Talk:The Anarchy

old comments
I have been doing some research online to determine the historical accuracy of the novel Pillars of the Earth by Ken Follet. I have read this novel four times in the last few years. It is set against the period known as the Anarchy and incorporates the various battles and persons of the time including Thomas Becket a religious saint and martyr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.126.69 (talk) 01:19, 20 October 2003 (UTC)

All the instances of "Matilda" were changed to "Maude", based on Penman's book, which I reverted. If there's a good reason for doing that I don't object, but I do object to changing it based purely on the usage in a novel, when it was done simply as a matter of narrative convenience. Everyking 08:56, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Does this page really need a section on novels written about this period? It seems a bit trivial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.99.76 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not? It doesn't do any harm, and some may find it interesting. 84.70.129.167 14:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

-- Can the Contents box be made to show all the subheadings? The article has many headings not listed. I would do it, but I do not know how to do it. Prairieplant (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Wilfridselsey (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

William of Ypres
I have changed "mercenary captain, William of Ypres." to "Flemish captain, William of Ypres, Earl of Kent". because during the middle ages claiming someone was a mercenary does not mean the same as in the modern era. Who says he was a mercenary? What made him a mercenary? For example was he paid more than others who did a similar job? Did he pay homage to King Stephen of England? As he was Earl of Kent he must have done so. If he did then he was not a mercenary. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * While William of Ypres was certainly Flemish, he was also a mercenary captain, because he was paid for fighting with his men on Stephen's side. That view is supported both by contemporaries (e.g. Gesta Stephani, Historia Novella) and historians (e.g. D.Crouch, G.J.White). You're quite right about the Earldom of Kent - he certainly did homage to Stephen for it, but only received it in the first place as a form of payment for his services (the Southeast was just about the only area of England over which Stephen had uninterrupted jurisdiction throughout the crisis). Even that, though, did not earn him recognition as 'English' or 'non-mercenary' in any practical sense by either Stephen's or Matilda's supporters (e.g. William of Malmesbury, Henry of Huntingdon).Khnumhotep (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really think that it needs a section about books, so people can READ about this period! This entire article has been ruined!--Cynicalquest (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Most of Article is written in unprofessional manner
Most of this article is written in a folksy, story-telling manner with lots of unnecessary phrases, cliches, flowery language and full of subjective comments. Things like "with great speed he entered London" ; "but it went against the grain" ; "Ranulf got wind of this" ; "muster a force of knights" and "Thus the stage was set for battle." I could go on, there is plenty more. It is fine for a children's bedtime story, but not an encyclopedia article. It is not professional and needs to be tightened up. The article could easily be half the length with the same content. It should just stick to the facts. People can read "exciting" narratives about The Anarchy elsewhere.70.56.162.141 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, this article also seems to give a particular bias to Stephen over Matilda, some what opinionated rather than being objective. It also fails to give a comprehensive analysis of the situation, as certain events are explained with "because" followed by random abstract statements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.135.191 (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be a factual contradiction in this article
In paragraph 2 of the section, Conflict Between Stephen and Matilda, the article states that after Stephen was captured and imprisoned, "Matilda temporarily ruled from London" - yet in the final sentence of the section, After Matilda's escape, it states that "Matilda never ruled in her own right". I assume this means that she was de facto ruler for a short period but was never actually crowned monarch. However if this is so then the contradiction needs to be explained. Carnivalist 01:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to state in a matter of fact way who was the ruler during the Anarchy as although Matilda was the official ruler by right of inheritance of Henry I, Stephen was [i]de facto[/i] ruler in that it was he who commanded the support of the barons. It is fair to say however from contemporary sources (see The History of William Marshal & Matthew Paris' Chronica Majora) that Stephen was generally considered king [i]at the time[/i]. ChuckStone (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The "right of inheritance", while important, was not really in place until the final months of Stephen's reign. It was, in fact, the notions of hereditary inheritance that led to much of the instability with nobles switching sides depending on which claimant was willing to restore inherited lands that the other had given away. The Treaty of Winchester effectively returned most (but not all) lands to the families that owned them during the reign of Henry I.

Stephen was not de facto ruler - he was annointed, crowned and accepted (by the Papacy, at least at first) as king... a position that he won by convincing nobles present at Henry I's death to support him and then arriving in London well before Matilda could have done. He solidified London's support by granting the city a very favourable Charter. While it is fair to say that Stephen was supported by most barons prior to 1139, many of them switched sides more than once.220.233.71.222 (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic Concepts
Phrases referring to the "election" of Theobald and the "ratification" of his kingship are suggestive of a very different political structure to that which existed in 12th Century England. Medieval England did not have a specific law structure with which to choose a monarch that this suggests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuckStone (talk • contribs) 02:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Where does the story of Stephen being the biological father of Henry II originate ? I have read my way through most of the primary sources for the period as part of my MPhil but have never seen this before - is it a invention of a novel, in that case it should probably be removed (or at least this should be pointed out). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.90.99 (talk) 22:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the uncited sentence on contemporary rumors of Stephen being Henry II's biological father. I read several biographies of Henry in college and nothing of the kind was suggested therein. Duke Leto (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the period as the 'Anarchy' is altogether anachronistic, because none of the sources, major or minor (e.g. the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Gesta Stephani, Historia Novella, Henry of Huntingdon's Chronicle), speak of it in those terms; 'civil war' would be much more accurate. The term first appeared in English historiography in the late 19th century (I believe used by J.H.Round, though I have to check that), was widely popularised by King's 'The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign' and its use is currently widely protested against (notably the recent work of G.J.White), because of its inaccuracy. Moreover, the extent/severity of the conflict is also widely debated. I'm thus considering changing the title of the article (and making appropriate connections throughout). Would be interested to hear what the rest of you think. Khnumhotep (talk) 08:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Anarchy is used to distinguish the period from that of the Civil War. That the period does not meet the strictest definition of the term does not make it's usage wrong or even misapplied, especially when the period was indeed anarchic to a large extent. This is like saying that something should not be called a civil war because there's nothing civil about it.220.233.71.222 (talk) 02:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Participants called it the Great War, but we call it World War I. Is that anachronistic? Hugo999 (talk) 09:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand why suddenly stopping using terms that have been used for many years, like "The nineteen-year winter" and "They years when Christ and his Saints slept" suddenly are wrong. They have been used historically and in teaching and therefore I belive that they should be used. You can't suddenly remove terms that have been aknowledged for 200 years because YOU think they are wrong!--Cynicalquest (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * As has been explained elsewhere on this page, it's not clear that "the years when Christ and his Saints slept" is a name rather than a description. As for the "ninteen-year winter", it was removed because it was unsourced so presumably if a reliable source using the term is presented it an be re-added. Nev1 (talk) 12:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

"UNSOURCED"???? Oh, it's only been used historically for 300 years! I put up a quote from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that you removed several times! Was that unsourced? You remove names and expressions that are used in every book I have on English medieval history! This is about your ego, not about it being unsourced. If you consider that there in most countries have been at times 5 civil wars in a single century, do you think it's wrong to use a modern name that you will find in school textbooks? But of course, this is about your ego! I'll just tell you this: Every time you remove these things, I'm adding them, if I have to do it 30 times a day!--Cynicalquest (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * It was unsourced because there was no source in the article. If the term "nineteen-years winter" has been used for 300 years then could you please provide some proof. Which textbooks is it used in? As has been repeatedly stated, the fact the ASC describes the war as the "years when Christ and his Saints slept" isn't in dispute, whether it is a name is. Nev1 (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's going back up every time you remove it! Accept it! No matter if you're a historian or not or a source nitpicker, you can't just declare a well-known historical name wrong!--Cynicalquest (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A search of Google books for "19 year winter" produces two results, neither of which are related to the Anarchy. A search for "ninteen year winter" produces 20 results, of which only two relate to the Anarchy. The first "primarily consists of articles available from Wikipedia or other free sources online" while I'm suspicious the second may also have been influenced by Wikipedia. If you edit war over this, you will be blocked. Nev1 (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I give up... I have 6 books about Stephen, Matilda, English medival history and The Anarchy where these expressions and names are used, so I don't see why they can't be used. Check Amazon. I'd like to be able to use well known names of this periods when I'm referring people to Wikipedia. I give up Wikipedia because it's being run and ruined by morons.--Cynicalquest (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Which books? You have been repeatedly asked to provide sources but have continued to fail to do so. Nev1 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You or someone else removed a quote from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle because that had been there for years. Does everything have to be sourced, or are collequial terms that have been used for centuries not important or real for you?!? See these Amazon links that use these expressions and quotes that I have repeatedly added!! http://www.amazon.com/King-Stephen-English-Monarchs-Edmund/dp/0300181957/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330499100&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/King-Stephen-Matthew/dp/1852855142/ref=sr_1_8?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330499115&sr=1-8 http://www.amazon.com/England-Norman-Angevin-1075-1225-History/dp/0199251010/ref=sr_1_15?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330499495&sr=1-15

Are you really a historian? Can't you at least help me finding sources for these quotes and references before you delete them?! Do you even try to find these sources?!--Cynicalquest (talk) 07:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

How come that colloquial terms and names that's been used in many books can't be referenced on Wikipedia? Why can't the quote about seizure of grain from convents from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that was removed and that I put back up was removed repeatedly? This was in the orginal article before you removed it. But it was probably not scientific enough for you. You can't just remove that! I know that if I put it back up for the 1000th time it gets removed right away and I'm banned, but before I log of for good, I have to say that you're a f**** asshole.--Cynicalquest (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--85.89.18.27 (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--Cynicalquest (talk) 11:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I did indeed check, hence the Google book links I provided (ie: none of King, Bartlett, or Matthew use the term). A search of Jstor also shows no results for the term "nineteen year winter". Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Even Edmund King uses the term "Nineteen long winters"! But why did you remove the Quote from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that originally was here and that showed that term?! Isn't the fact that it's from The A-SC good enough?! Why did you remove that quote?! And another thing: Was Stephen really rich? He very quickly ran into a lot of debt and became almost bankrupt. I wish I could find a way of banning you so I could finally edit this article properly. You removed most of the meaning of the original article!--Cynicalquest (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * You're right, King does say "nineteen long winters", but he calls it a description rather than a name. The issue of description vs name is the same goes for the ASC quote as you have been told ad nauseam. Nev1 (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Can't that description at least be used at it's actually a common description of the Anarchy. I've seen you list Edmund King as a source before. I just can't see why the ASC quote can't be used!--Cynicalquest (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Not in the manner you wanted because you were asserting that descriptions are the same as names. And the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle quote is used: in the fourth paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of the historiography section. Nev1 (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

You also removed an ASC quote several times that contained references to Norman grain seizures, why? I think that quote was relevant.--Cynicalquest (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


 * What was the quote again? Nev1 (talk) 21:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. It's actually a quote from a letter by Abbot Gilbert Foliot to the bishop of Worcester regarding landowner William de Beauchamp, not from the ASC. I know it has been used in books, but I don't know if you can find a source for it. I just think that the article has lost anything about the impact of The Anarchy on the common English people that it had before. This is the quote that I have added before, taken from http://bowsbladesandbattles.tripod.com/id59.html: “44 measures of threshed corn, which were being carried to meet the needs of our brothers, were seized by him, and our hopes for their recovery have been put off. Besides this we have for a long time been forced to give 3s each month for the needs of his servants, and at each season of the year we have been compelled to plough, sow, and then reap 60 acres of his land. And on top of this, our men have been burdened with daily services and innumerable works, and he has not ceased to pursue and afflict them to the depths of misery.”--Cynicalquest (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Another thing, would it be possible to add the "We suffered nineteen winters for our sins" from the ASC part as well?

“When the traitors understood that he was a mild man, and soft, and good, and no justice executed, then did they all wonder. They had done him homage, and sworn oaths, but they no truth maintained. They were all forsworn, and forgetful of their troth; for every rich man built his castles, which they held against him: and they filled the land full of castles. They cruelly oppressed the wretched men of the land with castle-works; and when the castles were made, they filled them with devils and evil men… This lasted the nineteen winters while Stephen was king; and it grew continually worse and worse… and they said openly, that Christ slept, and his saints.”

It's taken from http:// mrsmillich. hubpages. com/ hub/ The-English-Anarchy-of-the-12th-Century (I had to split the link up because I got some kind of spam warning when I posted it first. I believe that there's not enough in this article about the impact of The Anarchy on the common English/Anglo-saxon population. There's to much military data on the page right now and it needs to be more balanced.--Cynicalquest (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Obviously the life of common people under The Anarchy wasn't important enough, so that must be why the quote on William de Beauchamp's corn seizure isn't "important" enough and why it was removed from the original article. It's only in every single book about Norman England... Can't you at least help me find sources for my quotes instead of rejecting them?--Cynicalquest (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that someone removed all the stuff about the "common people" who were, in large, the victims of The Anarchy.--Cynicalquest (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Etymology?
Hi; when was this period first called The Anarchy? The earliest known use of the word anarchy I'm aware of is from the 18th century, so is this a name given to the period after the event, or was the word anarchy in use in the 12th cenutry? Cheers, Chris 86.131.100.36 (talk) 23:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can not answer when this period was first called The Anarchy, but according to the OED the first use of the word anarchy meaning "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." was "1539 TAVERNER Erasm. Prov. (1552) 43 This unleful lyberty or lycence of the multytude is called an Anarchie." All other meanings are more recent. Anarchy is derived from the Greek and "the word was also adopted in med.L. anarchia, and Fr. anarchie (Cotgr. 1611), from one or other of which the Eng. may have been immediately taken." --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Conflict between Stephen and Matilda
The first paragraph of this section mentions Robert of Gloucester opposing Stephen's usurpation of the throne (implying he is on Matilda's side). However the first line of the next paragraph says that the following year he switched sides to Matilda. Can someone clarify this point? Mikenlesley (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Points to ponder
When considering who had the right to rule, Stephen was the crowned and consecrated King. As the fighting was between a king and supposed subjects this seems more like a civil war than an anarchy.

The so called Anarchy doesn't seem to have come any further south than London and then only briefly. Is there any record about conditions in the southern counties, Kent, Devon, Cornwall etc.AT Kunene (talk) 09:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Expansion...
Having done a couple of the biographies of the leaders from this period, I thought I'd go through and give the article on the war itself a scrub. It should now all have references, and I've taken a stab at a historiography section at the end. Any further inputs (including copy-editing!) welcomed! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Who removed the part about "when Christ and his saints slept" and the quotes about it?! Can someone please put that back? This is a very central part of the history and the myth of The Anarchy, even if it isn't too historically correct! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynicalquest (talk • contribs) 07:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC) --Cynicalquest (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It's used far more rarely nowadays, but I've added and referenced it in under the historiography sction. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that it's a very central part of the history and should be in the top section as well. You also removed the part where the quote is used in the Anglo Saxon Chronicle that put the quote into its context. Whether or not the expression is used widely today or not, it's its use historically that's the point!--Cynicalquest (talk) 19:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why its in the historiography section - its not widely accepted by modern historians as being necessarily an accurate description of events. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I still think it should have been used in the top section. It is part of the history of The Anarchy nevertheless!--Cynicalquest (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm still not convinced that this would be in keeping with the advice on how to handle primary sources (where the interpretation and weighting should follow the best and most up to date secondary sources). Perhaps worth waiting and seeing what others think. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Just corrected it myself...--Cynicalquest (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I've edited slightly - I think you're perhaps getting confused with Sharon Kay Penman's novel, which does use this as the title for the book. Historians and others don't refer to the Anarchy or the civil war by this name; (although I have seen 19-year winter as an archaic title) if you disagree, you really need to provide a reference for it being used as an alternative name for the conflict. Sharon draws her title from the chronicles, which noted "men said openly that Christ and his saints were asleep", so I've added that quote in and referenced it, since it's a direct quote. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So you're discrediting The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle? I'm about to add the title again and also the quote from TA-SC. I'm going to keep adding it every time someone removes it. It has been used historically!--Cynicalquest (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please don't revert just because other people have, the cycle is known as edit warring and is best broken by discussion (reverts while discussion is on going muddies the waters). Just because the article is about The Anarchy doesn't mean anarchy should reign. Is there a reliable source which uses "The years when Christ and his Saints slept" as the name of the civil war as opposed to just a description? Nev1 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added it again and also the quote from The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. As I said, this proves it's historical use. I have 5 books about The Anarchy and they all use the description. You can just keep on removing it, I'll just keep adding it.--Cynicalquest (talk) 12:05, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * In this edit you gave "The years when Christ and his Saints slept" as a name which isn't the same as a description, could you please give a source which uses that as the name of the conflict? Whether that is a name for the conflict is a different matter to whether the quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chroncile should be included. Nev1 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * For the block quote,have a read of PSTS first - its important to examine how the secondary sources deal with the primary source. There's a reason why few modern histories just quote this section verbatim, as noted in the referenced secondary sources. If we're going to give it such prominence, this needs to be in line with the best of the current published works on the topic. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Cynicalquest, have you noticed that the article currently states "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was past its prime by the time of the war, but is remembered for its striking account of conditions during the Anarchy, in particular its description that "men said openly that Christ and his saints were asleep"" (own emphasis added)? Nev1 (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm in danger of falling into edit war territory myself; I'll take a pause on this one. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The Anarchy is known under this name in most books about England in this era and I believe it should be kept, as well as the TA-SC quote I added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cynicalquest (talk • contribs) 12:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some examples? I'm concerned there has been some confusion between a description of the war and the war's name. There's no arguing that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle remarked that it was a time when Christ and his saints slept, but I have never seen that description used as a name and to be honest it would be counter-intuitive to use it as such because while it's an iconic quote as a name it's cumbersome. Even assuming that some sources do refer to the war by that name, is it significant enough to warrant mentioning in the very first lead of the article? I'd look for some indication that it was.
 * As for dealing with the quote from the ASC rather than the issue of the name, there's little point in having a quote unless it's going to be explained with reference to secondary sources. That is exactly what the article does (I quoted the relevant part in my previous post) so I don't see why the quote should be in the article twice. Nev1 (talk) 12:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It has always been referenced in books so I believe it's an important reference. Btw, are you an historian?--Cynicalquest (talk) 12:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If it always has then could you please provide an example? Nev1 (talk) 13:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you read The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle yourself? It's also stated on the page (by yourself?) that this was a common term used about The Anarchy when it happended.--Cynicalquest (talk) 13:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Have you understood that I am concerned that you may be confusing a description for a name and that the quote was already included in the article? What I said was that "[supposing you're correct] it's an iconic quote as a name it's cumbersome". Nev1 (talk) 13:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Nev and Hchc here - I've never seen the period of civil war called by that title or the 19 winter war - I've seen the description in the ASC, but never have i seen a modern historian use either of those phrases as a title for the time period. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me now, but I still think the quote from the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle I added should have been there.--Cynicalquest (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering, if someone added lets say a reference or a link to band with a song about The Anarchy, would you let it be up even if you didn't agree on the lyrics 100% or the relevance of it?--Cynicalquest (talk) 07:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd want to see some indication that the song was important. By and large pop culture references generally aren't worth including, though some influence the perception of a subject. One example of the top of my head is that William Harrison Ainsworth's The Tower of London ingrained in popular consciousness the image of the Tower as a place of torture with dark, dank dungeons. Nev1 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that a Metal song would have a pretty heavy use of the "Christ slept" part. I've been toying around with writing about The Anarchy seen from the view of the English people who had to suffer through that era.--Cynicalquest (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Worth reading Trivia and Primary Sources policy as well, which give useful context. The way in which the Ainsworth material is incorporated into the Tower of London article itself is also worth noting. The bit in that article that covers this goes:


 * "Public interest was partly fuelled by contemporary writers, of whom the work of William Harrison Ainsworth was particularly influential. In The Tower of London: A Historical Romance he created a vivid image of underground torture chambers and devices for extracting confessions that stuck in the public imagination.", referenced Impey & Parnell 2000, p. 91.


 * This is exactly the right way to do it. It establishes the relevance of the material, avoids original research and uses a reliable, secondary source. How could it have gone wrong...? Some examples:


 * "Joe Bloggs mentions the Tower of London in his 1994 song "Crystal Leaves." Probable trivia.
 * "William Ainsworth wrote about the Tower of London in "The Tower of London: A Historical Romance." Doesn't give any sense of why this isn't trivia too.
 * "Public interest was partly fuelled by contemporary writers, of whom the work of William Harrison Ainsworth was particularly influential. In The Tower of London: A Historical Romance he created a vivid image of underground torture chambers and devices for extracting confessions that stuck in the public imagination." - helpfully explains why this isn't trivia, but is unreferenced, and therefore could be considered original research.
 * "Public interest was partly fuelled by contemporary writers, of whom the work of William Harrison Ainsworth was particularly influential. In The Tower of London: A Historical Romance he created a vivid image of underground torture chambers and devices for extracting confessions that stuck in the public imagination.", referenced Ainsworth (1840). - helpfully gives a reference for Ainsworth, but that isn't a source for the surrounding judgements and interpretations, so is original research.
 * "The Tower of London also went by the name of 'The Darkest Hole in Europe,' in the 1840s as described by the character Little Julia in William Ainsworth's novel 'In the Tower of London'", referenced Ainsworth (1840). - Questionable use of a primary source, not backed up by a secondary source.
 * "Public interest was partly fuelled by contemporary writers, of whom the work of William Harrison Ainsworth was particularly influential. In The Tower of London: A Historical Romance he created a vivid image of underground torture chambers and devices for extracting confessions that stuck in the public imagination.", reference joe.blogs.random.website, accessed 31 Jan 2011. Not a reliable source, so problematic.
 * "In The Tower of London: A Historical Romance, William Ainsworth uses the literary device of the 'distant third person' for the first time, which would be widely adopted by fellow writers in the 1850s.'", referenced Samuelson (1992). Verifiable, and probably of interest, but not relevant to an article on the Tower of London - worth transferring to an article on Ainsworth or the book itself.


 * Instead, the article handled it properly: it drew out the relevance of the novel to the Tower of London itself; it avoids original research, and it uses a high quality, secondary source to back up the claims. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Either the person who removed the term "The nineteen-year winter" puts it back him-/herself or I do it!--Cynicalquest (talk) 12:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Assess as B-class
Hchc2009, what a splendid effort! Assessed as B-class. Before you submit this for A-class, please do the following. I noticed you strung together several identical footnotes, as follows. "Sentence." (page 105) "Sentence." (page 105) Instead these should be collapsed, like this. "Sentence. Sentence." (page 105) I fixed a few typos. Great job. Djmaschek (talk) 03:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW: I wrote most of the Rout of Winchester article. Hence, my great interest in the subject. Djmaschek (talk) 03:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One more thing. The "Robert of Torigny says that 1,115 castles were built..." is in the article twice, including toward the end. Please remove one of them. In one case the name is spelled Torigni. Djmaschek (talk) 04:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Should be sorted now. Torigni/y gets spelt differently by different authors, so I've gone for the wikipedia preferred article title! Will give the article a bit longer to settle down, and then take it through good article and A-class reviews... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Image from Luttrell Psalter
The caption reads that this depicts Scottish attacks of 1138. Do you have a solid reference for this? If it does illustrate a Scottish attack, it seems more likely to depict those of its own time in the first third of the 14th century. If you don't have a ref I recommend you go vague and drop the date or replace with a different image.Monstrelet (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The original uploader referenced Michael Camille, Mirror in Parchment: The Luttrell Psalter and the Making of Medieval England, (London, 1999), p. 285); I don't have a copy of this so can't easily check it. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * But, double checking, the dating actually came from one of the sub-article, so is unsafe. I'll remove. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Still think this article needs a section about the situation of the civilian population.
I still believe that this article needs more about the plight of civilian population. There are of cause things from TASC that could be quoted IF someone could help me find sources for it. http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/medievalengland.htm http://www.webhistoryofengland.com/?p=1319

Does anyone know why I can't put up links from "hubpages" here?Cynicalquest (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Blesevins and Angevins or Robert's supporters and Matilda's supporters?
I think there are two issues here. Clarity and accuracy. With the former, calling each party 'supporters of x' is immediately clear, whereas Blesevins and Angevins means we are hoping that readers will come to this topic with some prior knowledge. I don't think that's an assumption we should be making. On the latter subject, I would suggest that using Blesevins and Angevins implies there are fixed loyalties based on each house. There are several notable examples of people switching sides, such as de Mandeville, so I would be wary of using terms that imply an allegiance to a particular house as opposed to supporting an individual (however temporary that support may be). Richard Nevell (talk) 12:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I do agree. I also do not like the implication that the entire House of Blois supported Stephen - his own elder brother was at best luke-warm, and his younger brother Henry famously changed sides at least once. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * You’ve raised two issue, so I shall provide my opinion on both.
 * - Clarity: While I do have sympathy for your concern that some readers may not know what an Angevin or Blesevin is, it does not change the fact that this is an encyclopaedic website and thus, correct historical terminology should be employed. For example, Cavalier and Roundhead are employed in the English Civil War page. A simple solution to this problem would be to simply add notes clarifying what the Blesevins and Angevins were. I’m sure visitors to this page are more than capable of clicking on Note 1 and Note 2 to get clarification (assuming they need it).


 * - Accuracy: ‘Angevin’ and ‘Blesevin’ are terms used in modern historiography. If professional historians who write scholarly articles for a living deem them to be accurate, then they must be. I think Ealdgyth’s point that not all members of the House of Blois supported Stephen is a good point, but Henry of Winchester is an outlier. A simple solution to this problem would be to clarify that a Blesevin was a supporter of the Blois claim (not necessarily a Blois), while an Angevin supported the Plantagenet claim (again, not necessarily a Plantagenet). This thus ensures that Henry, a Blois, can be descibed as initially being a Angevin, but then switched to the Blesevins. The Anarchy was a dynastic conflict, but that doesn’t mean all members of the same family faught on the same side. The Anarchy is hardly unusual in this regard. Margalant (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Well JSTOR shows no articles with 'Blesevins' as a title or in the article itself. Google Scholar shows three items for Blesevins, one of which is a wikipedia mirror that doesn't actually have 'Blesevins' in the article. I'm not seeing it used in any of the works on my shelves about the period either. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've noticed the term 'Blesevins' in my reading around the Anarchy, though can't claim to be definitive on that. However, Ealdgyth's search indicates it may not be used very often in relation to this civil war. The role of an encyclopedia is to educate a general audience and even is a term may be 'correct' that doesn't mean it will help the reader understand. Roundhead and Cavalier are at least more widely known terms than Blesevin, though my impression is that more recent writers prefer to use Parliamentarian and Royalist, which again are more descriptive terms. If we are using terms which are obscure we need a strong justification to do so because it will make the article less accessible. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * The term ‘Blesevin’ is indeed not widely used, although it has been employed by some hhistorians (Jim Bradbury) and royal genealogists. However, the claim that the term ‘Angevin’ is obscure is simply not accurate. It is widely used on Wikipedia never mind modern historiography.


 * My arguement is that ‘Angevin’ (Adjectival form of Anjou) is already used by historians to describe the supporters of Matilda and Henry. Examples include Creighton, Callahan and Patterson. Its use in historiography dates back to Victorian times. Blesevin (Adjectival form of Blois) should therefore be used alongside Angevin because it is the correct terminological counterpart. Both terms are accurate and they sound better than ‘forces of X’. Margalant (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was loose wording on my part. I'm less concerned that people won't have come across the term Angevin before as it's used fairly often, though it does again assume prior knowledge of the subject. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I take your point that alot of people may not know what an Angevin or Blesevin is. I’m still not happy though with what’s in the infobox. Most military conflict infoboxes simply have faction names included. For example: the Wars of the Roses has ‘House of Lancaster’ and ‘House of York’ as belligerents rather than ‘forces loyal to Richard of York’ and ‘forces loyal to Henry of Lancaster’. A compromise could be to include ‘House of Blois’ instead of Blesevin and ‘House of Plantagenet’ instead of Angevin. Margalant (talk) 10:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Consistent Naming?
To someone not knowledgeable in English history, the intro and sidebar are extremely confusing: It's not clear sometimes whom 'Henry' refers to, and FitzEmpress and Plantagenet are variously used without explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XcentricXplorer (talk • contribs) 14:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Better title needed
The title of this article is cribbed from Charles Coulson's 1994 book, "The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign", prior to which the word "anarchy" was not applied (at least not substantially so that I can determine) as a naming convention for this period in English history, and it is certainly not found within the Middle English of the period since "anarchy" is an ancient Greek word (and one whose literal definition, "without-tyrants", is diametrically at odds with a setting of would-be tyrants vying for a throne). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:444:380:3a90:113b:a359:8898:2fe (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The title is based on what reliable sources call it, and it certainly has an older provenance than 1994...?! We certainly do not go by what contemporaries called it. The §Historiography discusses the very issue and notes that although of Victorian origin, the label of "the Anarchy" remains in use by modern historians, but rarely without qualification, and is sourced to White, Carpenter and King.
 * PS: the Ancient Greeks are wholly irrelevant in this context. Cheers, ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation targets for "The Anarchy" vs. anarchy as a whole
- I'll refrain from reverting again, but you seem to be pretty insistent about the disambiguation hatnotes and I think a discussion might be valuable. While you're correct that Dalrymple's book is listed in the "Anarchy" disambiguation page, I think its title as The Anarchy makes it a particularly likely target for disambiguation, and worth calling out. There's certainly room for multiple disambiguation targets as hatnotes (the disambiguation template has specific functionality for it), and The Guardian review says that the tail end of the Mughal period in India has also been called The Anarchy (though I'm not an expert in Indian history and can't say how common this is or whether the usage has survived). Taking that account there might even be an argument for moving this page to "The Anarchy (English history)", creating "The Anarchy (Indian history)" (even as a redirect to Mughal Empire, and leaving "The Anarchy (book)", with "The Anarchy" as a mini-disambiguation page between them. What do you think about this, and do you have any suggestions for a better format that might address this very specific confusion without cluttering things up too badly? --Mockingbus (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * maybe  would be appropriate? That would mirror the usage over in Peasants' Revolt, where there's a link to "List of peasant revolts" for "other peasants' revolts" and a specific callout to German Peasants' War (which appears on that list) for a specific, easily-confused example. --Mockingbus (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not think it is significant enough for a hatnote. The Indian usage seems very obscure. It is not in the Mughal Empire article, and on Google and in the article on the East India Company I can only find it as the title of Darymple's book. Anyone who wants to read about the book will have no trouble tracking down the article through the disambig or the author.


 * As to Peasants' Revolt, I would not have added the specific link to the German one, but it is a major similar subject.


 * I would not agree with changing the article title, but you can of course propose it if you want to get the views of other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I did find a few sources that suggest it's not unheard of (two of the academically credible examples copied below), but I admit I don't have enough expertise to say one way or the other whether modern histories of India commonly refer to the last stages of the Mughal Empire as "the Anarchy" or not — there might be a lack of English-language sources. I wouldn't push; I just find it interesting and worth mentioning - sort of "there's more than one claim to this title", etc.
 * "The perception of an underground process of growth, continuing alike under the Empire, the Anarchy and the Drain continues to elude me…"
 * "For many historians of the recent past the twilight of the Mughals and the eighteenth-century 'anarchy' continued to be the only important set of events in the history of eighteenth-century India."
 * In any case, when you say "I do not think it is significant enough for a hatnote.", though, just to be clear, are you using the relative notability of the book as your guideline? It certainly can be found with some simple searching, but I think the likelihood of someone finding this page while looking for the book is significantly higher than others, and consideration should be given to a reader's clarity and expedience (full disclosure: this is how I found it). I'm fairly sure you won't agree, but would you object at all to calling for a 3O? Mockingbus (talk) 03:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't know what a 3O is but I am only expressing a personal view and it is always helpful to get the opinions of other editors. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * - Ah, sorry (and apologies for this delayed response). "3O" is shorthand for "Third opinion", just a low-impact request for someone else to weigh in when two editors can't quite find consensus. I've put in an entry there. –Mockingbus (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I was brought here from WP:3O and just want to state that (1) I have no prior history of editing this or any related article (2) I've never interacted with Dudley Miles or Mockingbus previously, to the best of my knowledge. With that in mind I am coming to this discussion as a third-party. My understanding is that there is a dispute whether or not William Dalrymple (historian)'s 2019 The Anarchy (book) should be added to the hatnote at the top of this page. The rationale supporting the addition is that, as far as topics currently covered on Wikipedia (a possible Indian history topic aside), the book is the only other topic that can reasonably be called "The Anarchy", so it's possible that readers are coming to this page while looking for the book's article. The rationale against inclusion is that while it does match the title, it's not a significant enough subject to warrant being specifically called out in the hatnote, and that it being mentioned in the more general disambiguation page is sufficient. This is my rough summary of the dispute, please correct me if I'm wrong.


 * With that said and all of that aside, here is my opinion: what it comes down to is, is the book significant enough to include? Are enough people looking for the book that it warrants a specific mention? The easiest way I know to determine that answer is with pageviews. Using the last 20 days as reference (changing the dates does not significantly change these numbers): The Anarchy (book) gets about 79 views a day, compared to 1,788 for this article, and just for compairson, 1,020 for the general Anarchy article. When this article and Anarchy are getting 4-digit pageviews daily, I don't think a 2-digit pageview article shows enough significance to specifically be mentioned, as not enough people are looking for that article (as indicated via the pageviews). Those numbers don't seem significant enough to make an exception to WP:1HAT. (As an aside, I am aware of WP:SIMILAR and I don't think it applies here, since putting "The" in front of the title doesn't create the need that WP:SIMILAR solves; this article links to a general disambiguation page that the book is included on, and WP:SIMILAR is for instances where there is no general disambiguation page and there are only two articles, one with a parenthetical disambiguation and one without, to ensure that readers can reached the disambiguated page. That's not a concern here since the disambiguation page lists the book.)


 * I hope this helps, and I want to stress that my third-opinion is not some arbitrator role that determines the outcome, my opinion carries exactly the same amount of weight as the two of you, nor does it mean that the issue need be settled if you still disagree; it can still be discussed to iron out the details in how to best improve the articles in question. If more editors chime into the discussion, their opinions similarly have the same weight in determining consensus. Hopefully though, I was able to provide some new aspects of the dispute that do not appear to have been previously considered, namely the pageviews and the various applicable parts of Hatnote. - Aoidh (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in! I thought the similarity seemed meaningful enough for concern (i.e. "most likely candidate", especially given the size of the Anarchy disambiguation page, as in 'Turkey' at WP:1HAT), but the orders of magnitude difference suggests that the number of people affected would be pretty negligible. I didn't realize that data was publicly available. (Interestingly, the disambiguation page itself only gets ~17 views/day, so it's probably only useful on an order-of-magnitude level.) I might make an attempt to improve the hatnote with the  template, but I'll agree that one link seems appropriate with your information. –Mockingbus (talk) 20:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)