Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelberht of Kent

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 16:57, 28 June 2007.

---

Æthelberht of Kent

Major rewrite and expansion done; I think this is at FA standard now. Other FAs of Anglo-Saxon kings, in case comparison is useful: Ælle of Sussex, Penda of Mercia and Æthelbald of Mercia. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I like it, but the lead paragraphs need to bolster some of the bold claims. This can be done in the sentences themselves, without any distracting and alienating notes. E.g. "In his Historia Gestae Britanica, the Venerable Bede, lists Aethelberht as being third ..." No need for a note there, but it's clear to readers. Similarly for "earliest written code in any Germanic language." The moment we say "first," hands shoot up among the audience. In this instance it's quite true, but an historian can be given so that you don't bear the brunt of the criticism. E.g. "<Expertdude> says that Aethelberht's Kentish code is the first written in any Germanic language." (You and I probably know that this fact has a great deal of significance because of what it is not. The code being in A-S means that it's non-ecclesiastic and not ecclesiastically derived. That suggests a secular state apparatus prior to the conversion that demands great stability.) (More in a moment, but saving to prevent edit conflicts.) Geogre 16:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to respond under each of your bullets, if that's OK: I know some reviewers don't like that approach but as you've signed each bullet separately I'm going to assume that's the easiest way to go. For your point above, there's actually a footnote for the Bede reference: as you say, footnotes in the lead aren't very desirable, so I simply cut it thinking the later footnote would do it. I think you're right that the sentence on Bede should be expanded, along the lines you suggest; but I'm not so sure about the "first Germanic code" one. The (later) footnote for that assertion is to Stenton, but I felt that readers wouldn't know who Stenton was either, so it wouldn't really help. Bede is different, since a reader has to understand who Bede is to understand the sources of information on Æthelberht. I can certainly make the change if you think it's necessary, but can you comment on the difference I see there? Meanwhile I'll go make the Bede edit. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • More of the comment: "Historical background" is good, but it seems to mix historical and historiographic backgrounds. It's interesting to discuss the validity, biases, and interests of our sources (conceivably even our modern ones), but I would expect -- rightly or wrongly -- that this section would give the readers some material, legal, and ecclesiastic history of the area at the accession of Aethelbert. This would be where I would expect information on the Anglo-Saxon religion (flavored and accented Norse, which we know only really from Tacitus's Germania), the trade relationships between the tribal states of the A-S (as we get pictures in Icelandic sagas), the chieftain-driven society, the posse comitatus, the presence/absence of coinage, the attempts by Gregory to get the island back into the church, successes or failures in Ireland, etc. You know -- this is how things were when our hero emerged kind of stuff. Geogre 16:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all the points you make; I'll go do some research and come back with some changes. On the history vs. historiography question: should I separate out the sources para? I could make the main section "Background", with two subsections: "Historical context", and "Sources". Mike Christie (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • More of it: The Accession section is kind of tough slogging. As an encyclopedist and synthesizer of information, you should do your best to report the debate without going into such detail that only fans of a particular source can read it. (I'd put my money on Bede, for example, over the Chronicles, every single time, and Tours didn't really need to know.) My point is that you should vastly consolidate it, report that there is divergence and uncertainty (which will surprise no one), and give folks the simple version of ranges of dates. Geogre 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I knew this was a lot of detail, but I sort of liked it; I got some feedback on the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Æthelbald of Mercia FAC that going into the sources in detail was good, and maybe I overdid it this time. I've cut it a bit, so if you could have another look and tell me if I need to do more I'd appreciate it. I'd really like to leave some of the gory details in -- this sort of analysis is what you have to do to draw conclusions about dates for this time period, and I'd like to leave the readers with a sense of it. Mike Christie (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Sickeningly more of it: The last sentence in "Relations with Franks" seems like it is left over from a previous version of the article, as it makes little sense in this place at this time. It's rather inexplicable where it stands, so it either needs expansion and better lead in or needs excision. For that matter, you indicate the presence of Frankish influence on agricultural and legal practice, and yet that seems to be one of those really important facts that could help explain much. The legal under/over lording matters less, to my view, than the cultural subsuming of Kent to a Frankish (and hence ready-to-convert) system. What are the indications, here? Do they imply experts coming over and going back? If there is an exchange of people as well as goods, we've got a story. Geogre 16:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Several different points here, so split responses. That last sentence is based on this sentence in Yorke: "Frankish fashions in dress, weaponry and drink are reflected in the burials, though these are never exclusively Frankish suggesting 'influence' rather than settlement." I felt the sentence was justified because otherwise a reader might say "How do you know this is cultural connection? Couldn't these just be Frankish graves?" Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For the agricultural and legal practice: I've cited Stenton for the agrarian influence, but unfortunately he doesn't footnote it so I can't trace that to a more detailed argument. I have seen the comment made elsewhere, but I think only in survey works; I would assume the underlying reference is to some papers that establish the connections. Do I need to hunt those down? I agree they would be interesting, but in an article about Æthelberht, rather than about the settlement of Kent, I was thinking that was enough detail. Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

For people travelling back and forth, I'm not aware of any evidence at all other than the existence of trade. I did consider merging the trade and Franks sections, as they are obviously related, but one seemed primarily political and the other economic, so I eventually kept them separate. I also see the case for talking about religious influences, but I think the section on Augustine's mission does need to be separated, so I put a more detailed discussion of Frankish pressure to convert in that section. What do you think of that approach? I didn't want to duplicate material in two places, but I can move things around if need be. Mike Christie (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • And you thought I was gone: Ok, in "Bretwalda," or actually before, you mention a particular AS Chronicle. Which one? Isn't C the Parker Chronicle? If so, please do indicate which of the Chronicles has the sui generis material, as there is much to be gained from such knowledge. Geogre 16:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done -- I tweaked the caption to point at the surviving manuscripts section of the ASC article. Mike Christie (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Still here: I hate to be a pest, but the "historical background" section could have done something that would alleviate reader confusion later. The business of the overlord is highly meaningful to anyone who has studied the Anglo-Saxons, or the Norse, or the Franks, but it's not necessarily obvious to non-specialists that a king could spread Christianity to his thanes without legal order and yet very effectively. I think people expect resentful, grumbling minions with "overlord" rather than thanes and thane-lords. Geogre 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea: I added a short paragraph on this. Let me know if that does it. Mike Christie (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Alas, it's him again: The section on Augustine's mission contains information the reader needed to contextualize the import of the king and could well have been moved far up. However, there is one flat misstatement that really must be amended. You say that the invasions separated the Celtic church from Europe for centuries. C. 400, Roman troops withdraw. C. 440, Picts and Scots invade and invade and invade. C. 440, the infamous Hengest and Horsa. C. 500, Anglo-Saxon dominance. By 600, we generally think there was virtually no Christianity on the island, except in Wales, if there, and the conversion of the Saxons is not a reconnection of an isolated church but a new conversion of a people who had been pagan from the beginning. No doubt the "work of giants" (Roman engineers) and of "ghosts" (Celtic decorative arts) that remained and spooked the Saxons helped them accept the new old religion, but the sentence really leads to an incorrect view. Geogre 17:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I guess I need to ask you for the specific sentence you feel is a mis-statement: I'm not seeing it. I did tweak one sentence to say the Roman church had "no presence" instead of "little presence", which strengthens things in the direction you're asking for, but I'm not clear what else to change. The story of Augustine meeting the British bishops at Augustine's Oak relies on Bede, but that seems pretty definite evidence that there was an active church in Wales, at least. I agree that the tone of this section implies a reconnection, but it's the church reconnecting, not the people, that I meant to refer to. For example, later in the seventh century the British and Roman churches have the big fights about the date of Easter and some other liturgical and ritual issues, and the Roman side (well, by that time the A-S church side, which is by then back in the Roman fold) wins the argument. I know it took some time to reintegrate the church hierarchies even after that, but I thought it was the case that once Rome and the new A-S ecclesiastical hierarchy were clear on the divergence of the British clergy from Roman ritual, there was a definite goal of bringing them back under the Pope's authority. Am I missing something here? Mike Christie (talk) 22:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Back, but on the super minor: In the laws thing, let's link Offa and blood feud, and any other items mysterious to the uninitiated. Geogre 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Done; I also linked Ine of Wessex. Mike Christie (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support: If I have tweaks and tips, I'll go to the article talk page and/or make edits. It's a strong page. I still feel that the prose bogs down under the weight of the scholarship here and there, but, while that is an argument for improvement, it is not an argument against this being a featured article. The article is more than worthy, and the author deserves all praise for the work. Geogre 17:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment—Haven't looked properly yet, but lots of hyphens that should be en dashes in the reference list (MOS insists now); the opening "c.560–February 24, 616" has an en dash that should be spaced, because both items are spaced—well, both should be spaced (MOS). Tony

Done, both for the date ranges and the page ranges in the refs. I noticed what appears to be an inconsistency in the MOS, by the way: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#En_dashes says that there should be spaces around the en dashes when the items contain spaces, but Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Dates_of_birth_and_death says it can be a hyphen or en dash, and says it can be spaced or unspaced in this case. I assume this just needs to be brought up to date with the new MOS section. Anyway, I think it's now fixed for the Æthelberht article. Mike Christie (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support The article is well written and well referenced. Unlike the earlier FAs of Anglo Saxon kings, which I supported before, this one has some real meat (not to fault the earlier FA's, but it appeared the sources just weren't there). This is an EXCELLENT article and deserves promotion as an FA. I can find no obvious fixes needed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.