This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Books This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Top‑importance 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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism / Anglicanism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Mid-importance). Latin Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin 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.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. England Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. North East England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject North East England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North East 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.North East EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject North East EnglandTemplate:WikiProject North East EnglandNorth East England Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Celts Low‑importance Ecclesiastical History of the English People is within the scope of WikiProject Celts, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the ancient Celts and the modern day Celtic nations. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion. Please Join, Create, and Assess.CeltsWikipedia:WikiProject CeltsTemplate:WikiProject CeltsCelts Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't this article be moved to Ecclesiastical History of the English People, since this is the English Wikipedia? I know the book was written in Latin, but the article about Euclid's Elements is located at Euclid's Elements, not Στοιχεία του Ευκλείδη.  –Benjamin  (talk)  01:40, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many Latin manuscipts on Wikipedia are called by the Latin name, but also many by the translation, there is no definitive rule. Probably comes down to most common and/or most professional use. --Stbalbach 02:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article should be moved. In fact all articles with Latin titles should be moved, but at least this one should be. So do it! :) Wjhonson 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. When a work is commonly known by a Latin name, that name should be preserved and used to reference the work. Species Plantarum (Linneaus) is always referred to as Species Plantarum. I have never heard it called anything else. This would also be applied to Systema Naturae. Changing these to English equivalents would create confusion rather than assuage it. The title of each work should be judged individually rather than appling a "blanket policy" to works written or titled in another language. Arx Fortis 05:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree also! the work was written in Latin (as mentioned above)and so should be kept in the original language. If it was transferred to English it would lose some of its feeling in the writing. and also it wourld have been written in Old English, something that we could not understand even if we tried. In the translation from Latin to English it would lose a lot (like i already said). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.65.164.254 (talk) 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The claim here that Bede invented footnotes seems bizarre to me. I'm pretty certain that his _Historia ecclesiastica_ doesn't contain any, for a start! And I would have expected to have heard of this, since my professional research relates to Anglo-Saxon history. Does anyone know of any basis for this claim? Otherwise, I think it should be deleted.

It is bizarre, delete it. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Wjhonson 22:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my edit note was cut off. I was saying, that criticizing Bede for not following professional historian standards is kinda anachronistic when it was standard practice by all historians of the period to simply make stuff up, lift entire passages from other works and copy them as their own etc.. "history" from the period is nothing like how history is defined today, it was akin to literature in form and function, written by people who were not part of a "historical profession" or had any standards of conduct. -- Stbalbach 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed, in general, with references, at English historians in the Middle Ages. -- Stbalbach 01:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then link to that page possibly, but simply not stating it, gives people the impression that he was an accurate historian. You have to realize that every general reader reads these pages, not people *familiar* with the situation. Wjhonson 02:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. But it seems pretty silly to have to add a qualifier to every single article about every single author and work written before the 19th century, because of an assumption that the reader has an "impression" that they are an "accurate" history/historian. -- Stbalbach 05:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The implication, in the article and on this talk poage, that modern historical writing is by definition accurate, reference-citing, non-plagiaristic and objective, is utterly misleading! Some of it meets these criteria, some of it doesn't.

But, yes, the criteria of Bede and other medieval historians were different from those of modern academic historicans. If Bede stands out from the others, that fact belongs here. To the extent that they were all alike, English historians in the Middle Ages seems the place for general information about their aims and methods. Andrew Dalby 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I could understand the objection to specifically pointing out the nature of medieveal historical writing if this article was long enough to warrant trimming, but this is not the case. For now, it serves as a good caveat lector for people unfamiliar with the topic/time period. And I don't see anyone here claiming that "modern historical writing is by definition accurate, reference-citing, non-plagiaristic and objective." All that the article is pointing out is that that medieval historical writing is less accurate, less reference-citing, more plagiaristic and less objective than what many people expect (erronously or not) of "modern" historical writing.--Hraefen ^Talk 14:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I derived my view from the following words in the article: "cannot be expected to have the same degree of objectivity as modern historical writings" and from the following on the present page: "it was standard practice by all historians of the period to simply make stuff up, lift entire passages from other works and copy them as their own etc ... 'history' from the period is nothing like how history is defined today ... written by people who were not part of a "historical profession" or had any standards of conduct [presumably meaning "had no standards of conduct"?]. And I don't see any caveats about "what many people expect (erronously or not)". But it's probably not worth arguing over! All the best Andrew Dalby 19:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that the wording is not the best and if you review my edit from June 26 2006 I think (hope) you'll agree that I removed a bit of bias and made it generally more readable. Please tweak the wording a little more if you feel you can improve it. There does still seem to be some undue respect paid to modern historians who are assumed to be free of bias (which is why I love Howard Zinn's acceptance of bias as inevitable). I am just opposed to the removal of the mention that Bede cannot be taken at face value, even if this is still true of modern historians (although less true, in my opinion).--Hraefen ^Talk 20:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th paragraph states Beed cited his references. The 5th paragraph states Bede did not provide refernces. Which is true?...or am I mis-reading something here?

Perhaps sometimes he did and sometimes he didn't (much like Wikipedia heheh).

Either way, neither of these assertions have their own references. Not really sure what should be done here, but perhaps someone knowledgeable can clarify and clean it up? Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed both references. That he did, or that he didnt, seems to be in conflict and so should have a citation itself instead of just being a bald statement. Wjhonson 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Arx Fortis 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus view seems to be that the article should be merged into Bede, making any page moves redundant. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 11:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various footnotes used in this article (such as "Farmer 1978" and "Higham 2006") are links which go to nowhere. The reference system used in this article only works when there is a bibliography. I suggest that the editor who inserted these references should either use the traditional method of referencing or write a bibliography so that the links actually go to the full title of the work sighted.--Britannicus (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says U has been at Weissenburg since the end of the Middle Ages. This conflicts with the information in the List of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica article, which says U is at Wolfenbüttel and is known at one time to have been at Weissenburg. I assume (guesswork!) the Weissenburg referred to is the once-German town now in France and now called Wissembourg. Perhaps someone who knows could make the appropriate edits. Thanks.

Frans Fowler (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the note that read "{{#tag:ref|The traditional date is 731, which Bede gives himself. However, a Muslim defeat in Gaul that took place in 732 appears to be recorded, which gives some fuzziness to the ending date.<ref name=Nar242>Goffart ''Narrators'' p. 242 and footnote 36</ref>|group=notes}}. This refers to a passage that reads "remained for almost a fortnight. At this time* a terrible plague of Saracens ravaged Gaul with cruel bloodshed and not long afterwards* they received the due reward of their treachery* in the same kingdom. In the same year the holy man of God". The note on this in The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (Oxford World's Classics) by Bede, Judith McClure, Roger Collins and Bertram Colgrave says "not long afterwards: the only events this can refer to are the defeat of the first Arab attack on Gaul at Toulouse in 721 or that of another Arab raid at the battle of Poitiers in October (?) of 732 or 733. If it were the latter, this would represent a late revision or posthumous editorial addition to the text of Book V. Bede's lack of contemporary information about Arab attacks on Gaul is also apparent in the Chronicle."[1] This does not suggest a problem with the dating of 731. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, many historians think the Battle of Tours was actually in 733 anyway - see note 27 in the 1st line there. Johnbod (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Latin name is shown in title case in the OUP edition of the Ecclesiastical History, and it should surely be the same in the title of this article. Any reason why it is not? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because no one has gotten around to it. For a very long time ... italic titles were "discouraged" so a lot of articles still lack it. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth. What do you think of reviving Mike Christie's proposal to rename as the English name? I agree for the reasons he gave, but it seems to have failed for lack of opinions either way. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still think that would be a good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ecclesiastical History of the English People's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "DNB":

• From Geoffrey of Monmouth: J. C. Crick, "Monmouth, Geoffrey of (d. 1154/5)", Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004, accessed 7 June 2009
• From Eorcenberht of Kent: S. E. Kelly, Eorcenberht, Oxford Online Dictionary of National Biography, 2004
• From John Allen Giles: "Giles, John Allen" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• From Augustine of Canterbury: Mayr-Harting "Augustine" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Wilfrid: Thacker "Wilfrid" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Justus: Hunt "Justus" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From John Smith (priest, born 1659): Lee, Sidney, ed. (1898). "Smith, John (1659-1715)" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 53. London: Smith, Elder & Co.
• From Wighard: Bateson "Wigheard" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Honorius of Canterbury: Hunt "Honorius (St Honorius)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Nothhelm: Hunt and Mayr-Harting "Nothhelm" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Cuthbert: Rollason, David; Dobson, R. B. (2004). "Cuthbert [St Cuthbert] (c.635–687)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 21 March 2013.
• From William de St-Calais: Barlow "St Calais, William of" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Gesta Pontificum Anglorum: Thomson "Malmesbury, William of (b. c.1090, d. in or after 1142)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Rædwald of East Anglia: Hunt, "Redwald", Dictionary of National Biography, p. 386
• From Mellitus: Brooks "Mellitus" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Deusdedit of Canterbury: Thacker "Deusdedit" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Eadbald of Kent: S. E. Kelly, Eadbald, Oxford Online Dictionary of National Biography, 2004
• From Romanus (bishop of Rochester): Beazley "Romanus" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From John Stevens (translator): "Stevens, John" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• From Sæberht of Essex: Brooks "Mellitus (d. 624)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Eanflæd: Thacker, Eanflæd
• From Christianisation of Anglo-Saxon England: Mayr-Harting "Augustine [St Augustine] (d. 604)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From List of Henry I's new men: Doherty "Henry I's new men (act. 1100-1135)" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
• From Henry of Huntingdon: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography: Henry
• From Laurence of Canterbury: Brooks "Laurence" Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 09:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: Bede's regional bias is apparent. is an odd closing sentence for a paragraph. The implication, however, is that the preceding sentences make the bias apparent. If, as you say, Lack of information is not bias., what is the sentence in question even doing in that paragraph, which is otherwise entirely about lack of information? Srnec (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]