Talk:Isle of Ely

Rewriting History
Would you please stop rewriting history to claim the Saxons at Ely were really English. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * They were Englishmen from the Kingdom of England just like at Hastings and Stanford Bridge. Using the word Saxon is out of date by the formation of the Kingdom of England, what else were they?--English Bobby (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon England they were Saxons, its more accurate to describe them as Saxons. I haven't reverted your changes when they didn't change the historical perspective but this is changing history. So I will be reverting to the original consensus and the onus is on you to provide a convincing rationalel, which you haven't. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tell you what, please self-revert? Wee Curry Monster talk 23:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Also the source used only mentions 'English' as well. No Saxon mentioned.--English Bobby (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There was no consensus on the issue at all, it was simply added by someone who was extending the article. This has discussed on the Battle of Hastings talk page before and it was agreed that to use the old terms for the English was unnecessary and could be confusing. England was a fully unified state by the time of Hereward the Wake with an English identity. The article Norman Conquest also only use's English as the identity for our people. I will not revert and bare in mind you were over the 3rr.
 * Also with all due respect you generally revert all of my edits which came within an area you were active in editing, this is a first, since you seem to have followed me here.--English Bobby (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I wasn't over the 3RR limit. I simply wanted to see if you were prepared to discuss the matter in a mature manner.  "Identity for our people" Mmmm.  I guess not.
 * If I'd followed you I would have reverted a lot more, see WP:AGF, as with the various asinine comments you made about me "stalking you" and "holding a grudge" etc. Life's too short for arguing with a zealot intent on rewriting history. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Mature manner? That's good coming from you WCM, as is WP:AGF. You immediately accused me of trying to "rewrite history" despite the fact the source used as well as other wiki articles on the subject agree with me. Asinine comments too, lol you've actually been topic banned for that I believe so forgive me for laughing at that. You've also accused me of stalking before too. If you don't want to talk to me then fine don't follow me around reverting my edit's because frankly I've got no more desire to talk to someone like you either. Good day sir--English Bobby (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, (cf History of the English language) by the time of the Norman conquest the Anglo-Saxons have already been referring to themselves as English, not Saxon. In agreement with the source accompanying the statement which uses only "English" but not "Saxon", I think we should keep "English" as it currently is. If we can't reach an agreement and this slow revert war rolls on, I'll remove the entire statement and protect the article, a last-resort move that I don't want to use. --Deryck C. 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

>Usage
I have reinstated the form "an historic" for the simple reason that the "authority" cited for changing this to read "a historic" is itself written in dropout English (here). It for instance uses "was" as a past subjunctive form (correct: were). There is sufficient precedence – going back centuries, for Pete's sake – to justify the use of "an historic", and since that was the original usage, I have reverted this "correction". Kelisi (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)