Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Æthelwulf

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Æthelwulf

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk)

Æthelwulf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have done a lot of work on it and I hope to get it to FA. Mike Christie contributed, especially on coinage, and also reviewed. Dank, Nortonius and Tim Riley also gave very helpful comments at PR, and it has also been reviewed by a historian, Barbara Yorke. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Tim riley

[edit]

I'll gladly review, but, as I've never taken part in an A class review before, I shall need to go and do some homework first. More soonest. Tim riley talk 18:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Later: My credentials as a reviewer of Military History article can be gauged by my having received the Queen's Award for Cowardice (available for inspection in the trophy cabinet of my user page). Be that as it may, having checked the criteria I think the article meets them all. Happy to support, and I look forward to meeting Æthelwulf again at FAC. Tim riley talk 16:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Tim. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert

[edit]

G'day, I can't really comment on content, so have focused primarily on prose. I have the following suggestions:

  • in the lead, this sentence seems a bit out of place: "The Vikings did not pose a major threat during his reign." I'd suggest moving this to earlier in the paragraph;
  • Done.
  • I think this could be misleading. The Royal Charter article only discusses them in later periods, when they do not seem to have quite the same meaning.
  • Fair enough, but my concern is that the reader won't really know what is meant here. To be honest, I had trouble understanding what a charter was while reading this article. A link would certainly have helped, but if it isn't appropriate then I understand if you don't want to include it. Nevertheless, I think something needs to be included to aid the reader to understand. So I guess there are a couple of options, either a short footnote could be included in this article at the first mention of the term, or maybe you could add a couple of sentences to the Royal charter article discussing its historical meaning? I won't oppose over it as I think it is a minor point ultimately, but I think it is something to consider, particularly if you are taking this towards FAC. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...although Æthelstan attests his father's charters as king, he does not appear..." --> "although Æthelstan attested his father's charters as king, he does not appear..."?
  • Done.
  • "The Chronicle frequently reports victories won..." --> "The Chronicle frequently reported victories won..."? (also, should there be a date of some such here? e.g. "Around this time, the Chronicle...")
  • Amended
  • "Æthelwulf's coinage comes from..." --> "Æthelwulf's coinage came from..."
  • Done.
  • "and the dates of the transitions between each phase are by no means certain..." --> "and it is uncertain when the phases transitioned"?
  • Amended.
  • Done.
  • "in 1994 Keynes described it as "one of the most perplexing problems in ninth-century diplomatic". --> Is this missing a word after "diplomatic"?
  • is there a link that could be provided to assist the reader to understand the concept of "decimation"?
  • I cannot find one.
  • "and the earl's son donated..." --> "and the earl's son, William, donated..."
  • Done.
  • in the Sources section, for the works that are chapters of larger works, you might consider adding the page numbers of the chapters/sections. E.g. Booth in Blackburn
  • I do not have access to all the sources now but I will amend when I do.
  • in the Sources section, for the publisher locations of works (particularly those published in the US), I think it would be better to provide the states instead of the country. e.g. "Lincoln, US" --> "Lincoln, Nebraska"?

Quick image review: G'day, I don't think that this has had an image licensing review yet, so I took a quick look: AustralianRupert (talk) 07:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "File:Æthelwulf - MS Royal 14 B VI.jpg": I'm not sure about the dates and licence on this one. It provides a date of 30 August 2013, but I think you need to try to provide some sort of indicative date for when the actual object was created, rather than when the photo of the object was taken;
  • same with "File:Æthelwulf - MS Royal 14 B V.jpg": in addition, I think the PD-Art template needs some sort of clarification (there is a big red warning on the description page)
  • "File:Æthelwulf penny.jpg": can the uploader be the copyright holder? Not sure about this one. @Nikkimaria: Nikki, what are your thoughts on this one?
  • I don't understand on what basis the claim is being made, unless it's the restoration? Image description definitely needs clarification. This is an old coin that was photographed and the photo published in an old book - the coin and the photo are both PD-1923-abroad. File:Coin_of_King_Æthelwulf_of_Wessex.JPG (the source image) combines PD-Art (which is correct for the photo but not the coin) and life+100 (which is correct for the coin but may or may not be correct for the photo, depending on the photographer and his date of death). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's interesting. Nevertheless, UK uses life+70 for copyright expiration, so assuming no photographer other than the authors is credited, it's PD-old-100 for the coin and PD-1923+PD-old for the photo. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Ethelwulf's Ring - Illustration from Cassell's History of England - Century Edition - published circa 1902.jpg" relies on an "author's life plus 70 years or less", but the image description page doesn't stipulate the author, or when they died
  • You can use any illustration published before 1923 on Wikipedia, as all such illustrations are now PD in the US. But Commons requires that you account for the copyright in the country of origin as well. In the UK this usually means life+70, but here we have no identified author. I'd recommend using {{PD-UK-unknown}} (the use of which requires you to describe the research you have undertaken to identify the author). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Alfred the Great's will.jpg": same as above.
  • Changed to show it is photo of ms of c. 890.

Comment from Nortonius

[edit]

Apologies, I've barely even been watching this one because of real-life distractions, and I've no idea of any specifics for this type of review. But, looking through this page, it occurred to me to point out that the "concept of decimation" is a tithe, though I'm not sure that article is very helpful for this context. Maybe, maybe not. And maybe I'm merely stating the obvious! Anyway, with the preceding proviso, I'd happily support this article having participated in the peer review, and would certainly try to be more engaged at FAC. HTH Nortonius (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nortonius. I am not sure whether a link to tithe would be confusing, as it means a levy of a tenth by a religious organization or government, and in this case the ruler was giving away a tenth. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm doubtful of the usefulness of that article – but the lead of that article refers to "freewill offerings", and cites the New Testament; although obviously I'm not going to vouch for its accuracy! And in the present article you have e.g. According to the Chronicle "King Æthelwulf conveyed by charter the tenth part of his land throughout all his kingdom to the praise of God and to his own eternal salvation". I'd be surprised if the two were unrelated. Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: does "I'd happily support" mean this is a support? - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nortonius I have added note i on the meaning of "decimation" . Does it look OK? Please also see Dank's query above. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About support, I only qualified it in that way because I'm uncertain of procedure: otherwise my support for this article is unhesitating, so yes, Dank, I support it. About the meaning of decimation – my copy of the 1956 revision of the third, 1944 edition of The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, volume II, p. 2314, has separate entries for noun and verb forms of "Tithe". We know what the noun broadly means; the first definition of the verb reads: "1. trans. To grant or pay one tenth of (one's goods, earnings etc.), esp. to the support of the church; to pay tithes on." That's my bolding, to emphasise that the primary meaning there is a "gift", not a levy. Relevant sources that I have in physical form are temporarily inaccessible in my loft – I'm waiting for a friend to return my stepladder! But you might want to look at Constable, G. (1964), Monastic Tithes and their Origins to the Twelfth Century, pp. 23ff, esp. pp. 30–1, where Æthelwulf is mentioned, and Constable says "The earliest known civil enforcement of tithes in England dates from the middle of the tenth century".[3] A look at Levison, W. (1943), England and the Continent in the Eighth Century, might be productive too. From that, if it still stands, I'd be extremely comfortable in identifying the concept of Æthelwulf's decimation as a tithe, and would suspect that historians' use of the word "decimation" instead perhaps derives in some small way from the uncertainty surrounding it. If you were to agree, I would suggest re-wording the footnote to reflect Constable's analysis of the situation in England pre-10th century, such that Æthelwulf's voluntary donation was not "unusual" per se. Also I might be inclined to lose the last sentence of the footnote, as the article goes into the problem of what was decimated. HTH Nortonius (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything strange about historians using the word decimation. The original OED, which I cite as my source, gives the first meaning as "The exaction of tithes, or of a tax of one tenth", and says that it is particularly used for Cromwell's levy of a tenth on royalists in 1655. It thus (in its older definition) has a similar meaning to tithe without the strong religious connotations. As to whether tithes were voluntary, Stenton says that they were not enforced until the tenth century. Before that they were a religious duty but could be partly donations to the poor. However, that is going beyond what is relevant to this article, so I have changed to (hopefully) avoid raising the point. I am puzzled that you say that Æthelwulf's donation was not unusual. Donations to the church were common, but one including laymen is so far as I know unique. As to the last sentence, I think it is helpful to signal to readers at the start that it was (probably) not a simple donation of a tenth of all Æthelwulf's property. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's fine – I don't mean to make a meal of it! I'm just a bit torn by the idea of an exaction, or levy, since Æthelwulf can't very well be said to have levied anything on himself...? I'm not sure why you're puzzled, since as you say tithes could include donations to the poor, and presumably lay people are intended, so I'm taken by the parallel as far as that goes – but there I was thinking of the voluntary nature of the donation not being "unusual", rather than its targets. About the word "decimation", I don't think its use by historians is strange either, since medieval Latin has "decimatio" for "tithe" – I think I'm just curious as to whether this connection has been made or rejected directly in any sources. Really, thanks for tweaking the footnote, and I'm quite happy with it as it is! Nortonius (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not remember any historians mentioning a connection between decimations and tithes, but I may well have forgotten. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

[edit]

Comments from Hchc2009

[edit]

A huge amount of work has clearly gone into this; my thoughts are mainly around those sections I was having trouble working through (admittedly with a bad head cold!) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Worth linking "Viking" on first use.
  • I didn't think the language in the lead necessarily always focused on Aethelwulf himself. Could: "The Vikings escalated their attacks on both sides of the English Channel from the 840s, although they were not a major threat to Wessex during Æthelwulf's reign. In 843 Æthelwulf was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but he achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851.", for example, be simplified to "In 843 Æthelwulf was defeated by the Vikings in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but he achieved a major victory over them at the Battle of Aclea in 851."?
  • Similarly, "and on his way back he married Judith, the twelve- or thirteen-year-old daughter of the West Frankish King Charles the Bald." - is the age of Judith critical here?
  • I'd have broken the fairly long second paragraph, beginning a new one at "When Æthelwulf returned to England..."
  • "In the twentieth century Æthelwulf's reputation among historians was low, and he was seen as pious and impractical," - would "pious but impractical" be better here? His reputation presumably wasn't poor because he was seen as pious per se?
  • He was seen as impractical at least partly because excessively pious, as explained in the historiography section. Would it be better if I quoted Enright - 'and he was seen as an "impractical religious enthusiast"'? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found the Background section a little hard to follow in places. I liked the first two sentences, which felt very clear, but I then found it hard to trace how the details related to Aethelwulf. For example, "Offa, King of Mercia from 757 to 796, was the dominant figure of the second half of the eighth century. In 776 he lost control of Kent, but recovered it in about 785. King Cynewulf of Wessex (757–786) was able to maintain his position until he lost territory to Offa following the Battle of Bensington in Oxfordshire in 779..." was interesting detail, but I wasn't sure what I was supposed to be drawing out of it. I'd recommend picking up the story with Aethelwulf's dad, as I was looking out for a statement like "Aethelwulf's father, Egbert, was..." which would position the narrative for me.
  • Similarly, I wasn't sure where the background on Archbishop Wulfred was going.
  • The article doesn't pick up on the Coenwulf/Ceolwulf I/Beornwulf/Wulfred dispute when Wulfred does then reappear in the main narrative though - it just says that "Æthelwulf took steps to secure the support of Archbishop Wulfred", without any link to the previous disputes... I couldn't see how the argument between Coenwulf and Wulfred related to/affected this. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later on it says that Wulfred devoted his archiepiscopate to resisting secular control over monasteries but his successor surrendered it. I have not gone into detail about his earlier battles, and I do not think that one sentence is excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added that the argument was about control of monasteries. I think this helps to bring out that Æthelwulf was able to achieve peacefully what Wulfred - with considerable success - spent his life fighting against. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Egbert was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline for eight generations, " I had to think about what this meant; does it mean that his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was King of Wessex?
  • That is correct, although he was the great-great grandson of Ingild, brother of King Ine. Would it be better to say "Egbert's paternal ancestors had not been kings of Wessex for eight generations"? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably - would another way to say that "Egbert was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline since King XXXX (dates)"?
  • I do not understand why it is clearer to say that he was the first King of Wessex of his bloodline since x than the first King of Wessex of his bloodline for eight generations. Can you clarify? I prefer eight generation as more vivid. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning is that firstly, "generation" can mean several things - either a "father-grandfather-greatgrandfather" generation or a span of years (e.g. 25-30 years); as put, it isn't certain which one is meant. Secondly, I had to do the maths to estimate when the previous king had been in power (my guess was 160 odd years before, based 20 years between each generation?), and I still wasn't sure which king that had actually been. Stating the last king had been King XXX in year YYYY would have both made the maths easier, and told me who that last monarch had actually been. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard Abels argues..." Could we state inline who Abels is, e.g. "The historian Richard Abels..."? (NB: the same applies to later individuals being mentioned)
  • "as "King Æthelwulf's famous butler"" - it is worth noting that a butler in this period was very different from a butler in the 21st century?
  • "So far as is known, his wife Osburh was the mother of all his children. " - would it be clearer to say "So far as is known, he had six children with his wife Osburh, and no illegitimate children."?
  • " he began to attest when he was around six" - is there a link we can use for "attest"?
  • I cannot find one. The nearest is signature, but that would be misleading as the article defines it as an autograph signature.
  • "In Abels's view, Egbert and Æthelwulf rewarded their friends and purged Mercian supporters." - is there a contrary view?
  • "which was probably followed by loss of control of the London mint and Mercian recovery of Essex and Berkshire," I'd have gone for "which was probably followed by his loss of control of the London mint and the Mercian recovery of Essex and Berkshire,"
  • "Egbert restored the East Malling estate to Wulfred's successor as Archbishop of Canterbury, Ceolnoth, in return for a promise of "firm and unbroken friendship" for himself and Æthelwulf and their heirs, and the same condition is specified in a Winchester charter of the same year." - this felt like a long sentence to me; is the "and the same condition..." bit of it essential?
  • " "Æthelwulf ran a Carolingian-style family firm of plural realms, held together by his own authority as father-king, and by the consent of distinct élites." I think I understood this quote, but it felt like it needed explaining a bit more.
  • How about "Æthelwulf did not attempt to unite the territories he ruled into a unified kingdom, and according to Janet Nelson, he "ran a Carolingian-style family firm of plural realms, held together by his own authority as father-king, and by the consent of distinct élites." Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess my concern was more that phrases like "plural realms", "father-king" and "distinct elites" carry a lot of specialsit meaning; I wasn't 100% sure, for example, that I knew what "father-king" meant. Did it mean that he exercised authority both as a king and as a father? Or that his role as king also resembled being the father of the realm? Or that his role as father was bound up by his being a king? Similarly, I wasn't certain that my reading of "distinct elites" as right. Did it mean geographically distinct elites? Different sorts of elites? etc. If I wasn't sure (and I'd read a bit on the Carolingian empire!) I'd bet that others might feel the same way. It's a great quote, but it felt like it needed unpacking a bit more. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think in the context plural realms means that he governed Wessex and Kent as separate kingdoms and did not attempt to unite them, and distinct elites similarly means the separate geographical elites of the two kingdoms. Father-king is less clear. I took it to mean that he was a father-figure to his people, ruling by commanding respect rather than arbitrarily imposing his will. I am reluctant to add any explanation as it would be my opinion, and close to POV. 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I take your point, but if we're not sure what the quote means, is it helping the typical reader? Hchc2009 (talk)
  • "Lupus thought that Felix had great influence over the king" - I think the capitalisation of king is wrong here.
  • "on 26 December 846 he made a large grant of bookland to himself" - I clicked on bookland, but I still didn't really understand what this meant.
  • Changed. Is it clearer now? 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
  • "The silver penny was the sole denomination in middle and later Anglo-Saxon coinage." - is there a simpler way of stating this? e.g. "The only coin used by Anglo-Saxons of the period was the silver penny." or something like that? I also wondered if the paragraph might be broken into two, after "...with a non-portrait design carrying a cross-and-wedges pattern on the obverse."
    Changed to "The silver penny was the only coin used in middle and later Anglo-Saxon England." I have not split the paragraphs as I do not currently have access to the source to footnote the pages which would be relevant to the separate paragraphs. Maybe Mike Christie can help? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The citations point to pages 270, 271, 275, 287-291, and 307-308. Almost everything is in 287-291. The exceptions are 270: the statement that "the penny was virtually the sole denomination in mid and late Anglo-Saxon coinage" (looks like the sense of "virtually" needs to be re-added here); 271: the fact that no coins were issued by Æthelwulf's sons during his reign; 275: the quote from Grierson and Blackburn; and 307-308: the comments on debasement. Everything else is from 287-291. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Paragraph split. Thanks Mike. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Middle Temple hoard," - is there a link or a footnote that could explain what this was/is?
  • "Ceolnoth, archbishop of Canterbury throughout Æthelwulf's reign," - I don't think the capitalisation is consistent here.
  • "In the view of Philip Grierson and Mark Blackburn" - I'd suggest a comma after this.
  • "Decimation charters": personally I felt this section was straying from a summary style, and went into a lot of historical debate and detail that didn't seem to fit in a biographical article. Might just be me though! :)
  • "The king left Wessex " - I think this should be capitalized
  • "a gold crown weighing four pounds" - should probably have a metric equivalent
  • "The ring is one of two key examples of nielloed ninth-century metalwork, together with a similar ring of his daughter Æthelswith. " - "his" is quite divorced from Aethelwulf by now in the paragraph, so I'd suggest naming him.
  • Dudley, if you run into a problem with some copyeditors insisting that "king" (not used attributively) should be lowercase and other insisting it should be uppercase, please let me know. Style guides are divided on this point. I generally leave it alone, as long as the capitalization is consistent. - Dank (push to talk) 18:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a good argument that King is required by MOS:JOBTITLES (which also requires for instance "the English king", even when referring to a specific king ... go figure). Influential American style guides (such as Chicago) recommend lowercasing it, but copyeditors will typically allow exceptions to avoid offense, uppercasing for instance "the [current] Queen" (which is why the example given at MOS:JOBTITLES isn't representative of common practice). That's why I'm saying that writers sometimes get caught between dueling copyeditors. - Dank (push to talk) 20:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan, but when I think about it I agree with hchc. I would not refer to the current queen as "the queen" (even though I am a republican!) so it has to be "the King" for Æthelwulf. What I do find a problem is whether to say "historian" Joe Bloggs. Some editors such as hchc object if I leave it out, others if I put it in. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're being told to do it both ways, I wonder if one footnote that mentions each historian would satisfy everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dan. What does Hchc think? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd usually vote in favour of in-line attribution of individuals mentioned in articles (e.g. "the historian John Smith", "the 16th-century antiquarian Joe Bloggs" etc.) on the basis that if someone is worth mentioning by name, then its worth explaining to the reader who they are, but if it helps produce a workable compromise, then that's fine by me! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think what some people do not like is the repetition of the word "historian". I will try to use some variety and see whether anyone complains. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Anotherclown

[edit]
  • No alt text for the images so you might consider adding it (suggestion only, not an ACR req).
Done.
  • No unnecessary dabs, external links check out, no issues with ref consolidation, no duplicate links, image review completed above, captions look ok (no action req'd).
  • In the lead: "but in 843 he was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, and he achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851." This construction doesn't quite seem right to my ear although I'm unsure of the rules of grammar so I could be off the mark here (I'am Australian and despite claiming to talk English we generally have no idea about such things). For instance it seems to describe two opposing events (a defeat and a victory), however you link them with an "and" which would seem more appropriate for two equal or similar events. As a suggestion try something like "The Vikings were not a major threat to Wessex during Æthelwulf's reign, however, in 843 he was defeated in a battle at Carhampton in Somerset, but later achieved a major victory at the Battle of Aclea in 851."
  • Changed.
  • "...in the south the important southern kingdoms" seems almost tautological.
  • "Southern" deleted.
  • "...seems to have been ended in 850/1" the date range should be presented as "850–51" per MOS:DATERANGE.
  • Done
  • In the references ""Decimation". The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. 1971" does not appear to be in alphabetical order.
  • Moved
  • "Grierson, Philip; Blackburn, Mark (2006) [1986]. Medieval European Coinage, With A Catalogue of the Coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge: 1: The Early Middle Ages (5th–10th Centuries) (corr. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-03177-X." To be consistent with the other entries you should probably present it as "Cambridge, UK".
  • Done.
  • Location of publication for both Miller refs?
  • Done.
  • Likewise for a few of the Nelsons.
  • Done.
  • I did a copy edit and made a few MOS changes, format a reference etc [4].
  • Thenks - please see query below.
  • Nikki could you also take a look at the change to the bibliography at [5]. This is a new introduction by Simon Keynes to a reprint of a book by a deceased historian, Peter Hunter Blair. The only way I could see to deal with it was by a postscript, but AnotherClown does not think that works. However the change to show the author as the editor does not seem right to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - those changes look good to me. Dudley - re the postscript - I've no issue with you reverting my change if you don't like it, I'm not here to impose my will on anyone (not that I could anyway). From my point of view I believe my change was IAW the guidance provided at Template:Cite book, and one issue I saw with the postscript is that the template doesn't seem to allow there to be a space b/n the isbn and the text in that field (i.e. smashing it altogether) - at least on my screen, which obviously looks messy (by this I mean it displayed as such "ISBN 1234556445text of postscript"). By all means pls do whatever you believe works best. Anotherclown (talk) 11:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Æthelwulf&oldid=1138359475"