Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages/Anglo-Saxon or English

This page is a central place to discuss the usage of Anglo-Saxon vs English on Wikipedia.

Why does this not tell the truth?

Over the past few weeks a user has been changing "Anglo-Saxon" to "English" throughout dozens of Wikipedia articles (example). In addition this user has been changing "Norman" to "French", "Norman language" to "French language", "Anglo-Saxon langage" to "Old English language", and others.

Please discuss here.

I don't know whether this is still is a subject of discussion, but if it is this is completely wrong. The Anglo-Saxons did not speak English, and the Normans most definitely did not speak French. Old English may be an acceptable replacement for Anglo-Saxon, but Norman has to remain Norman, as it was a completely different language from French at the time, which wasn't itself the language which it is today.

--Hahaandy1 15:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Anglo-Saxons though they did speak English (or englisc, at the very least), and Old English has been the standard term for what the eighteenth century called Anglo-Saxon for a very long time. In the professional literature, we use Anglo-Saxon for the period and in the broadest terms people, and Old English to refer generally to the language.

dpod 06:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not split the difference and call it "Anglisc?" It's a bit more elegant than Anglo-Saxon, more accurate than Old English and has the virtue of being what the Anglo-Saxons might have called it. Pat Payne 23:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Anglisc" would work because it would confuse too many readers. I think Old English is the way to go, as it gets across that it is not Modern English (which it certainly isn't). I have heard Anglo-Saxon used relatively interchangeably, but I think Old English is more commonly used. VincentValentine29 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]