Talk:History of York

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pictures of Roman Ruins[edit]

Do any Yorkers (not sure what locals from York are called) have any pictures of the Roman ruins in the area? The stuff under the bars, and things like that? I think it would add to this article. Thanks!

Yorkies is the answer I think. (It also relates to a chocolate bar and is currently under discussion as the name for the newly merged York Athletics Club.)

Roman and Saxon History[edit]

I'm fairly new to Wikipedia so I'd appreciate some comments of feedback to what I've added to the article. Please feel free to be ruthless! christopherson78 16:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, York was never capital of Northumbria... the capital under Aethelfrith who united Deira and Bernicia was Bamburgh. Edwin who claimed Northumbria after the defeat of Aethelfrith had no fixed capital but moved between places throughout the kingdom. The capital of Northumbria returned to Bamburgh under Oswald. After Oswiu (Oswald's brother) I am a little hazy... but it is unlikely that any of the kings stayed in a fixed location as we would imagine a capital by today's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.172.231 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

layout[edit]

i tried to include "The History of York" in bold, according to the layout guides, but it sounds a little weird now. please fix if you can. --Ysangkok 22:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the link to York along the line so it isn't in the bold bit, and otherwise tried to make the para read better and eliminate duplication - the whole thing was untimely ripp'd out of the main article, originally. --GuillaumeTell 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Brythonic/Welsh[edit]

Can anyone here offer proof of the fact that the Welsh word for Yew is Efwr? While it is true that Welsh for York is Efrog (see the stated Brythonic) the online dictionary at Cardiff University states that Ywen is Modern Welsh for Yew. Can anyone cite the Middle Welsh? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.142.163.54 (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Headings[edit]

I've removed the 17th century and 18th century headings as they do not fit in with the periods used in the rest of the article. The 17th century has been moved to early modern and a new modern section created. --Kaly99 21:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Railways[edit]

I have added a brief statement about the arrival of the Railways in York. I think its positively scandalous that one of the most important parts of York's recent history is given next to no mention at all in the article and I shall, if possible, make a more detailed addition on the subject at a later date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.1.219 (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

British kingdom[edit]

Perhaps unintentionally, the article has now been altered in a way that (I think) gives undue prominence to the speculation that a post-Roman "British kingdom" was headquartered at York, and with wording saying that scholars were "suggesting" York as the headquarters of such a kingdom. For one example, Snyder does not suggest a Brigantian kingdom on the page cited (The Britons, p203), he waxes rhetorical and says " ... or is it rather the administrative center of a revived Brigantian dynasty?" (note Snyder's question mark), and taken together with the other text alterations, I think it is a misrepresentation for the text to be worded this way. Also, this immediately follows a statement that introduces "speculation" about a "possible" British kingdom. At the same time, the accurate statement noting that the Historia Brittonum does not refer to a Britonnic occupation has been erased, while there is some additional prominence for the speculative association of Peredur with York. And the claim that "whether York was settled at all at this period remains unclear"{{cn}} contradicts the archaeology cited in Russo suggesting that the town and colonia were both abandoned.

The article was less biased in the previous version (however, the section-name heading changes were an improvement). It would be better to have the speculative British kingdom of Ebrauc in its own article, so that the History of York article is more focused on history, without undue prominence to speculations on a "possible" British kingdom. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You may be right that this version gives too much prominence to speculation, but having a separate article for it would only make that worse, imho. If it goes anywhere at all, it should be here.
I don't think this version makes too much of the possibility of a kingdom. The only thing said about that is Snyder's suggestion about a kingdom based on the Brigantes. As I recall this suggestion is borne out more in the preceding page; I have the book at home and will check it when I'm able. The rest just discusses the possibility of it continuing to be used by the Britons.
Additionally, the previous version had some problems with redundancy. There was (cited) material on Anglo-Saxon cemeteries in the "British" section, which was then largely repeated (uncited) in the "Anglo-Saxon" section. What needs to be said in the "British" section is, there has been some speculation that the site remained a political center in post-Roman times. The evidence for this is: the inclusion of Ebrauc in the civitas list in the Historia; Gildas' discussion of the "urbs legionum", if this can be read as a reference to York; and Peredur, if this can be taken as containing some element of older tradition about "Efrog". Of course all of this is speculative, and not born out by the archaeological evidence. Note that as in Snyder, Higham is given the last word in saying York is unlikely to have remained an important center.
The statement about the Historia not referring to Britonnic occupation is a little to close to forcing an interpretation on a primary source for me. We could go on and on about what the text doesn't say. Better to just explain what it does say: that Caer Ebrauc is the first in the list of civitates, and that's that.
The statement about "whether York was settled at all at this period" was in the previous version.--Cúchullain t/c 22:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
My concerns are eased a bit with the newest revision, and as York's history isn't a main focus, I suppose I can leave it there. In passing: (1) Peredur's father Efrawg is not related to Ebrauc, as the article now says, unless you can disassociate his name from other similar sounding words, or cite a reliable etymological source that precludes other etymologies; and if the literature says it was made up to relate him to York, then that would be evidence that the relationship is fictional; (2) speculations that the Historia was referring to an Anglian "caer" are as valid as speculations that it might have been a British "caer", and having more to suggest it through archaeology; (3) Peter Field isn't making some of the assertions attributed to him, he is being quoted by Snyder (similarly for Ken Dark), so these are 2nd and 3rd hand references.
(And try to be a little less reasonable at times, would you please? I was working up a snit on my way to a perfect tizzy, and now you've ruined it. :) Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:History of York/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

.
  1. Requires inline references adding using one of the {{Cite}} templates
  2. Requires later sections expanding
  3. Copy-edit for WP:MOS
Keith D 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses?[edit]

Why nothing about the momentous wars of Lancaster and York? Valetude (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)