Talk:Alfred the Great

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 14 October 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CJMcKenna98. Peer reviewers: Stewartjordan625.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit Soon

I will be making significant changes to the Death and Burial section of the article very soon. If anyone would like to review what I've done before I edit the official page, you can view it early here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CJMcKenna98/Alfred_the_great I hope these edits will improve the article in some way. CJMcKenna98 (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Bone of King Alfred?

A recent edit by Wilfridselsey at [1] reports a claim at [2] The source claims it cannot be Alfred's brother because he is not known to have been buried at the high altar, but that does not mean that he was not buried there. It could also be the first abbot Grimbald or a later abbot. The dating is given as 895-1017, presumably with a 2σ confidence, 95%, but a date in the middle of the 800th century must be more likely than Alfred right at the beginning of the time span in 899. Mike Christie can you advise on this? I am starting to work on this article with the aim of bringing it up to FA, and it will be very long when his life is fully covered. I do not think space should be given to a speculative claim about a possible bone. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Dudley Miles the source isn't peer-reviewed, and is primary; anything based on it should at least be attributed. Having said that, the content as it's written seems to do that - it's saying that they found a pelvis and that they believe that it belonged to Alfred. The source is from 2014 though - there might be some more recent, and more reliable, scholarship on this, which would allow something more definitive to be said? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

(ec) My reaction is similar to Dudley's. I looked in Google Scholar to see if anyone had mentioned this claim in the six years since it was published, and I can't find anything. Tucker is reliable, but this is her reporting her own research, rather than an external evaluation of her work. I would prefer to exclude it until it gets cited elsewhere, but if we do include I'd relegate it to a footnote and hedge it further -- give the year range, and simply say that it's possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree that if there's no follow-up on this, it should probably be come out until some actual peer-reviewed work is published on it. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes I did say that they "believe" it to be rather than "it is". I did try and see whether there were any follow up papers for this or whether it was peer reviewed, but couldn't find anything. However the provenance is good and it would be difficult to do a proper review without repeating the radiocarbon dating in another lab. therefore I don't see anything happening anytime soon. Consequently I think that it should be noted, either in the main body or in the note section. The existing section about the graves was not complete as it did not mention the prisoners scattering the bones, so if the consensus is to move the research on the pelvic bone to the notes section, we should leave the scattering of the bones where it is, as that is secure. Other archaeologists have commented, but have essentially said they would like more evidence. I believe that there has been some follow up. They were hoping that they could match DNA from the pelvis fragment could be matched with those of King Alfred’s grand-daughter, Eadgyth, who was buried at Magdeburg, in Germany. But apparently couldn't get a useful sample from Eadgyth. The other point was that although it could only be Alfred and his family buried at the high altar, as the prisoners were throwing the bones all over the place, it is possible that it may have been pelvic bone thrown from elsewhere rather than Alfred or Edwards.Wilfridselsey (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Tucker is a non-peered reviewed source which states that a bone has been found which dates to 895-1017. It probably dates to the mid-tenth century but could be as early as the end of the ninth, and if so could Alfred's. I do not think we should cite the source or its claims.

In "which were presumably interred before the high altar" we should remove "presumably" as the Hyde Community Archaeology Project source is definite on this. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I guess the reason why it has not been peer reviewed is because the data is not complete. The same team at Oxford carbon dated Richard III's bones, but they were able to find a living relative who could provide DNA to back up their findings. Tracing someone who was directly related to the House of Wessex maybe a little more problematic. The Hyde Community Archaeology Project I believe are still excavating the area, however even if they find some more bones that fit the profile they will still have problems with corroborating evidence. Tom Higham is a well respected source for radiocarbon dating so I believe his findings to be solid but identifying someone related to Alfred/ Edward alive or dead who can provide DNA is the problem. Until they solve that, I do not believe there will be a peer review. Who is going to risk their reputation on saying a define yes or no on the evidence so far? There maynot be a peer review in place but plenty of historians and archaeologists have commented on these findings in a positive way, but say they need more data. We can do the same. Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Thomas Higham is one of the world's leading radiocarbon dating experts and no one is disputing his findings, only Tucker's interpretation, which we should delete. Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about the possibility of a reliable peer reviewed report. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just rechecked the press conference not sure that it's just Tucker. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Three editors are for deleting and one for keeping. I will delete. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

OK - I can see that you have strong feelings about this, so I will agree too. However, leave the section about the prisoners scattering the bones about as that is well documented and in any case the preexisting citation works. Also it is not speculation, a speculation or guess is a hypothesis. There is supporting evidence so it is a theory. Wilfridselsey (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Veneration in Eastern Orthodox church

A new reference has been added for Alfred's sainthood, but the link provides no explanation of why this came about. I note Edward Martyr is also venerated in that church. My understanding is that both kings are significant because they date from before the schism of the churches, but beyond that I have no idea why they have such standing in eastern Orthodoxy. Any insight? Shtove (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted the change. I was over-hasty as I missed the citation, but I do not see that it supports the claim that Alfred is regarded as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox church. He presumably has a claim as a defender of Christianity. Edward the Martyr does not but was venerated in the Anglo-Saxon period because they regarded any royal who was murdered as a martyr. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes - the source, such as it is, doesn't confirm beatification or veneration. Edward Martyr's purported relics were at issue in a High Court case brought by the Attorney General in 1995, and are now under Orthodox lock and key in Surrey. There seems to be a semi-official devotion in the east to these two kings, but internet queries get into a tangle of views on the filioque controversy and possible links to ex-patriot Russians and Moscow as the Third Rome. Part of the story is here: https://trueorthodox.eu/king-martyr-st-edward/ Shtove (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I see that there is no explanation in the source of why the amateur archaeologist's claim to have remains of Edward are accepted. The view of Edward is also very saccharine. He seems to have been a singularly unpleasant young man according to what I have read, much given to beating his servants. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Alfred the Great is venerated on October 26th in the Orthodox Church, which I believe was included in the reference I provided. One can also quite easily come across Orthodox iconography of Alfred. I believe his canonization was at the same time as the many other Western saints recognition in the Orthodox Church by the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/athlifea.htm https://orthochristian.com/91953.html SvoHljott (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

The first link you provide says "There are a number of reasons why Alfred has not yet been canonized." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Dates for Alfred's epithet of 'The Great'

It says in this article Alfred was coined 'The Great' the 16th century, but I cannot find a source to back this up. S. Keynes seems to suggest it was first seen in Matthew Paris' work in the 1200s, suggesting it was a title given much earlier. (this information can be found in Keynes' 'the cult of King Alfred the Great') Could anyone provide a source for the claim that he was given it in the 16th century that is mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clemsw (talk • contribs) 15:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)