Talk:Thingmen

Thingmen was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 14, 2008	Good article nominee	Not listed

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 7, 2007.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Þingalið was a standing army of 3,000 elite Viking warriors, whose main purpose was to defend England against other Vikings?

Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Norse history and culture High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 articles
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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: British / European / Nordic / Medieval Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Nordic military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Pronunciation?[edit]

Could anyone please add an appropriate IPA to the article? Thanks. --BorgQueen 01:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well as a modern transliteration? One shouldn't have to be a scholar in obsolete scripts to read a Wikipedia article. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Review[edit]

Proceeding in reverse order through the GA criteria:

Images: Pass Only one, but it illustrates what is a very short article.
Stability: Pass Yes. It is a very recent article and has only two major editors.
Neutrality: Minor Fail I've fixed a couple of minor things - overly (imo) dramatic use of language. A couple of minor points remain: 1) "they fought to the last man against William" Is this literally true? It sounds very much like artistic license, and if it is not literally the case, and referenced by the sources given, it should go. 2) This may sound like an unfair point, but the general picture is very positive. Are there no negative points to be made about these warriors?
Broad coverage: Fail The article states that this organisation of troops served English kings from 1018 to 1066, but there is no mention of their role or service in this period: only the Battle of Hastings is mentioned. In what other conflicts, or what other work, did they carry out in this period? I'd probably also expect to see more on how these guys fought. The article is very short, and it seems that there is more that could be said.
Factually Accurate: ~~Fail~~ Pass I know, I know! This seems very unfair. The article is footnoted and referenced to hardcopy sources throughout. My concern is whether this article consists of original research. Googling 'Þingalið ' turned up only around 400 results, most of which were wikis or mirrors of this article. Google is not the source of all knowledge, but it makes me wonder whether the term is widely used in this way. The entry on this page, suggests that the term 'Þingalið' has a meaning either wider (any overseas war-band) or narrower (Cnut's personal guard) than the one given to it here. The various runestone entries given refer only to Scandanavians having died in England, not to their membership of a standing army. Finally, the tale of the unit's formation feels to me like a story being reported as fact. I've no specialist knowledge in this area, so I've posted at appropriate pages to ask others to either refute or support my concerns. I hope that seems fair.
Well-written: Pass Could be polished up to flow a little better, but absolutely fine for a GA.

Overall, then, a Fail. I will leave the article on-hold for one week. The neutrality and broadness fails may be quick to fix, and I may be completely wrong about the OR issue. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update After comments from user:Carre and user:Narson here I'll strike my fail for OR. I would like to suggest a move for the article to a commonly accepted version of the name using only standard English language characters (Thingalith? Tinglith?), on the basis that almost no-one is going to find an article name using Thorn and Eth. Even if not, an acknowledgement of alternative spellings would be useful - Carre has found a source which appears to use Thingmen for the same concept. It has been suggested that a merge with Housecarl might be appropriate. I would like to make GA decision dependent on a consensus on whether or not to merge, but am seeking guidance as to whether that is fair. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you should. C. Warren Hollister doesn't use this word in Anglo-Saxon Military Institutions on the Eve of the Norman Conquest, nor does it appear in either of the Anglo-Saxon articles in Matthew Strickland (ed), Anglo-Norman Warfare (these are both by Nicholas Hooper: "The Housecarls in England in the Eleventh Century" and "Some observations on the Navy in Late Anglo-Saxon England"). Pollington (The English Warrior) doesn't use it, nor does Underwood (Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare), and it is not to be found in Paddy Griffith's Viking Art of War. How very strange! Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this: [1]. It's about the only occurrence of þingalið I can find. It has a decent list of further references though. There are plenty of references (google it) to Thingmen in connection with Cnut and subsequent Danish kings of England. It's my suspicion that they're one and the same thing, but can't find anything to prove it.

As it is though, I agree with this not being promoted to GA on broadness grounds alone. Even if this confusion is cleared up, I can see enough details in Oman and the Oxford Illustrated History to add several paragraphs without even trying—compare this standing army with the Fyrd, or compare how Cnut controlled England with how Bill the Conq did. Pay scales. More on the Danegeld still being used. The size of the standing force between Cnut (40 ship's worth) and Harthacnut (62 ship's worth). That's just from a couple of sources, too. Carre (talk) 09:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well there's three days to go on the hold. No edits from the nominator since the 6th (I reviewed this on the 7th), so let's see if any response emerges by Monday. Cheers for the comments, guys. 4u1e (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to avoid any misunderstandings. This article was nominated for GA by user:Fred J [2]. As for the name, Scandinavian literature calls it Tingalidet, which is a modern form it its Old Norse name Þingalið. I naively chose the name Þingalið since it was the name used in the American book by a Harvard historian named Omeljan Pritsak which I was using when I wrote the article.--Berig (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops - my error. Sorry! 4u1e (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The word most commonly used for the sailors/marines of Cnut's fleet seems to be lithsmen Google books results, Google scholar results. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 7 days is up, with no edits to address the points raised above, so that's a fail. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Googlebooksing probable OCR errors and you get stuff.[3][4] Haukur (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to use characters from an alphabet other than the standard English alphabet, I think you shouldn't limit it to just the title of the article. Why don't you just go on and translate...or whatever...all of the text? That way no one would be able to understand the article, and you would have achieved your aim of secret knowledge, restricted to the elect. Nice going, Jerome.JGC1010 (talk) 01:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissolution[edit]

I have repeated my edits regarding the disbandment of this force and the abolition of its financial underpinnings in 1050-1, which is clearly reported in the principal contemporary source for English history in this period. If there is evidence of the subsequent re-establishment of these institutions, please provide references to primary sources or to secondary works on this specific subject, or at least on the history of England in this particular period - not a book on the Rus and a book on runes, neither of which can be considered to carry much weight as sources on Anglo-Danish history.

I suspect that the problem here may be a confusion between huscarls - merely the Scandinavian term, also used in England after the Danish conquest, for the household warriors of a king or other great lord, which was a ubiquitous feature of Germanic and semi-Germanic societies from prehistory through to the late Middle Ages - and the very specific, and for the early medieval West highly unusual, institution of a small standing army/fleet based on national direct taxation, which was established by Cnut on the basis of precedents and systems developed in Aethelred's reign and eventually abolished by Edward. References to the presence of the former in no way imply the existence of the latter. Zburh (talk) 20:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is StephenPaternoster going to explain the reversion of Zburh's edits Very poor form to just blank revert with zero explanation. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MILHIST assessment[edit]

Classified start. Article lacks supporting materials to progress beyond this rating. Monstrelet (talk) 14:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]