Talk:Ælfheah of Canterbury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ælfheah of Canterbury is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 30, 2009.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
January 16, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
February 28, 2009 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


The passage on the second Alphege was copied verbatim from the Oxford Dictionary of Saints, very much in the copyright of the OUP. I've marked the article for appropriate consideration.Staffelde 22:25, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:


  1. In the second paragraph of "Life", Aelfric redirects to a disambig page — the wikilink should be modified/piped to point to the specific person.
Piped and dealt with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ealdgyth (talkcontribs) 04:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The third paragraph of "Veneration" is unacceptable for an encyclopedic article. First of all, there should be no external links within the body of an article. Secondly, it is completely uncited. Thirdly, the first sentence is not prose, but a list smashed into a quasi-sentence. Fourthly, calling something "unexpectedly charming" is subjective, not very neutral and certainly not very encyclopedic. Most of the "???" above came from just this paragraph.
Done. That section was in the article when I started work on it, and I have no idea where to find citations for it, so it can go and I can keep looking for citations for it. Luckily, it's almost a trivia section, so it's not vital to the article. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. The "Records" section is too small to be its own Level 3 heading; it needs to be either expanded or merged (I would suggest merging it into "Veneration", as it would seem to make sense there). Also, Osborn does not lead to the person who wrote the account, but to a disambig. page. Also, the last part requires a citation if you're claiming that it's something he directly said. Also, the lead doesn't cover this section but, if merged into "Veneration", the lead can probably do without it.
Merged. Thanks for the suggestion! I don't think Osborn wrote anything else, so rather than redlink him, I just unlinked him. Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That should deal with most of it, thanks, as usual, for the detailed suggestions and the tweaks you made. Anything else you see? Ealdgyth | Talk 04:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

To allow for these changes to be made, I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to seven days, after which it may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work thus far. Cheers, CP 04:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks great now, so I will be passing it as a Good Article! Congratulations, and thank you for your hard work! Cheers, CP 05:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Unclear drafting[edit]

I don't understand "His shrine, which was depreciated by Lanfranc". "depreciated" doesn't have an evident meaning in this context (it should be an accountancy term). Is it, on the analogy of uses in Romance languages, supposed to mean that Lanfranc said he didn't like it? Or something else?

And does "Saint Thomas Becket is said to have commended his life into St Alphege's care right before he was martyred." mean "just" before he was martyred?

Deipnosophista (talk) 23:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarified both of those, hopefully. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ref for place of birth[edit]

Does anyone have a reference for his place of birth? There is some editing going on at Jacob Rees-Mogg who has named his son Alphege claiming he was born in his constituency with others stating that he wasn't. Expect help in resolving this authoritatively would be useful.— Rod talk 18:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of article[edit]

I do think the name of this article is daft. This man is universally known as Alphege, or St Alphege. The article should be found under that name. He is venerated as Alphege. He is listed on the Church of England calendar as Alphege. The places and streets named after him in Canterbury are called Alphege. Anyone looking for him on Wikipedia will be looking for Alphege. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 01:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

And anyone who types in Alphege into the search box will come straight to this article, since that name redirects here. BencherliteTalk 01:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed they will - that's how I first arrived here; though that's hardly the point. My assertion is that the lead name should be the name in popular use, rather than one which (whilst doubtless entirely accurate) is popularly unspoken, visually unappealing (other than to students of its period), and generally unpronounceable for the average reader. Of course, I've no problem with Ælfheah redirecting to an article named Alphege. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 02:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The article is named, like all the Archbishops of Canterbury articles, after the name given in the Handbook of British Chronology as well as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
IMHO that does not mean that it is the best title for an article in a general encyclopedia which is directed primarily at non-specialists. I agree with Timothy Titus. Diomedea Exulans (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC). Note WP:NOT - "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics. Article titles should reflect common usage, not academic terminology, whenever possible." and see MOS:FOREIGN, WP:JARGON "Do not introduce new and specialized words simply to teach them to the reader when more common alternatives will do". Diomedea Exulans (talk) 12:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the unpronouncible and unspellable anglo saxon name has to go, and that the common English name "Alphege" be used throughout the body of the article. The anglo saxon name should be mentioned only at the beginning of the article. Rwflammang (talk) 12:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Age of Carving being used to illustrate article?[edit]

I can't see any indication as to whether the carving in the image being used for this article (File:Painted_carving_of_St_Alphege_in_Canterbury_Cathedral.jpg) is indeed a medieval rather than a modern work - not stated in the wiki article and the image is trimmed at the foot, should that have been detailed on the information notice IRL. Could you please clarify on this. Thanks, David. Harami2000 (talk) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't take the picture, so I don't honestly know. I depended on the FAC vetting process to clear it for use. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Death POV[edit]

Because this death is a martyrdom, I wonder whether any of the scholarship attempts to show that the manner in which Ælfheah was executed reflected a religious conflict. That is, the pelting with specific animal parts and the blow of the axe is broadly consistent with various sacrificial practices of the European Bronze and Iron Ages. It would be interesting to know whether the Danes might have thought they were trying to preserve their own religious heritage against the campaign of Christian conversion; this is speculation on my part, but if there were credible scholarship that has explored this possibility, a sentence would make this section of the article a little more balanced than "Christians good, unconverted barbarians bad and pointlessly violent". Cynwolfe (talk) 14:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

There is very little scholarship on Ælfheah period. MacDougall's article "Serious entertainments" speculates that most of the Danes who killed Ælfheah might have been Christians, but this is a speculation, not fact, and he's discussing it in terms of Goscelin's life from the late 1090s, not any contemporary accounts of the death. The article is concerned with the particular type of "atrocity" that the Scandinavians did, and doesn't discuss the motivations for it. There may be scholarship in Scandinavia about the general background you're describing, but I don't have access to it, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
The incident portrayed in the Chronicle has actually invited comparison with a measure of punishment described in the 12th-century Lex Castrensis. This Danish text presents itself as a set of regulations instituted by Cnut to teach his household retainers (some would day "housecarls", but there is no consensus about the meaning of the term) some discipline. One of the more remarkable sanctions is directly related to social status: a retainer who refuses to correct his behaviour could be seated lower down the bench and be pelted with bones. Unfortunately, I can't recall right now who discussed it and where, though Nicholas Hooper's paper on housecarls is probably what you should be looking for.Cavila (talk) 20:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious date changing[edit]

I've double checked the dates and as of this moment, they are correct in Ælfheah of Canterbury. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

So, I was right in reverting back to the last version by User:Gilliam. The anon IP editor was vandalizing by scrambling up the dates. My revert put the correct ones back in. Unfortunately, the anti-spam bots don't pick up this kind of vandalism. --Richard (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Great job[edit]

Congratulations to all who helped raise this to FA status. Bearian (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

An oddity[edit]

I come to a place where I might find a credible opinion. The statue of St Alphege on the west front of Salisbury Cathedral shows him with stones held in his upturned clothes and another stone, curiously, on his right shoulder. I see no mention of this in his attributes in this article. Can anyone offer an explanation? Richard Avery (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not in the article because there is nothing in the literature I found that discusses this. We'd need something besides just a picture depicting this to discuss it in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I was using 'The Legend of Christian Art illustrated in the statues of Salisbury Cathedral'. Perhaps the Rev. HT Armfield, using Mrs Jameson's 'Sacred and Legendary Art' has confused something in his identification and description of the statue. Richard Avery (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Bit on hold for a few...[edit]

This bit "An incised paving slab to the north of the present high altar marks the spot where the medieval shrine is believed to have stood." is not supported by the ref that was given for it - not sure how it got that way and it's long water under the bridge anyway. Will dig to find a source for this. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A new reference[edit]

While browsing in search of references for my French translation of this article, I found this book from last year. It looks like it could be used to improve some parts of the article. Ælfgar (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Shared authority from age 15??[edit]

This sentence "He perhaps shared authority with his predecessor Æscwig after 968." (ref Rumble166) states that he was sharing authority with Æscwig, his predecessor as abbot of Bath Abbey when he was aged 15. Some explanation how he could be a '" co-abbot" at such a young age (also having made a transfer from another abbey), can only add to the credibility of this sentence. Best regards (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)


Should reference the South English Legendary. Also there is a church in Enfield, I believe, as well as Solihull, Whitstable and maybe more. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ælfheah of Canterbury. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)