text:
Slovaks

The Slovaks (Slováci, singular: Slovák, feminine: Slovenka, plural: Slovenky) are a West Slavic ethnic group and nation native to Slovakia who share a common ancestry, culture, history and speak the Slovak language.

In Slovakia, c. 4.4 million are ethnic Slovaks of 5.4 million total population. There are Slovak minorities in many neighboring countries including Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine and sizeable populations of immigrants and their descendants in Australia, Canada, France, Germany, United Kingdom and the United States among others, which are collectively referred to as the Slovak diaspora.

Name
The name Slovak is derived from *Slověninъ, plural *Slověně, the old name of the Slavs (Proglas, around 863). The original stem has been preserved in all Slovak words except the masculine noun; the feminine noun is Slovenka, the adjective is slovenský, the language is slovenčina and the country is Slovensko. The first written mention of adjective slovenský (Slovak) is in 1294 (ad parvam arborem nystra slowenski breza ubi est meta).

The original name of Slovaks Slověninъ/Slověně was still recorded in Pressburg Latin-Czech Dictionary (the 14th century), but it changed to Slovák under the influence of Czech and Polish (around 1400). The first written mention of new form in the territory of present-day Slovakia is from Bardejov (1444, "Nicoulaus Cossibor hauptman, Nicolaus Czech et Slowak, stipendiarii supremi"). The mentions in Czech sources are older (1375 and 1385). The change is not related to the ethnogenesis of Slovaks, but exclusively to linguistic changes in the West Slavic languages. The word Slovak was used also later as a common name for all Slavs in Czech, Polish, and also Slovak together with other forms.

Since the 20th century, In Hungarian, "Slovak" is Tót (pl: tótok), an exonym. It was originally used to refer to all Slavs including Slovenes and Croats, but eventually came to refer primarily to Slovaks. Many place names in Hungary such as Tótszentgyörgy, Tótszentmárton, and Tótkomlós still bear the name. Tóth is a common Hungarian surname.

The Slovaks have also historically been variously referred to as Slovyenyn, Slowyenyny, Sclavus, Sclavi, Slavus, Slavi, Winde, Wende, or Wenden. The final three terms are variations of the Germanic term Wends, which was historically used to refer to any Slavs living close to Germanic settlements.

Ethnogenesis
The early Slavs came to the territory of Slovakia in several waves from the 5th and 6th centuries and were organized on a tribal level. Original tribal names are not known due to the lack of written sources before their integration into higher political units. Weakening of tribal consciousness was probably accelerated by Avars, who did not respect tribal differences in the controlled territory and motivated remaining Slavs to join together and to collaborate on their defense. In the 7th century, Slavs founded a larger tribal union: Samo's empire. Regardless of Samo's empire, the integration process continued in other territories with various intensities.

The final fall of the Avar Khaganate allowed new political entities to arise. The first such political unit documented by written sources is the Principality of Nitra, one of the foundations of later common ethnic consciousness. At this stage in history it is not yet possible to assume a common identity of all ancestors of Slovaks in the neighboring eastern territories, even if it was inhabited by closely related Slavs. The Principality of Nitra became a part of Great Moravia, a common state of Moravians (Czech ancestors were joined only for a few years). The relatively short existence of Great Moravia prevented it from suppressing differences which resulted from its creation from two separate entities, and therefore a common "Slovak-Moravian" ethnic identity failed to develop. The early political integration in the territory of present-day Slovakia was, however, reflected in linguistic integration. While dialects of the early ancestors of Slovaks were divided into West Slavic (western and eastern Slovakia) and non-West Slavic (central Slovakia), between the 8th and 9th centuries both dialects merged, thus laying the foundations of a later Slovak language.

The 10th century is a milestone in the Slovak ethnogenesis. The fall of Great Moravia and further political changes supported their formation into a separate nation. At the same time, with the extinction of the Proto-Slavic language, between the 10th and 13th centuries Slovak evolved into an independent language (simultaneously with other Slavic languages). The early existence of the Kingdom of Hungary positively influenced the development of common consciousness and companionship among Slavs in the Northern Hungary, not only within boundaries of present-day Slovakia. The clear difference between Slovaks and Hungarians made adoption of a specific name unnecessary and Slovaks preserved their original name (in Latin e.g. Slavus), which was also used in communication with other Slavic peoples (Polonus, Bohemus, Ruthenus). In political terms, the medieval Slovaks were a part of the multi-ethnic political nation Natio Hungarica, together with Hungarians (or, more exactly, Magyars), Slavonians, Germans, Romanians and other ethnic groups in the Kingdom of Hungary. Since a medieval political nation did not consist of ordinary people but nobility, membership of the privileged class was necessary for all these peoples (nobiles Hungary).

Like other nations, the Slovaks began to transform into a modern nation from the 18th century under the idea of national romanticism. The modern Slovak nation is the result of radical processes of modernization within the Habsburg Empire which culminated in the middle of the 19th century. The transformation process was slowed down by conflict with Hungarian nationalism and the ethnogenesis of the Slovaks become a political question, particularly regarding their deprivation and preservation of their language and national rights. In 1722, Michal Bencsik, professor of law at the University of Trnava, published a theory that nobility and burghers of Trenčín should not have same privileges as Hungarians, because they are descendants of Svatopluk's people (inferior to Magyars). Neither Bencsik nor his Slovak opponent Ján Baltazár Magin put the continuity of settlement into serious question. Also, the first history of Slovaks written by Georgius Papanek (or Juraj Papánek), traced the roots of the Slovaks to Great Moravia in ''Historia gentis Slavae. De regno regibusque Slavorum...'' (1780) ("History of the Slovak nation: On the kingdom and kings of the Slovaks"). Papánek's work became a basis for argumentation of the Slovak national revival movement. However, the Slovak national revival not only accepted the continuity of population but also emphasized it, thus proving that Slovaks are equal citizens of the state and neither a Hungarian "unique statesmanlike gift" nor Christianization was required for the foundation of the state.

In 1876, Hungarian linguist Pál Hunfalvy published a theory about missing continuity between Slovaks and Slavs before the arrival of the Hungarians. Hunfalvy tried to prove that ancestors of Slovaks did not live in the territory of the present-day Slovakia before arrival of the old Hungarians (Magyars), but Slovaks emerged later from other Slavs who came to the Kingdom of Hungary from neighbouring countries after the 13th century. János Karácsonyi assumed that central and northern Slovakia were uninhabited (1901) and in his next work "Our historical right to the territorial integrity of our country" (1921) he claimed that the remainder of the original Slavs were assimilated by Magyars and modern Slovaks are descendants of immigrants from Upper Moravia and Oder (the population density on these territories was too low in that time and large numbers of colonists coming from these areas was not possible). The theory was then misused by inter-war Hungarian revisionists, who questioned continuity to support Hungarian claims on Slovakia. In 1982, when rich archaeological evidence proving the opposite was already available, a similar theory was published by Hungarian historian György Györffy. Györffy accepted that smaller groups of Slavs could remain in the territory of Slovakia, but stated that the Slovaks' origin was in sparse settlement of various Slavic groups strengthened by later colonization. According to Ferenc Makk, the medieval Moravians are not the ancestors of Slovaks and the majority of the Slovak people are descended from later Slavic newcomers.

The opposite theory, supporting the supposed former common past of the Czech and Slovak nations, thus also legitimizing the creation of the united Czechoslovak nation, gained political support in inter-war Czechoslovakia. Like Karácsonyi, Czech historian Václav Chaloupecký assumed that northern and central parts of Slovakia remained uninhabited until the 13th century and that the south-western part was inhabited by Czechs. Yet, in 1946 Chaloupecký assumed that the Slovak nation emerged from neighboring Slavs and had been formed only in the 17th century. His theory about the lack of population in the greater part of Slovakia covered by forests had already been scientifically refuted by Daniel Rapant (e.g. in O starý Liptov, 1934), and was proven wrong by numerous archaeological finds and rejected by Czechoslovak historiography. On the other hand, inter-war Slovak autonomists, opposing ethnic Czechoslovakism, dated the existence of the Slovak nation to the time of Pribina (trials to document existence of Slovaks in early Slavic era, i.e. in the time of Samo's empire, are marginal and exist outside of modern mainstream Slovak historiography).

After the dissolution of Czechoslovakia in 1993, the formation of independent Slovakia motivated interest in a particularly Slovak national identity. One reflection of this was the rejection of the common Czechoslovak national identity in favour of a purely Slovak one.

Slavs of the Pannonian Basin
The first known Slavic states on the territory of present-day Slovakia were the Empire of Samo and the Principality of Nitra, founded sometime in the 8th century.

Great Moravia
Great Moravia (833 – 902-907) was a Slavic state in the 9th and early 10th centuries, whose creators were the ancestors of the Czechs and Slovaks. Important developments took place at this time, including the mission of Byzantine monks Cyril and Methodius, the development of the Glagolitic alphabet (an early form of the Cyrillic script), and the use of Old Church Slavonic as the official and literary language. Its formation and rich cultural heritage have attracted somewhat more interest since the 19th century.

The original territory inhabited by the Slavic tribes included not only present-day Slovakia, but also parts of present-day Poland, southeastern Moravia and approximately the entire northern half of present-day Hungary.

Kingdom of Hungary

The territory of present-day Slovakia was split in two parts between the Kingdom of Hungary (under Hungarian rule gradually from 907 to the early 14th century) to Upper Hungary and Royal Hungary (under the Habsburgs from 1527 – 1848 (see also Hungarian Revolution of 1848)) until the formation of Czechoslovakia in 1918. However, according to other historians, from 895 to 902, the whole area of the present-day Slovakia became part of the rising Principality of Hungary, and became (without gradation) part of the Kingdom of Hungary a century later. A separate entity called Nitra Frontier Duchy, existed at this time within the Kingdom of Hungary. This duchy was abolished in 1107. The territory inhabited by the Slovaks in present-day Hungary was gradually reduced.

When most of Hungary was conquered by the Ottoman Empire in 1541 (see Ottoman Hungary), the territory of present-day Slovakia became the new center of the reduced kingdom that remained under Hungarian, and later Habsburg rule, officially called Royal Hungary. Some Croats settled around and in present-day Bratislava for similar reasons. Also, many Germans settled in the Kingdom of Hungary, especially in the towns, as work-seeking colonists and mining experts from the 13th to the 15th century. Jews and Gypsies also formed significant populations within the territory. During the period, most of present-day Slovakia was part of Habsburg rule, but Ottoman ruled southern and southeasternmost parts of it.

After the Ottoman Empire was forced to retreat from present-day Hungary around 1700, thousands of Slovaks were gradually settled in depopulated parts of the restored Kingdom of Hungary (present-day Hungary, Romania, Serbia, and Croatia) under Maria Theresia, and that is how present-day Slovak enclaves (like Slovaks in Vojvodina, Slovaks in Hungary) in these countries arose.

After Transylvania, Upper Hungary (present-day Slovakia) was the most advanced part of the Kingdom of Hungary for centuries, but in the 19th century, when Buda/Pest became the new capital of the kingdom, the importance of the territory, as well as other parts within the Kingdom fell, and many Slovaks were impoverished. As a result, hundreds of thousands of Slovaks emigrated to North America, especially in the late 19th and early 20th century (between cca. 1880–1910), a total of at least 1.5 million emigrants.

Slovakia exhibits a very rich folk culture. A part of Slovak customs and social convention are common with those of other nations of the former Habsburg monarchy (the Kingdom of Hungary was in personal union with the Habsburg monarchy from 1867 to 1918).

Czechoslovakia
People of Slovakia spent most part of the 20th century within the framework of Czechoslovakia, a new state formed after World War I. Significant reforms and post-World War II industrialization took place during this time. Slovak was strongly influenced by Czech during this period.

Culture
The art of Slovakia can be traced back to the Middle Ages, when some of the greatest masterpieces of the country's history were created. Significant figures from this period included the many Old Masters, among them the Master Paul of Levoča and Master MS. More contemporary art can be seen in the shadows of Koloman Sokol, Albín Brunovský, Martin Benka, Mikuláš Galanda, Ľudovít Fulla. Julius Koller and Stanislav Filko, in the 21st century Roman Ondak, Blažej Baláž. The most important Slovak composers have been Eugen Suchoň, Ján Cikker, and Alexander Moyzes, in the 21st century Vladimir Godar and Peter Machajdík.

The most famous Slovak names can indubitably be attributed to invention and technology. Such people include Jozef Murgaš, the inventor of wireless telegraphy; Ján Bahýľ, Štefan Banič, inventor of the modern parachute; Aurel Stodola, inventor of the bionic arm and pioneer in thermodynamics; and, more recently, John Dopyera, father of modern acoustic string instruments. Hungarian inventors Joseph Petzval and Ányos Jedlik were born of Slovak fathers.

Slovakia is also known for its polyhistors, of whom include Pavol Jozef Šafárik, Matej Bel, Ján Kollár, and its political revolutionaries, such Milan Rastislav Štefánik and Alexander Dubček.

There were two leading persons who codified Slovak. The first one was Anton Bernolák whose concept was based on the dialect of western Slovakia (1787). It was the enactment of the first national standard language for the Slovaks. The second notable man was Ľudovít Štúr. His formation of Slovak had principles in the dialect of central Slovakia (1843).

The best known Slovak hero was Juraj Jánošík (the Slovak equivalent of Robin Hood). The prominent explorer and diplomat Móric Beňovský, Hungarian transcript Benyovszky was Slovak as well (he comes from Vrbové in present-day Slovakia and is e.g. listed as "nobilis Slavicus – Slovak nobleman" in his secondary school registration).

In terms of sports, the Slovaks are probably best known (in North America) for their ice hockey personalities, especially Stan Mikita, Peter Šťastný, Peter Bondra, Žigmund Pálffy, Marián Hossa and Zdeno Chára. For a list see List of Slovaks. Zdeno Chára is only the second European captain in history of the NHL that led his team to win the Stanley Cup, winning it with the Boston Bruins in the season 2010–11.

For a list of the most notable Slovak writers and poets, see List of Slovak authors.

Statistics
There are approximately 5.4 million autochthonous Slovaks in Slovakia. Further Slovaks live in the following countries (the list shows estimates of embassies etc. and of associations of Slovaks abroad in the first place, and official data of the countries as of 2000/2001 in the second place).

The list stems from Claude Baláž, a Canadian Slovak, the current plenipotentiary of the Government of the Slovak Republic for Slovaks abroad (see e.g.: 6):
 * United States (1,200,000 / 821,325*) [ *(1) there were, however, 1,882,915 Slovaks in the US according to the 1990 census, (2) there are some 400,000 "Czechoslovaks" in the US, a large part of which are Slovaks ] – 19th – 21st century emigrants; see also United States Census
 * Czech Republic (350,000 / 183,749*) [ *there were, however, 314 877 Slovaks in the Czech Republic according to the 1991 census ] – due to the existence of former Czechoslovakia
 * Hungary (39,266 / 17,693)
 * Canada (100,000 / 50,860) – 19th – 21st century migrants
 * Serbia (60,000 / 59,021*) [especially in Vojvodina; *excl. the Rusins ] – 18th & 19th century settlers
 * Poland (2002) (47,000 / 2,000*) [ * The Central Census Commission has accepted the objection of the Association of Slovaks in Poland with respect to this number ] – ancient minority and due to border shifts during the 20th century
 * Romania (18,000 / 17,199) – ancient minority
 * Ukraine (17,000 / 6,397) [especially in Carpathian Ruthenia] – ancient minority and due to the existence of former Czechoslovakia
 * France (13,000 / n.a.)
 * Australia (12,000 / n.a.) – 20th – 21st century migrants
 * Austria (10,234 / 10,234) – 20th – 21st century migrants
 * United Kingdom (10,000 / n.a.)
 * Croatia (5,000 / 4,712) – 18th & 19th century settlers
 * other countries

The number of Slovaks living outside Slovakia in line with the above data was estimated at max. 2,016,000 in 2001 (2,660,000 in 1991), implying that, in sum, there were max. some 6,630,854 Slovaks in 2001 (7,180,000 in 1991) in the world. The estimate according to the right-hand site chart yields an approximate population of Slovaks living outside Slovakia of 1.5 million.

Other (much higher) estimates stemming from the Dom zahraničných Slovákov (House of Foreign Slovaks) can be found on SME.

title: Slovaks


text:
Talk:Danger Man

Untitled
Please consider joining the project! HowardBerry 19:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Is that song on the DVD?

 * I believe there's a soundtrack CD which features both "HighWire" and "Secret Agent Man" together with other musical themes from the series. - Lee M 23:41, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

All Four Seasons on US DVD? Don't Think So...
All four seasons of the series are now available on DVD in North America, using the original Danger Man credits and theme music, rather than the Secret Agent version.

I just bought the complete series boxset from A&E, and it's only the complete hour-long set... not the previous halfhour series.

... and upon edit, I will correct myself. The A&E "Secret Agent aka Danger Man" boxset only includes th 47 eps of "Secret Agent", what they're calling the hourlong series. Apparently claiming that to be its US release name.

There is a separate 39 episode set of the first season, which they call Danger Man.

Guh. Frickin' A&E.
 * Yeah, I don't know why they didn't release the 1960 series as a "Set 0" or something like that, but at least they did release it because it's brilliant. (It was not released until nearly a year after the Megabox which is why these episodes aren't included. Incidentally, it is correct to refer to the hour-long episodes by the name Secret Agent because that was their broadcast title on CBS and that is how they've been syndicated over here since the 1960s so they needed to use the American title over top of the UK original. However the first season aired as Danger Man in the US (although according to one reference book I read awhile back, the half-hour episodes were at one point syndicated in America as Secret Agent as well.) However you have brought to my attention the potential for some confusion on the DVD issue so I'll reword it. Thanks. 23skidoo 04:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guess you bought the wrong set. The A&E set I have has all episodes. Shop around next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.88.255 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please be a bit more civil and make note that the above comments are nearly 3 years old. About 2 years ago A&E did in fact release a megabox incorporating the 1960-61 episodes. But that was long after the above discussion was conducted. 23skidoo (talk) 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Danger Man titles/opening sequence in the US
Not true that these were never seen in the US prior to the DVDs. Channel 48 in San Jose, California ran both the US and UK versions in the early 80's as part of an amazing Saturday afternoon package of 60's and 70's reruns they called "Those Fascinating Men." Package included the Lawford "Thin Man" series, the Michael Rennie "The Third Man," "Burke's Law," "The Persuaders" and on and on. Ahh, the good old days of independent TV.
 * Please feel free to add that to the main article. It's an interesting fact to note. 23skidoo 03:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted paragraph
The following paragraph has been deleted because it is unsourced and appears to be completely speculative (and also, what role did Smart's sister play?). The fact a relation of Smart appeared in The Prisoner has nothing to do with the relationship between the two men. If a citation is available, please add it and the paragraph can go back in:

''On the other hand,one of the first characters to be seen in 'The Prisoner' is in fact, Ralph Smart's actress sister, Patsy Smart, suggesting relations between the two men were perfectly cordial. Patrick McGoohan evidently considered he was playing two different characters in John Drake and Number Six, but admitted that he used the plaform of a 'secret agent' as a way to introduce his new series to the watching public. That Number Six had been a secret agent is evident from the whole ethos of 'The Prisoner'. The allegory of the fight his secret agent had, to maintain his individuality, to the battle that every man can share in their own everyday life, was equally clear.'' 23skidoo 14:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

 * This was been added back in, and has now been deleted again. In fact, I've done a major cull of original research and fancruft so that this article reads more like an encyclopedic article and less like a debate or a fan magazine. -- Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 14:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content re: program format
My edit (which was done as an IP as I was logged out without realizing) was removed as being unsourced. In fact, as stated in the edit, the program is the source, and the material I added is as verifable as the rest of the material in the paragraph. Its removal renders the paragraph a factual error as it describes only the 30-minute version of the series as broadcast in 1960-61 and does not reflect the series as broadcast from 1964-66. 23skidoo (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Episode counts by running time
Would it be proper to put the number of episodes produced at 30 & 60 minutes each (39 & 47, respectively) in the infobox alongside those two running times? As is, there is only the overall episode count given. (Source: Harry Castleman and Walter J. Podrazik, Harry and Wally's Favorite TV Shows, Prentice Hall Press, 1989, p. 452) Ted Watson (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as the number is correct, I don't see a problem, although technically speaking they weren't 30 and 60, but more like 25 and 50 without commercials. My preference, though, would be to divide them either by seasons or by year rather than counting how many episodes of each length. 23skidoo (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are quite right about the actual running times, and an encyclopedia should be technically accurate. However, since the running times also reflect what are actually two separate programmes I'm not too certain that this is not a good ground for episode count listings. Yes, I know that they share the same:
 * 1. title (Danger Man, at least in the UK)
 * 2. creator/producer (Ralph Smart, albeit executive producer on the 50-minute version)
 * 3. star (Patrick McGoohan)
 * 4. lead character name (John Drake)
 * 5. genre (international espionage)
 * Despite all this, in the first version, Drake is an American working for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (even though he was sent on assignments in Africa, Latin America, the Far East, and in what is to my knowledge the only episode where NATO was specified internally, northern India/the Himalayas), in the second a British national working for British intelligence. Two different characters, really, and therefore two separate TV shows. Furthermore, I've never found a list of how many episodes a TV series produced in each of its seasons—and nothing else—particularly helpful or informative. So I was really interested in only whether there was some more-or-less arbitrary rule prohibiting episode counts on the running-time lines in an infobox. Ted Watson (talk) 19:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree there's nothing saying it can't be done, so I have no objections if it is done. However I have to disagree with you regarding the opinion (shared by some, but not all -- see for example Dave Rogers book on Danger Man and The Prisoner) that the two series were separate series. They were one show - that's been said by no less than McGoohan himself. The fact the series changed formats is nothing new. To give a recent example, had Veronica Mars been renewed for another season, the plan was for it to jump ahead something like 5 years and basically begin anew as a series about Mars being an FBI agent or something like that. It wouldn't have been a new series, just a reformatting of the old. Similarly, there are those who feel that every era of Doctor Who constitutes a completely separate series, and it does not. The problem with Danger Man is that -- like virtually all the series made on UK and US TV in the 1960s -- there was very little by way of continuity, so you wouldn't have Drake in a 1966 episode referencing something happening in a 1961 episode like you would today. However -- and I need to find the source but I remember reading it -- one thing to also think about was at one point the half-hour episodes were apparently syndicated as Secret Agent episodes, complete with the Johnny Rivers theme. I have no idea how that would have worked -- they must have edited episodes together or something. But if this is true and the source I got it from (a TV shows encyclopedia but I've forgotten the name) is accurate, then that's a pretty strong indicator that it was considered the same series. Also the 60-minute series was never consistent on what nationality Drake was; in one episode he declared that he was Irish (and not in the context of an alias). 23skidoo (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed the statement about Drake saying once that he was Irish in the article—good point specifying that the context did not allow for it being part of a cover identity, though I had assumed as much—along with a cite request. In any event, he was British, and the NATO Drake was definitely an American (the evidence is conclusive, if subtle), and that means McGoohan played two different characters. None of your examples is analogous enough to be relevant (I've never heard of anybody claiming this about Doctor Who, it's indefensible if said in the same sense that we're debating it for Danger Man, and anyone who had said it that way would have been put down by everyone familiar enough with the show to be qualified to venture an opinion). As far as your statement about the half-hours being syndicated as Danger Man, a half-hour Tarzan TV series of the early 1990s had its three seasons of episodes spliced together into one-hour installments and combined into a rerun package with a Tarzan series of the mid-1990s produced at that length in the first place. Like Danger Man, a few years passed between the two runs, and there were some producers in common. However, it would be nothing short of insane to call them the same programme. The two had completely different casts, tones and even time frames (the one in the hour-long format matched the pre-World War I setting of Edgar Rice Burroughs' earliest novels along with his educational level and British title for the apeman, while the other wasn't back-dated at all and the leading man spoke like Johnny Weissmuller and his successors in the old Hollywood B-film series version). So ITV or some distributor having done something similar with the two DM runs proves nothing. If they did it. In the early years of the Fox network here in the States, because they were on a relatively small number of stations and most of them were UHF outlets whose transmissions didn't carry very far, they also had a cable/satellite channel called Fox Net. As the over-air network itself wasn't on for very much of the day, the channel had a great deal of material to fill out the schedule. Nightly at 1 AM Eastern time, they ran Secret Agent. After a few weeks, the schedule changed to indicate Danger Man at 1:00 and 1:30. After a few more weeks, Secret Agent again. They went back and forth several times before dropping them entirely. This might be what you heard about, even though there doesn't appear to have been any alterations to the NATO version. As for McGoohan supposedly saying they were one show, I can put a surprisingly large number of blatantly inaccurate statements into his mouth—note a recent edit of mine in The Prisoner article, where a Canadian TV interview of 1977 has him saying he did "54" episodes of Danger Man, when there is no way to get that number legitimately, no matter how you break them down (I put a "sic" and an explanation there), and mind you the videotape survives and a transcript apparently released, so there's no question he actually said this B.S., and if he didn't remember for sure off the top of his head, he shouldn't have given an exact number—so even that, if you can prove he said it, doesn't have much credibility. The facts are that the NATO Drake was American and the M9 one was British (whether Irish, English, Scot [the actor's surname always sounded Scottish to me, and I'm of Irish ancestry], Welsh or even mixed blood, he was British)—and we're not talking about mere citizenship here—and that means they were two different characters and we're dealing with two separate programmes. Ted Watson (talk) 22:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I would like to see the running times. Even how many commercial breaks were scheduled. Sometimes I'm puzzled by breaks in action: are these dramatic pauses, or peculiar edits, or...? Watching recent shows on DVD, I can tell when a commercial break is implied. But I wasn't watching Danger Man in England in the 1960s, and I could use assistance understanding what's going on.

 * The deliberation about whether Danger Man in 30 and 60 minute versions was two different series puts a somewhat unhistorical spin on the situation. The main intentions were things such as making money, creating art, having a good time, etc. Continuity between series was far down on the list. It's true that now Star Wars, Star Trek, etc. fans and media franchises have come to define works that are "approved", "in-universe", or "canonical", but a) these things were barely considered in the 1960s, and, I'd maintain, b) are even today original research of a rather pernicious kind that seeks to retrofit meaning where none was intended. Wiki user Lady Aleena has invited discussion about a proposed article on Television crossovers . There, many of the "crossovers" she's identified are little more than a studio trying to cash in on a recognized name, or somebody's uncle shoehorning him into a paying job -- there's not necessarily anything dramatically significant. Fansites often speculate that there's meaning behind every nuance -- where not explicit, implied or even subconscious. But dozens of people work on TV episodes, they all have their own agendas which work out differently on each episode. The "continuity" is the continuity of the entire production team -- a situation that is rarely documented in detail, and is often soon dim or forgotten. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doctor Who and Star Trek were really the first major franchises of the 1960s that bothered with things like canon and continuity. In the case of Danger Man, it was a show about a secret agent named John Drake, played by the same actor in episodes written by the same people. The fact his background and affiliation changed over time is no different than Star Trek which had Captain Kirk working for an organization called the United Earth Space Probe Agency for most of the first season before someone decided to call it Starfleet. On the question of running times, the only problem is UK running times were not consistent, so to give an overall blanket episode length would be misleading. The Doctor Who article should have lengths removed, too, because it says the episodes were 25 and 45 minutes in length (depending upon the era) when in fact the lengths varied from 22 minutes to 70+ minutes in the case of the recent season finale. 23skidoo (talk) 05:38, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that anything either of you have said is relevant here. 23skidoo's Star Trek comparison is completely inapplicable. That was one relatively minor change made during a continuous run. Here, we have two completely isolated runs, separated by several years (please quit ignoring that), the second version having fundamental content differences from the first. The creative team started over and built a new program from scratch (utilizing the same genre, title, star and lead character name, yes) and this is simply not open to rational, reality-based debate. Misrepresent evidence or blow smoke all you want, I will cut through it. As for the running times, here we have one run made to fit a thirty-minute time slot, and another for a sixty-minute time slot, and, again, several years apart with fundamental content differences. They should also remain at Doctor Who despite the facts that specific "naked" running times vary slightly, and that there were significant but isolated exceptions to the regular length (you could have mentioned 90 minutes, for The Five Doctors, as well). --Ted Watson (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Danger Mouse?
Is DangerMouse a parody/homage of Danger Man? If so, is this fact worthy of a mention in this article? Applejuicefool (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While it's probable that the title is a play on the Danger Man title, as far as I know it's just a general Bond parody. Beyond the title there don't seem to be any elements suggestive of Danger Man, and for it to be a parody there needs to be similarities of some sort. 23skidoo (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * They're both about British secret agents... Applejuicefool (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Peter Yates?
Why does this page have a 'Peter Yates' navbox at the bottom? That name doesn't appear anywhere else in the article. --Masamage ♫ 03:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question. I'll remove it. 23skidoo (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I've decided to put it back. Upon further investigation, Yates directed six episodes of the series and went on to direct a number of noted movies including Bullitt. What needs to be added is a reference to this in the article. If he'd only been a guest star, or only directed a single episode, I might have taken it off, but his involvement was a bit more substantial. 23skidoo (talk) 12:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. You're right, the thing to do is add a mention of him. Thanks for looking into that. --Masamage ♫ 15:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wandering questions about production
I'm no great fan of abstract musing on Wikipedia, but I've just been watching the complete series from A&E, and noticed two unexplained shifts in production. Perhaps there is some interesting story behind them? Or I'm misreading? 1) Watching the end of the 30 minute episodes, then the start of the 60 minute episodes, there's a sudden drop in intensity in McGoohan's performance -- there was even an atypical small acting error (some word fumbled, I think). After a few of the 60 minute episodes the usual intensity resumes. One would have thought McGoohan was thrilled to have the show picked up and turned into an hour format. If so, he doesn't demonstrate it. 2) I enjoy the series sets and locales (if only Dr. Who had the same during those years): Again I may be misreading, but it seems that the last handful of shows were ever more experimental, and often expensive. It doesn't appear that the producers or directors were losing interest in the show -- it wasn't a cash cow they were running into the ground -- rather the contrary. Isn't that an odd moment for McGoohan to quit? The Prisoner couldn't have waited a year? (In this, I'm not accepting McGoohan's statement that the show was "repeating itself" as a sufficient explanation. That would be more true for the early episodes ?)

Oh, also...I promise I'm not developing a habit of wandering questions...why do modern British series have a half dozen episodes in a "season"...and all the while complaining about the pressure of production schedules (E.g., Red Dwarf, Faulty Towers), yet Danger Man had a significantly higher rate of production (and certainly not worse production values). What's the difference between the production situations? Piano non troppo (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I wondered the same thing myself; at the moment, I'm enjoying the half-hour Danger Man episodes from Netflix. Perhaps it's the difference between the non-commercial BBC "season" and the commercial ATV/ITV "season." Wi2g 16:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

 * ITV in the fifties to be commercial, a pressure the BBC was not under, made film series and followed the American format of 39 30minute episodes usually following as today what is popular in the cinema hence all the swashbucklers and historic series. The Invisible man broke this mould being modern followed by Danger Man which was originaly to bring James Bond to TV. Film series gave greater scope for dubbing into foreign languages, as B features in overseas cinemas. These first half hour series were not dependent on sales to America except when a second series was required.ie Robin Hood. Nearly all these series completed filming before the first episode broadcast. The 30 min Danger Man fall more into the adventure spy stories whereas the 60 min stories were much more cynical and downbeat. The reason for them being made in the first place was the success of The Saint which MacGoohan had turned down and the control he was able to exercise in the production of Danger Man. The BBC did make one foray into film tv with The Third Man with Michael Rennie and maybe Maigret.REVUpminster (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Pilot?
Although we have Brian Clemens quoted as referring to "View from the Villa" as a "pilot" episode, I can find no indication that the series produced a separate episode which was then used to sell the series, and then production began in full later ... which is the definition of pilot. As far as I know production just began. (A similar error is made when referring to An Unearthly Child, the first serial of Doctor Who as a pilot; it was just the start of production for an already-sold series. Unless there's objection I'll change the wording to say "first episode". There are a couple of books around about Danger Man. if "Villa" was in fact filmed in advance of regular production, I'm willing to stand corrected. 23skidoo (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * You're wrong about Doctor Who and "An Unearthly Child". That is the title of the programme's pilot episode. The script was slightly rewritten (Susan originally said she was from a specific far-future century instead of "...another time, another place," and the Doctor did not have his "...wanderers in the fourth dimension..." speech), the characterization of the Doctor somewhat reworked, and a second version was recorded for the series itself. This pilot was released on VHS twice, first on The Hartnell Years and then on Edge of Destruction and the Original Pilot. I don't know for sure, but it is probably in the DVD collection of odd episodes and incomplete stories from the 1960s era. I've never encountered anyone referring to the transmitted version as the pilot. As for your actual issue here, I think the quote from Clemens means that until and unless documentation to the contrary is found, "Villa" should remain considered a pilot. --Ted Watson (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the so-called pilot was never filmed as a pilot (this per the "The Beginning" DVD release. Due to technical issues encountered during production the BBC rejected it for broadcast and asked Verity Lambert to remount it; in the weeks between this decision and production resuming, changes were made. The unbroadcast version only ever came to be referred to as the pilot when it was first shown to the public in the early 90s, and only to differentiate it from the broadcast version. And I have seen "An Unearthly Child" in general referred to as the pilot episode. If you look at television pilot you'll see there are other examples where the term has been incorrectly applied. Clemens comment is evidence, but Clemens was only a writer on the show. If someone can provide a quote from Ralph Smart or McGoohan regarding this issue, I would consider it stronger evidence. Also, as noted, there are several books on the history of the series which also would indicate the correct way to refer to "Villa". I do know per Fairclough's Prisoner Companion and Jaffer Ali's book on the Prisoner that it is definitely incorrect to refer to The Prisoner's "Arrival" episode as a pilot, but once again this has been done after-the-fact to refer to the unbroadcast version of Arrival, so to differeniate it from the version aired. But The Prisoner was not sold based upon Arrival and Doctor Who was not sold based upon either version of An Unearthly Child, so that goes against the definition of pilot. 23skidoo (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The first version of "An Unearthly Child" was shot as a pilot, according to Doctor Who Magazine and many other learned sources. The only "technical issues encountered during production" were resolved with a retake of the last ten minutes or so right then and there, and this can be seen in both VHS releases I cited. The Hartnell Years also shows the creative alterations I described. I did not mean to suggest that there have not been instances of series being sold without a pilot or that the term had never been inappropriately applied; I know all too well to the contrary. While I agree that it is not all that likely that "Villa" was a pilot, the specific statement from Clemens that it was and none to the contrary mean that the statement should remain in the article; Wiki regs have been thusly arbitrarily applied to a number of my edits, as well taken but as unsupported as yours. Being an administrator does not mean that the regs don't apply to you or your work. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I shall throw a spanner in!! "The Key" was the first episode made and included in the title reference to NATO. "View from the villa" was second and the titles did not include the NATO reference, 3 "Find and Return", no NATO, 4 "Time to Kill" include NATO, 5"Under the Lake" ,no NATO, 6 "The journey ends halfway", no NATO. John Schlesinger was 2nd unit on 2,4,5,6 and 2,5 ,6 had exteriors filmed at Portmerion.REVUpminster (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

 * That "Villa" wasn't the first episode filmed/pilot makes sense, as there are three episodes credited as having been shot at Portmeirion, and they probably got all those scenes in one trip. There would, of course, be no such thing done when filming a pilot. --Ted Watson (talk) 22:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ITC series did not have pilots to sell series. Most were completed before sold such as Department S and Randall & Hopkirk. In the 50s Robin Hood, Invisible Man etc were all sold after completion. Selling to America was a bonus. The only series pre bought I can think of was "The Protectors" when Lew Grade was commisioned for a half hour series and he passed it to Gerry Anderson. ITC sold their series to commonwealth countries first and other countries where TV was not so advanced as B features in cinemas.REVUpminster (talk) 09:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Streaming
I took out the speculative reference that the show "may" at some point be made available on Hulu and uncited speculation re:HDTV. All that violates WP:CRYSTAL. Let's wait till announcements are made. 68.146.62.92 (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Trivia?
I thought, and I'm hoping someone can verify this, that the building Drake walks out of (and then gets into his car) in the titles of the 30 minute series is the Royal Festival Hall. Does anyone know if this is the case? Howie ☎  12:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Season three (1965-1966)
Some books list episodes 3-1 to 3-10 as part of series 2.

The airdate again is for ATV Midlands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by REVUpminster (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

All the date listed for season 3 are per Andrew Pixleys book. 'You are not in any trouble' replaced 'English Lady takes lodgers' which was moved to Nov 25. He seems to be the major authority23:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by REVUpminster (talk • contribs)

As fill-in for Prisoner
There is a statement, at two different places, that late in the original UK run of The Prisoner, the two filmed-in-colour episodes of this programme were used as fill-ins when that show was not going to make its scheduled airdates. However, every Prisoner episode guide that I've found with original UK airdates (admittedly, that's not very many) leaves no such gap. I remember getting into an online discussion somewhere (the IMDb maybe) with somebody who indeed asserted that it never happened. How do the January '68 dates given here jibe with that schedule (for instance, is it indeed the same day of the week that Prisoner actually aired on)? It is undoubtedly relevant to point out that on neither instance here ("Later history and transition to The Prisoner" and "Episodes: Season 4") is the fill-in claim sourced. Any ideas on how to handle this? --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a problem with ITV and it's regional variations. I looked at the book again and London saw them a year before the Midlands. ATV then ran the midlands Mon-Fri (Sat&Sun being ABC I think). London had Associated Redifusion Mon-Fri and ATV at weekends. I have now made a note about the different London times. I had the same problem over when did series two end and series three begin. Dave Rogers two books say there were 32 episodes in series 2 and 13 in series 3. His reasoning seems to be the change of studio between series 2 & 3, but with the dates on Epguides and Imdb and in Pixley's book it seems more correct in the order I done. I'll have to go through the London dates but from a quick glance sometimes they were ahead of Midlands and sometimes behind. Possibly then as now current events in the news caused episodes to be cancelled.REVUpminster (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

PS It is in Pixley's book that they were slotted into the Prisoner run when production caught up with transmission,REVUpminster (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 * For the ATV Midlands run of The Prisoner the two colour Danger Man episodes were shown between Living in Harmony (TX:Friday 29th December 1967) and The Girl Who Was Death (TX:Friday 19th January 1968), looking at the ATV London dates given by the REVUpminster, these two colour Danger Man episodes were first shown seven months before the Prisoner series had it first episode screened on Friday 29th September 1967 by ATV Midlands and Grampian TV, so shouldn't these ATV London dates for Sundays in February 1967 be the ones given for first TX of the colour Danger Man episodes? (Also Westward, Southern and Channel who were running the Prisoner on Sundays at 7.25pm replaced The Prisoner run with the colour Danger Man eps in the Prisoner slot when they switched The Prisoner transmission times to Sundays at 10.05pm, without a break in the weekly run, fom 7 Jan 1968 tx of Do Not Forsake Me etc.. ATV London's (Sundays from 1st Oct 1967 as Westward, Southern, Channel) only missed one week for Christmas eve 1967 when no episode was shown and did not change transmission time. other regions may have screened the colour Danger Man eps around the same time without interupting the Prisoner run) perhaps with a note of their later use as fill-in eps during Prisoner transmissions?81.111.124.190 (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It was done to keep a consistancy with the Prisoner episode guide with the caveat that it was shown earlier in London. If you change the dates to airdate for London add a caveat that it was shown in ATV midlands between the Prisoner episodes when production of The Prisoner began to catch up with transmission as per the Pixley bookREVUpminster (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

 * Oh I see, thats fine but looking at the Prisoner episode guide at the moment, and I don't know if its a problem or not, as you'll know it isn't a single ITV region set of airdates, its a split between ATV Midlands 1-14 and Scottish 15-17, anyway I'll have a go at changeing the airdates for London re-Danger Man and putting in a caveat sometime today.81.111.124.190 (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Episode list—separate article?
Maybe we should have a separate article, List of Danger Man episodes, similar to List of The Green Hornet episodes, List of Airwolf episodes, and List of It Takes a Thief (1968 TV series) episodes (to name three I know of off the top of my head). DM 's 86 episodes out-number The Green Hornet 's 26 and It Takes a Thief 's 66, and probably other shows with such List of...episodes articles. Then perhaps we'd have room to add notable guest stars, such as Ronald Howard, son of Leslie Howard, who appeared in an episode of the first, NATO-oriented season, and again in "Koroshi", the first of the only two colour segments, which are more often seen recut into a movie of that title. Burt Kwouk, best known as Inspector Clouseau's valet/practice assailant Cato in The Pink Panther film series, appeared several times as well. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Probably a good idea as the current article is too long and wikipedians do not like to scroll the page. I did 88 episodes of Zorro (1990 TV series) as a separate article. This gave room for a notable guest section and throws up a few surprises ie Daniel Craig Adam West.Take a look!!  A notable guest section would be quite large in Danger Man. REVUpminster (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it overnight. The Guest star(s) could be added to the plot summary of each episode. I have done this on some episode lists already ie. William Tell (TV series) REVUpminster (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is done. REVUpminster (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

First season aired in the US
I deleted a factual error in the Early History section. The first season of Danger Man aired on CBS in 1961. I've added a source for verification. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Brian Clemens
I see that Brian Clemens is listed as the "co-creator" of The Avengers, but that is not the case. He wrote the second episode as a jobbing writer and later became the co-producer. I'm going to change that line about him here unless someone has an objection. Justinkrivers (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Danger Man


text:
Talk:Domesday Book

Untitled
I think we may want a disambiguation from "Doomsday book" rather than a simple redirect -- I can think of at least two books with that title, one a ca. 1970s popular science eco-doom polemic (by Gordon Rattray Taylor, I think), and a ca. 1991 award-winning science fiction novel (by Connie Willis?) Malcolm Farmer

 * the idiot who made it the 'Domesday Book' has been dead many centuries.--hamstar 16:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

this page requires sectioning and integration of its text. Badanedwa 04:56, May 18, 2004 (UTC)

"The"
Is it "the" Doomsday Book, or just Doomsday Book. Magna Carta has the same issue, the use of "the" is not used (see Discussion). I have seen it in history books without the "the". For example:

 * By the time of Domesday Book the county network was almost complete..

Comments or ideas? Stbalbach 06:21, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I've always heard it called The Doomsday Book, and the references without "the" seem very strange to me. TheMadBaron 01:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree. Anyone want to be bold and add some thes? 218.102.71.167 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * I wouldn't advise it. It is always written without the definite article. It may look odd, but it's the case. If you've "always heard it called The Doomsday Book" then you've always heard it wrong. And spelt it wrong, incidentally. -- Necrothesp 12:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Anyone concerned about the lack of "thes" should have a look at the National Archives site, referenced in the article. Not a "the" in sight. Bluewave 15:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree that the standard usage by those 'in the know' is without the definite article, so it's right that that's how it should be written here. However, almost everywhere else in Wikipedia except in this entry it's written with a 'the'. It's way beyond my capability, but is it possible for some kind of auto-correction bot to be created that would remove all the uses of 'the' that appear in front of 'Domesday Book' elsewhere? Russ London 09:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Domesday scholarship largely started in the 19th century with Maitland and Vinogradoff. F W Maitland (1897) Domesday Book and Beyond remains one of the seminal works. These guys started using Domesday Book with the 'The' but I can find no reference to why in their work. Now it's a matter of Domesday 'snobbery' that you don't use 'The' because that shows you up as a non-Domesdayer. I think the absence of the definite article for medieval texts goes back to the original medieval references where the article is normally unused, reason for this being the original references and documents are in Latin and in Latin there is no article. Every work on the subject I've seen omits 'The'. (Patrick Molineux, 14/02/2007) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmoline3 (talk • contribs) 10:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

 * Readers should sense that "snobbery" might be beside the point. By a similar attitude someone else who knew nothing might be babbling about "The" Magna Carta, by missing Pmoline3's single operative sentence, "Every work on the subject I've seen omits 'The'." Resisting any particular conventional usage, though, will predictably mark one out as an Original among one's peers. --Wetman 10:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

 * Perhaps the answer on this is to note in the article that historiographical convention is not to use the article. For those readers interested in the absence of the article this at least alerts them to that convention. However, I don't know how to provide a reference to that convention other than a list of all major academic works on Domesday using the convention! Pmoline3 11:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This is WRONG!!!!1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.172.147 (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

There's kind of a difference between Magna Carta and this. Latin has no articles—a full translation into English might, however, include the implied article. English and Middle English do have articles. Conveniently enough, they're the same in both: 'the'. Convention is convention, but I would sure like to know why it's convention to begin with instead of just being told 'that's the way it is so there'. 72.200.151.15 (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There isn't even a difference between this and the Magna Carta when we're speaking and writing in English. It's plain and simple snobbery without purpose other than to serve as a particularly stupid and useless shibboleth. 100.40.29.79 (talk) 23:07, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Etymology
Bill Bryson in The Mother Tongue claims that domesday was taken from the same root as domestic and is unrelated to the modern meaning of doomsday. I haven't checked this independent of his book, so haven't corrected the first paragraph. -- rra@stanford.edu, 2004-07-20

--

Bill Bryson was wrong about many, many etymological examples he gave in _The Mother Tongue_. I would not take anything he says at face value. 172.162.242.76 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)An Anthropology Major

---

Well, according to YOU he was wrong. But you don't have any more credibility than he does. So why should anyone believe you more than him? How many books have you had published? I'm sorry....? Oh...the silence is deafening. Now, can I get you anything? A life, perhaps?

---

I thought the word "domesday" came from the same root as "domestic", i.e. related to peoples homes, and doesn't actually have any connection with "doom" in the sense of "final judgements".

---

It looks like the article is correct on this, at least according to the Oxford English Dictionary: "The name appears to have been derived directly from Domesday the Day of the Last Judgement, and Domesday Book the Book by which all men would be judged. It originated as a popular appellation..."

Crust 19:33, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I have serious doubts about this. Old English dom did not refer to the Last judgement in particular, but it meant simply "judgement". Thus, a domesday would simply be the day on which human judges were in session, unrelated to ideas of eschatology. 130.60.142.65 11:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * That might be a literal view, but how would "domesday" have been understood idiomatically? The book is named by allusion to the day of Final Judgement --Dannyno 13:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

 * And, according to the OED, "Domestic" comes from the Latin root "domus", meaning house. "Doom", which is the true root of "Domesday", is an Old English word of Germanic origin meaning "statute, judgement". Since The Domesday book isn't just about houses, this makes sense. Remember that "Domesday Book" is actually a 12th century name for William the Conqueror's survey, not what it was originally called.  The word domestic is first attested by the OED in 1521. So it doesn't work eymologically either. --Dannyno 13:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting conversation that would be perfect at Wiktionary, they need etymological and dicdef help. Stbalbach 18:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

This is WRONG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.172.147 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

wikisource template
I removed the wikisource notice because it distracts from the article. --Stbalbach 05:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Prince-Bishop Link??
Out of curiosity, why does the word "prince-bishop" in the section "Domesday Book" link to Bishop of Durham rather than to prince-bishop? --Kuaichik 00:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would suggest it links there because the subject of the link is a Bishop of Durham (the Bishops of Durham were Prince Bishops).DuncanHill 17:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation
Could someone please add the pronounciation as an ogg vorbis file... I think its necessary to get that clear for people reading the article. 83.67.79.40 14:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)Hira

Settlements mentioned in Domesday in Wikipedia
Browsing around Wikipedia's English settlement articles, it seems that a few mention references in Domesday but many don't. Has anyone thought of creating some sort of standard Domesday infobox entry and adding lots more? I believe there are online databases of Domesday entries, could they be linked somehow? Grateful for info on this from people more knowledgeable - obviously I suppose we could start going through adding loads, but maybe there's a better way to do it? CreativeLogic 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Would a category "Settlements mentioned in Domesday" be helpful? Bluewave 17:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds great. Nice name too. Is there a way to simplify creating such a category, for example, can you do it en-masse somehow? CreativeLogic 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

a surveyors' perspective
as the domesday book is a survey of land, i think it would be beneficial to view it as well as relate to it as such, that is in terms of the cadastre,and land administration/management161.76.194.32 01:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)tolu ayelabola 20/03/2007

Protection?
Has anybody considered protecting this page? Looks like it's constantly subject to vandalism. --Kuaichik 06:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

William's motivation for ordering it?
"William needed information about the country he had just conquered so he could administer it."

I may have my history wrong, but didn't he conquer England in 1066? Why would he need a census 20 years later in order to "administer" it? My bet is it was tied somehow to increasing taxes. And it seems "just conquered" ignores that 20-year gap also, but I don't want to change it because I don't know why he really ordered it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.139.9 (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does everyone assume that William ordered the survey because he needed information to administer England? What about the possibility that he ordered it in order to confirm the land grabs made by Norman nobles in the aftermath of the conquest? Or the threat of Danish invasion in 1085? Also there is no mention in the entry about the extremely likely possibility that Domesday was in fact based on the pre-existing Anglo Saxon Geld Rolls —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.74.174 (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Its unlikley that it was ever an everyday administrative document, as it was out of date almost as soon as it was written (as soon as any person/landowner listed died). The above might be true, however the Domesday book was toward the end of his reign, he died before it was completed I seem to remeber. So surley if it was justification it came late and long after he had militarily crushed any resistance. The other reason might simply of been as a bit of an ego trip. William showing visiting dignitaries this tome of all he had conquered...... There are quite a few good books on the subject,none I note refrenced here. If you do want to look try Golding, while not dealing directly with the Book he gives a good overview of the period and a good bibliography. --User:Afrobob88

Theres been a BBC documentary about the book this week, where Dr Stephen Baxter (Medieval historian at King's College, London) presents his own opinions and new insight on the subject, claiming it wasn't for establishing new taxes. See British History - The Domesday Book and the iPlayer documentary. This isnt my area of interest so I leave any potential changes to those more involved with this part of the wiki. --Humbersi (talk) 23:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

 * According to David Roffe's analysis, the order in which the Domesday text was written (q.v. http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/216) was: LDB, then circuits VI, III, I, II, V, IV, in that order. It's a curious thing, but this is the exact order in which they were of interest to Count Alan Rufus, whose name is prominent in most of the satellite texts. Professor Roffe thinks that Alan may have been a Commissioner on the south-west survey that produced Liber Exoniensis. Certainly, he was in the south-west during the year, even though he had no lands there. Alan was the Conqueror's cousin, the commander of his household knights, and, according to his epitaph, "praefecto legum", a senior officer (it can be read as "professor") of the law. Moreover, William de St-Calais and Archbishop Thomas of York (brother of Samson, later Bishop of Worcester), were tenants of Alan's in Yorkshire and frequent associates of his: Thomas led loyalist troops during the rebellion of 1088 as did Alan, and Alan was both chief arresting officer, the chief signatory of St-Calais's controversial safe-conduct document, and the only known defender of St-Calais at the latter's treason trial (Alan is recorded as using very precise legalese, in a "calm, clear voice" over the clamour, to shore up St-Calais's heavily disputed case); it was Alan who escorted St-Calais everywhere he was permitted to travel, including to Southampton where the disgraced bishop took ship to exile in Normandy. Alan was also with the royal army on 27 January 1091 at Dover just days before they set sail to invade Normandy; St-Calais was retrieved and restored to all his titles and privileges as Prince-Bishop of Durham. Zoetropo (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of the name
According to the article, "The name Domesday comes from the Old English word dom (of which the Modern English doom is descended), meaning accounting or reckoning. Thus domesday, or doomsday, is literally a day of reckoning, meaning that a lord takes account of what is owed by his subjects.". No source is provided, and I can't find any source which backs it up. When I look for the meaning of the Book's name, this is what I find: Before overwriting that sentence in this Wikipedia article, to replace it with sourced information, I thought it best to see whether anyone has a source confirming what the article currently says. Aridd (talk) 15:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * "The grand and comprehensive scale on which the Domesday survey took place, and the irreversible nature of the information collected led people to compare it to the Last Judgement, or 'Doomsday', described in the Bible, when the deeds of Christians written in the Book of Life were to be placed before God for judgement. This name was not adopted until the late 12th Century." (Official website of the Domesday Book)
 * "The nickname ‘Domesday’ may refer to the Biblical Day of Judgement, or ‘doomsday’ when Christ will return to judge the living and the dead. Just as there will be no appeal on that day against his decisions, so Domesday Book has the final word – there is no appeal beyond it as evidence of legal title to land. For many centuries Domesday was regarded as the authoritative register regarding rightful possession and was used mainly for that purpose. It was called Domesday by 1180. Before that it was known as the Winchester Roll or King’s Roll, and sometimes as the Book of the Treasury." (National Archives, UK government website)
 * "Henry II's treasurer, Richard Fitz Nigel, wrote of Domesday, "This book is metaphorically called by the native English, Domesdai, the Day of Judgement. For as the sentence of that strict and terrible last account cannot be evaded by any subterfuge, so when this book is appealed to on those matters which it contains, its sentence cannot be quashed or set aside with impunity."" (History Magazine)
 * Having a quick look at my Shorter Oxford Dictionary, it says that "Domesday" (as in the book) is a variant of "doomsday". Doomsday (meaning the day of judgement) is, in turn made up from the genitive of "doom" + day. "Doom" does indeed come from the Old English "dom", but the base meaning of that word was apparently "to place" or "to set". Doom, itself, has 10 meanings: a statute, a judicial decision, the process of judging, justice, the right to judge, the Last Judgement, a personal opinion or judgement, the faculty of judging, destiny, or the fated ending of someone's life. I'm not sure that the article or any of the sources that you mention are "wrong", except perhaps that doomsday doesn't so much mean A day of reckoning as THE day of reckoning. Perhaps the article could be a bit clearer. Bluewave (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

 * I removed the uncited-since-forever etymology from the article. The implication was clearly that the name "Domesday Book" would not have had the same Biblical connotations when the book was named as it does now.  But the only citations given here suggest that it would have had those connotations. --Allen (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Six circuits
In the "six circuits" near the start of the article Huntingtonshire appears in two, which seems unlikely and Lancashire is missing! Kevin D Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.246.48.130 (talk) 10:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

 * So are missing Westmoreland (like Lancs, not founded before the later part of the 12th century) and Cumberland (disputed land or Scottish). They have a very good reason of not being on the list. Snapdragonfly (talk) 04:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Six Countie
Sorry Herefordshire is in twice not Huntingtonshire. K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.246.48.130 (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Section 4 Clean up
The final paragraph in section four (subsequent history) is an important point to make about the current context of the Work. Unfortunately, it is cumbersome to read and could be difficult for 'the average reader' to understand. Does anyone object to me or someone else having a go at simplifying the sentence? Andmark (talk) 05:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing quote mark?
The first paragraph appears to end in a quote, but I don't see where the quote begins, nor any attribution (other than a reference to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which doesn't seem to be relevant). Westley Turner (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Places mentioned in Domesday Book
A new category Category:Places listed in the Domesday Book has recently been created. A series of subcategories has been created splitting the places into present-day counties. Most of the categories are not yet well populated, but clearly have the potential to grow.

My question is: should the places be categorised by the counties as they appear in the Domesday Book, or by present-day counties? There are arguments both ways. If you wanted to know what had happened to the places listed in the book, you would probably want to browse by Domesday Book county (as in 1086). If you wanted to know which places in a present-day county were in the book, you would want to browse by present-day county. This particularly affects London and the metropolitan counties, but also Cheshire, Berkshire and other counties. It would be better to decide before the categories are more populated and more subcategories added.

Any views? --Mhockey (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Categorising by the "Domesday counties" is problematic because the counties of the 12-19th century were not already formed in 1086 (Lancashire for example was formed much later). There is also some dispute about how the returns were organised for northern England, whether it was organised for administrative convenience or followed actual boundaries. MRSC (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

 * There have been many county boundary changes over the centuries. For instance Halesowen has been at various times in Shropshire, Worcestershire, and (currently) West Midlands. I feel the best way to deal with these ambiguities is by a suitable explanatory paragraph within the article; and (if necessary) by categorising the settlement with the appropriate category for each county in which has been included. This has the advantage that it will then be found whichever way the categories are browsed. Any confusion being addressed within the article text. Josephus (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"the" or no "the"
This article cannot seem to decide whether to call it "the Domesday Book" or "Domesday Book" (nor, incidentally, whether to italicise the name). In my experience, many experts in this field omit the article, contrary to what normal English usage would suggest. I think the article should be made consistent and a short note added explaining this terminology. There is an old discussion on this subject above, but it apparently did not result in any action being taken (or that action has been eroded by subsequent edits). 86.184.237.148 (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Spurious analysis in lede
I chopped this from the lede on 17 September 2010 because it seems spurious, it doesn't say who supports it, how acceptable the theory is, and has been unsourced for 5 months. Someone reverted the removal, and 14 days later, there is still no details provided.

 * "Certain scholars on common law property rights regard the Domesday Book as the first written account of "who owns what" in the history of common law. Thus, this book might represent the birth of the modern concept of property rights in The West. "

Please provide cites and any specifics before re-including. Ashmoo (talk) 12:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reliability
Can we put something about how reliable it is? Is it possible to find inaccuracies? Or is there just no other records? 195.194.187.132 (talk) 11:03, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject
Interested? See this page! And rew D alby 14:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Template
A template is now available, for linking from articles about places, to their entries in the DB, on Open Domesday. See OpenDomesday. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Page count?
How many pages do the two books have? The article doesn't say. --RThompson82 (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So what are the resulting population estimates?
What population totals and densities have modern scholars derived from the Domesday book? 96.231.17.131 (talk) 02:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

 * The figure "one and a half million" is found on some usually reputable sites. I may also have heard this from one of Stephen Baxter's videos? Zoetropo (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Language?
Surely there ought to be a few words stating what language or languages it was written in. English, French or Latin? None or all of the above?Campolongo (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 * Medieval Latin, with many words derived from English names. Zoetropo (talk) 04:02, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

English Legati
The dubious claim is made here "The unit of inquiry was the Hundred (a subdivision of the county, which then was an administrative entity). The return for each Hundred was sworn to by 12 local jurors, half of them English and half of them Norman." This is unlikely to be true in either Cornwall or Wales where the legati will have been Cornish and Welsh, even if they held apparently Anglo Saxon names. The study of Bodmin Manumissions shows that apparently English names were chosen for official purposes (glossed with the original Cornish name in BM). The same is likely in Wales. I suggest amending "half of them English" to "half of them English, Cornish or Welsh, depending on the location". Alternatively a citation showing evidence to the contrary should be inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.96.61 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Definite article once again
Okay, so many scholars seem to be leaving out the definite article ("Domesday Book" instead of "the Domesday Book"). This doesn't seem to be most common way to refer to it, though. Try making web searches with or without the definite article. Also try to do the same on Google Books. It certainly seems more common to use the definite article, and it's a bit odd why this should be seen as incorrect. Wikipedia titles are supposed to be more descriptive than proscriptive. And if anything, compare with the Anthony Roll, the Sforza Hours, the Code of Hammurabi, the Boldon Book, the Wiesbaden Codex, the Black Book of Carmarthen, the Boldon Book, etc.

And I agree per this edit summary that it shouldn't be italicized like a title. But that makes statements like "Domesday Book is available in numerous editions" quite a strange read. It seems just as out of place as "Bible is widely considered to be the best selling book of all time".

Peter Isotalo 19:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The arguments haven't changed greatly since 2006–7, when this was last discussed (above). It's not a question of "many" scholars not using the definite article: every serious scholar who has written on DB in the past 50 years, and the vast majority since the 1890s, has referred to "Domesday Book". Like it or not, it's the convention in Domesday studies, and it's the convention that we should adhere to and promote. The only people who refer to "the Domesday Book" are people who are not authorities in the field, such as journalists. Look at The National Archives pages, which we should surely be paying heed to: no definite articles. (Well, it hasn't escaped my attention that there's one, in the title of Secrets of the Domesday Book, advertised on the front page – a popular 20-page booklet aimed at schoolchildren, not published by TNA, which rather underlines my point about non-experts.) There may also be a transatlantic divide (as there is in the similar case of Magna Carta): perhaps by analogy with the Declaration of Independence etc, Americans seem to like using the definite article. However, as this is a British topic, we should follow British convention (per WP:ENGVAR). Phrasing such as "Domesday Book is available in numerous editions" doesn't read at all strangely to me; "The Domesday Book is available ..." does. GrindtXX (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Well, this is a matter of language usage, and the choices we make are supposed to be descriptive, not proscriptive. Using the definite article for works that don't have title per se is not strange or "uneducated". There are plenty of similar non-title names of works that use the definite article formula.
 * Authoritative historians certainly get the last word on facts, but not language usage. That's why we moved the rather pedantic "sucking pig" to suckling pig (though the former was much more clearly in the minority).
 * Not sure how you managed to argue your way to WP:ENGVAR, though. It doesn't seem to correspond to actual language usage. Here are some UK examples. Not even the National Archvies are consistent on this.
 * Peter Isotalo 00:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Your reference to "similar non-title names of works" is irrelevant: we're not discussing other works, we're discussing the specific case of Domesday Book. I'm saying that the normal usage among scholars is to omit the definite article, you're saying that the normal usage among the public at large is to include it, and the question is which convention we follow. I find your argument that we ignore scholarly practice in favour of the wisdom of the crowd distinctly unconvincing: there are good reasons (and policies in place) to avoid potentially confusing technical jargon, but that isn't an issue here.
 * However, that's probably all beside the point because your initial premise is unproven. I have followed your advice and done a Google Books search. Sure, I can find plenty of hits for "the Domesday Book", but on closer examination many of those turn out to be adjectival uses, such as "the Domesday Book prosopography". If I filter those entries out by searching for specific phrases, I get, for example, 14,400 hits for "according to domesday book" compared with 85 for "according to the domesday book"; 45,700 for "recorded in domesday book" compared with 29,200 for "recorded in the domesday book"; and 2,050 for "manor in domesday book" compared with 5 for in the domesday book". Your preference for the definite article seems to be a minority taste. GrindtXX (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I'm honestly very surprised that this particular non-title is treated by scholars as though it was a title. That's exactly why I brought up similar texts as examples. But if the indefinite form is actually more common in published works than so be it. However, Google searches and texts at the National Archives pretty confirm that adding a definite article is a perfectly normal alternative. It's not "wrong" in any way. It doesn't have to be in the lead, but it's worthy at least some sort of mention. Simply pretending that it's "unscholarly" is gratuitous language snobbery. It's as baseless as trying to make this into a WP:ENGVAR-issue.
 * Peter Isotalo 22:45, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I certainly have no objection to a mention of this issue in the article (as there is in the Magna Carta article), and was in fact going to propose that. On looking at this article again, it could probably do with slightly more on the name in general (e.g. why "Domesday", and alternative names used in the middle ages), and a sentence or two on the use or otherwise of the definite article would then fit naturally into that. I will try to draft something suitable in the next few days. GrindtXX (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Okay, I reverted back to consistent use of the name without the definite article.
 * Some information on the name seems like a good addition overal. I should point out that I have no objections to the article as such. It's full of good content and seems well-referenced.
 * Peter Isotalo 16:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

italics
It seems to me that Domesday and Domesday Book should always be italicized, as are all other dated manuscripts. I can't see that it's been discussed but don't want to boldly italicize if it has. Any insight? Thanks. —Мандичка YO 😜 22:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

 * I would object very strongly to this change. I don't know where you get "... as are all other dated manuscripts" from: as far as I'm concerned, the usual English convention is published texts are italicised, unpublished documents are unitalicised. Compare the Lindisfarne Gospels, Red Book of the Exchequer, Boldon Book, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, etc. There are a few grey areas, such as more literary texts that are better known through their later edited and published versions (e.g. the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, The Battle of Maldon), or non-English titles such as Liber Eliensis, but neither of those arguments applies here. However, comparative arguments are really beside the point: what we should be adhering to is the usual convention applied to Domesday Book, and it is never italicised in the authoritative scholarly literature, and only rarely in more popular literature: see here, here, here, here, here, and countless print sources. (And, by the way, Magna Carta, despite being a Latin name, is also conventionally left unitalicised.) GrindtXX (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How do you define "published" in a world where there were no publishing houses and newspapers? The Magna Carta is not a good comparison as it is not a book/poem/manuscript title; the Latin has now become a common name in English. Anyway if it's not supposed to be italicized, I'd like to know the exact guideline. That it's not always italicized in RS is not good enough; italics are used very inconsistently by reliable sources. For example, this article in The Washington Post does not italicize its references to The New York Times. Is it like a census? What is the reason it shouldn't be italicized? —Мандичка YO 😜 00:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Domesday Book is a manuscript, not really a "work". We would italicise a work, but you do not italicise a manuscript. Thus Liber Eliensis, which is the work that exists in several manuscripts such as British Library Cotton Domitian MS xv or British Library MS Cotton Vespasian A.xix . The MS are not italicised. The work is. See MOS:ITAL. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And the RS are almost universal in not italicising Domesday Book. From one shelf of my library - 15 books do not italicise it, 1 does italicise it, and 10 don't mention it. (This is the shelf that has scholarly biographies of the English monarchs from Edward the Confessor to Edward I - thus the high prevelance of mentions.) From other books on my shelf (dealing mainly with medieval England but some are general surveys of medieval Europe as well as comparative studies of medieval Europe) - there are 5 books that italicise and 29 that do not. (On the other shelves I did not bother counting works that didn't mention Domesday Book at all). That sort of consensus is more than enough to get Domesday Book through RFA, or RfB. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Domesday Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.cefnpennar.com/1873index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Domesday Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808062820/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk:80/focuson/domesday/take-a-closer-look/ to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/focuson/domesday/take-a-closer-look/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060715223801/http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk:80/ to http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Domesday Book. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110526134400/http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs690.htm to http://www.domesdaybook.net/helpfiles/hs690.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/focuson/domesday/take-a-closer-look/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.learningcurve.gov.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Is Domesday Book really Doomsday Book in Middle English?
Even disregarding the concerns other people have raised in this talk page about Domesday perhaps not referring to THE Doomsday, I'm still not sure this would be an accurate translation. A Concise Dictionary of Middle English, by A. L. Mayhew and Walter W. Skeat tells us that the translation of book is "bok". The University of Michigan has a very comprehensive online dictionary too that offers a variety of different spellings. Although "book" is one of them, it's definitely in the minority. So much so that searching the dictionary for "book" won't even return any results. So, should the little quip (Middle English for "Doomsday Book") on the 4th paragraph be removed? I'm just afraid it might take away some of the context from the quote that comes right after. Kloick (talk) 16:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 * What exactly are you arguing? That the word 'book' in the title actually meant something other than book...?

 * One thing I can say with certain confidence about Middle English is that, in identifying any particular word, context is FAR more important than any minute spelling detail. The Middle English period was a free for all with spelling. Firejuggler86 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Resulting taxation
The article states "The survey's main purpose was to determine what taxes had been owed during the reign of King Edward the Confessor". Is it known how much in taxes were found to be owed to the Crown? I think that would be an important bit of info considering that was the main point of the endeavor. Coinmanj (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Wales
The article mentions the book covers "parts of Wales". Which parts are not mentioned. Does anyone know?  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  23:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ (see article)  Tony Holkham   (Talk)  13:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation
This edit by RedGrinch – with which I entirely concur, as far as it goes – has drawn my attention to the two pronunciations in the lede sentence, which I'd never really noticed before. The difference between them is whether the first syllable in Domesday is pronounced "Doom–" or "Dome–". But does anyone (on either side of the Atlantic) pronounce it "Dome–"? I can quite believe that someone who only knew about the book through reading might make that initial error, but they'd be corrected the moment they opened their mouth on the subject. I suspect the reverse error, of knowing the correct pronunciation but getting the spelling wrong, is much more common, at least in Britain. I think the second pronunciation should just be deleted. Comments? GrindtXX (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've never heard it pronounced "Dome-"... Hchc2009 (talk) 17:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No-one else seems to be speaking up for the "Dome-" pronunciation, so I'm going to be bold and delete it. GrindtXX (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Anglo Saxon chronicle references need the year
It would greatly simplify locating entries in the year by year book 107.197.56.204 (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Gloucester
Doing a bit of work on Gloucester Cathedral. This article doesn’t mention the suggestion that William I commissioned the book at a Witan held at the cathedral’s chapter house at Christmas 1085 (too late?). Is this something modern scholars support? Are there any citations I could use? Any advice appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

link goes to wrong page
5 Cheshire, the land Inter Ripam et Mersham ("between Ribble and Mersey", now much of south Lancashire), Gloucestershire, Herefordshire, Shropshire, Worcestershire – the Marches

This link goes to Cheshire, which is south of the Mersey. Between the Ribble and Mersey will be north of the Mersey: Lancashire. 2A02:C7C:2C52:6100:61B5:6D23:8976:CAC6 (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Dome or Doom
The most recent edit seems wrong to me, as it makes the following clause "the Middle English spelling of "Doomsday Book"" irrelevant. I believe the intent was to have "Domesday Book" as the bolded name, to be consistent with the article title. TomOtvos (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Domesday Book


text: Bengal potatoes

title: Bengal potatoes