Talk:Battle of Hastings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Battle of Hastings 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 October 14, 2017.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 5, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
August 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

References: talk page only[edit]

"Recent historians have suggested figures of [...] and most modern historians argue for a figure of [...]"[edit]

What is "recent", what is "modern"?---- (talk) 16:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

The footnotes at the end of the phrases are to the information - in this case - 2002, 1992 and 2004. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
So 2002 is recent, and 1992 and 2004 is modern? That makes sense how?---- (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
It's called "synonyms" .. its a way to vary the writing so we don't use the same words all the time. These numbers are in contrast to the wild numbers thrown out by Victorian or earlier historians, thus "recent" or "modern". Ealdgyth - Talk 17:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
In this case, it's misleading. Modern history starts a couple of hundred years ago. The term should not be used in this context in this vague way.---- (talk) 17:20, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I didn't have a problem with it myself - the term is frequently used in this way. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not you have a problem - don't you see that the sentence could be confusing?---- (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


I'm not going to remove the citekill template that's just been added, but I disagree with it. If there's ever a time when a sentence needs multiple citations, it's when it says "most" about coverage of a topic, as this sentence does. It's hidden in a footnote so it's not annoying to the reader. Eliminating some citations would only make it less verifiable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention that CITEKILL is just an essay.. obviously I disagree also..Ealdgyth - Talk 21:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
As per Mike. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
  • @Mike Christie: @Hchc2009: @Ealdgyth: The citekill template is not meant to suggest editors to delete references. You can merge them. Would that work? I'm happy to show you guys how it works (i.e. work on it at a sandbox or something).
I don't have access to the sources like you guys probably do, but is the "most" claim actually proven? Or is the clogging of sources an attempt to assert this? What I'm trying to say is, is the word "most" used in these sources? I'm thinking that "multiple" might technically be the right word for this. Though an essay, citekill brings up good points: "as an editor desperately tries to shore up one's point and/or overall notability of the subject with extra citations, in the hope that their opponents will accept that there are reliable sources for their edit." I want this article to avoid this. Let me know, thanks. MX () 14:43, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
it's a case of you get wild theories occasionally that say William landed on a different date or at a different time, but they are so out there that the academic/military historians usually don't even deign to acknowledge them. In this case, yes, we ARE going for overkill because if we don't, we'll have people saying it's just one historian and hey look, this self published mathematician thinks William landed at London instead, so since it's just one source against another....
And before anyone says that doesn't happen, I'll note that we had some editor add in a createspace published source by a mathematician just yesterday, and no one reverted it overnight until I actually woke up and checked it out. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


Great article, but shouldn't there be some mention of this battle's lasting legacy? It's usually considered (especially by British historians) one of the most decisive and epochal battles in world history, and although I know most of this would be covered at Norman Conquest, the battle itself was a turning point. I note that this issue was raised 10 years ago but never really addressed. Brutannica (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Quite truthfully, the information really does belong in the article on the conquest. It's better able to be contxtualized there, as the conquest didn't really end until at least 1075, if not 1100. The legacy of the battle is the conquest. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)