Talk:Cerdic of Wessex

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cerdic of Wessex article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 30 days

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms High‑importance

	Anglo-Saxon England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anglo-Saxon KingdomsWikipedia:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsTemplate:WikiProject Anglo-Saxon KingdomsAnglo-Saxon Kingdoms
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Moderation

I would like to make a suggestion that makes an assertion more accurate and moderate, and Wikipedia articles need to be as accurate as is possible. My suggested additions are in bold. "A 10th century charter from Edward the Elder, son of Alfred the Great, which transferred 10 hides of land (roughly 11,000 acres), which now makes up St Mary Bourne parish in Hampshire, to Winchester Cathedral suggests contemporary people believed that he was buried in a barrow, then known as 'Ceardices Beorg', within the boundary". Given the centuries separating Cerdic from Edward the Elder folk memory may have become distorted and unreliable. Urselius (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be editorializing on our part, and therefore original research, if that claim is not reflected in the sources. Remsense诉 11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, this barrow business is all mere speculation, and my suggestion is merely logical, not editorialising . Cerdic's historical existence is not certain, claims of any sort concerning finding the burial place of a possibly non-existent person needs very careful handling and moderating such claims is essential. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote the whole matter should be removed until and unless higher quality sources are available. Urselius (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me, as long as what is there is sourced. Remsense诉 11:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted. It leaves the previous text unreferenced, but the refs were dated or not RS. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I would like to draw your attention to further academic sources which mention Cerdic's Barrow and which stem from the reference in the 10th century charter.

1, Bruce Eagles, a well respected academic, references Cerdic's Barrow in the: following paper

2, This is a direct reference from Barbara Yorke's paper in 1989 - (Yorke, Barbara A. E.. (1989) - In: Reading medieval studies vol. 15 (1989) p. 95-117. 90, Essay, The Jutes of Hampshire and Wight and the Origins of Wessex). Prof Yorke is one of the foremost scholars on Wessex's history.

3, In addition, the existence of Cerdic's Barrow stemming from the charter is referenced in The English Settlements - (Myres, John (1989), The English Settlements, Oxford History of England, p.155). The existing Cerdic of Wessex page quotes from this book which is a very good background source for Cerdic.

4, There is an earlier reference to the barrow in Stoke, Hampshire, - Copley, Gordon (1954), The Conquest of Wessex in the 6th Century, Phoenix House, p142. 'The Ceardices Beorg' at Hurstbourne Priors has been regarded as the actual burial-place of the first king of Wessex.'

This barrow is commonly placed in 'Stoke, Hurstbourne' because that is the title for land in the charter, but the actual land transferred is 11,000 acres and now makes up what is now St Mary Bourne parish. It is up to Wikipedia editors if they want to use the research or mention the barrow. Just wanted this very public page relating to Cerdic to show that Cerdic's Barrow has been referenced by a number of academics and not treated as 'mere speculation'. Thanks. PH8288 (talk) 12:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed coat-of-arms

I re-added my rendition of the attributed coat of arms for Cerdic of Wessex, with the compromise that it be further down on the page, after it was removed with no discussion. I thusly decided to open a Talk section, as suggested by the other user, to discuss concerns over whether or not the attributed arms should be allowed on the page; as of currently, I reverted the edit removing it, with the arms at the bottom of the page. The reason why I added the arms was because said arms, which are also considered anachronistic - as medieval heraldry did not exist at the time Cerdic of Wessex lived - are not only depicted in the main image for the page, but attributed and anachronistic arms were allowed on the page for House of Wessex, to which Cerdic of Wessex is also assigned. By the same logic of "no attributed or anachronistic arms are allowed", the main images for Cerdic of Wessex and House_of_Wessex#Attributed_coat_of_arms would need to be removed. I also did specify in my original contributon to the page that the arms were attributed by John Speed to Cerdic of Wessex, rather than the arms being self-assumed by Cerdic. Obversa (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While subjects like Cerdic have few if any contemporary images available, so that the use of much later images is unavoidable, heraldry is a rather unique case. There has to be an especially cogent reason for the use of anachronistic heraldry, the mere existence of an attributed coat of arms is not really sufficient. Take for example the arms attributed to Edward the Confessor, there are two reasons that these are relevant, they are based on a design of silver pennies minted during the reign of this king and they were made use of by much later Medieval kings of England. One of the banners that King Henry V had close to him at the Battle of Agincourt was that showing the arms of the Confessor. In general, the consensus of Wikipedia editors working on Early Medieval subjects is against the use of anachronistic heraldry. Urselius (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed reality

The reality of this person is disputed. I think we have over categorized and some of these categories are not justified for a person we do not know is real.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthurian legend

This is a person connected with Arthurian legend. I do not think we should mix historical people and Arthurian legend.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert respectfully, you've posted something to this effect across a large number of pages lately, sometimes several times per page. You are not making a substantial point, and you are making it rather disruptively. Please stop.

There's nothing we can do with your concerns as floated here; we present figures holistically as our sources do, and we trust readers to understand the plain meaning of what is said. Remsense ‥ 论 05:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is we should not put people whose existence is not fully verified in catehories for people who are verified. I am saying we should remove him from from the English monarchs Category and the death year category. At a minimum. I do not think we should have him in either of those categories because I do not believe we can justify that placement. I do not believe we should have people whose existence is not verified in death year categories at all. So I am arguing we should remove this article from those 2 categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally in some articles based on legends we have not been transparent enough that what is said in the article is based on legend. We need to be more clear about that in many cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with taking Cerdic out of the "534 deaths" category, because I agree with you, that implies a certainty about his existence and his death date that isn't warranted. But I'd also take him out of the "Arthurian legend" category, because as far as I can tell he has no connection with the Arthurian legend beyond supposedly living in the same historical period as the supposedly historical Arthur supposedly did. Cerdic is primarily a figure of Anglo-Saxon genealogical legend. --Nicknack009 (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The basic problem is that Wikipedia is not configured to deal with subjects with genuine uncertainties - the stupid concept of 'weasel words' does not help, for example. Infoboxes have sections that may not be relevant to a particular subject, but because they exist certain editors will want to fill them in, however tenuous is the evidence. If Cerdic existed, he would not have been known as 'King of Wessex', as this title was not used until the late 7th century. By all means remove speculative dates and titles, and make it entirely clear when evidence is from writings created centuries later than the persons and events they purport to describe. Cerdic as a real person, or as a legendary ancestor, remains an important part of the early history of the English people. Urselius (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]