out it's not Wikipedia's job to determine what is true or not, but to reflect the published sources. G-13114 (talk) 02:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say instead that it's our job to reflect the reliable published sources. If no reliable sources say X, it doesn't matter if unreliable sources say X. I think what we're disagreeing on here is what constitutes a reliable source for Anglo-Saxon history. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note clarifying popular and academic views. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mike and Dudley here - whatever non-experts in Anglo-Saxon history say should at least be balanced by the fact that no source from a Anglo-Saxon historian states such a sack occurred. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about Tamworth and it's history though. We have a situation where probably one of the few books published specifically about the history of Tamworth states unequivocally that X happened, which is itself based on a number of other published books on Staffordshire history, which also state the same thing. But one wikipedia editor thinks all the sources are wrong and he's right. It's fair to say that no-one actually knows what happened in Tamworth in the 870s, which is hardly surprising given the scarcity of records relating to events in the 9th century. It could be that the claim about the siege of Tamworth is based on local folklore and legend (which doesn't necessarily invalidate it, as oral history is sometimes based in fact) or it could have been invented centuries later and repeated as a myth ever since. Either way, we cannot simply discard the fact that multiple published historical sources have made this claim, and stated it as unequivocally true. We could probably solve it by stating something like "By tradition this is what happened", then we are not declaring it to be true, but stating it as a local tradition of what occured. G-13114 (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added that. See note a. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of interest, I found this [12] from the Council for British Archaeology which has quite a lot of information about Tamworth during the Saxon period, but it doesn't shed much light upon the period in question other than saying there "may have been an hiatus during the period of the Danelaw when Tamworth, sited 2km north of the Watling Street, lay just inside the fringe of Danish territory.". G-13114 (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good source for expanding the article. I have seen statements before that Tamworth was a frontier town, but this is the first one that clarified that it was on the Danish side of the border. I assume that the statement is based on the fact that Watling Street was the border agreed in the Treaty of Alfred and Guthrum. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tamworth Borough Council

[edit]

Since no article exists at Borough of Tamworth per #Merger proposal as the boundaries are long-standing (see User:Crouch, Swale/District split) and similar an article should probably exist on the council per WP:UKDISTRICTS like Eastbourne Borough Council unless the article on the district is restored. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamworth,_Staffordshire&oldid=1212307314"