Talk:The Fens

UK geography B‑class Mid‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Suggestion for reformation of this page

I've been following this page for a while, and I think it's rather too unweildy to become a good discussion on the Fens of East Anglia. I have been part of the problem, as I've been trying to correct and add to the sections on the history of drainage in the fens. But I think it needs to be split up in to a series of pages, with a main page to simply describe the region as it exists today (a low-lying artifically drained arable farming region), with only a brief historical section; the history of the Fens could be relegated to another page or a series of pages. I can start to write some material for the history of the drainage - I already have some for the Roman period forwards. But I don't know how to create wikipedia pages or administer complicated things like that. I was wondering if someone with more experience can help with the administration if I can produce some content. *jb (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adventurers vs Undertakers

As I understand it, the 'Gentlemen Adventurers' were people who had invested actively in the Dutch East India Company, and were rewarded by being given an area of bog that no one wanted near Boston, Lincolnshire. They drained it, and the area is today known and even signposted as as 'Adventurers Land'

In this context, my reading of Adventurer is 'speculator' or 'investor'. The people (ad)ventured their capital in a project such as a cargo from China or draining land, on condition that in return for its success, they got their cut of the profit. I suspect that you are combining the stories of more than one venture.

Adventurer does mean someone who adventurers money, and there is no connection with the Dutch East India Company. There were "Adventurers" in all the different drainage schemes; those near Boston in the 1640s were headed by the Earl of Lindsay. As far as I know, he lost his title to those lands during the Civil War and (unlike the Earl of Bedford in the Great Level, renamed the Bedford Level) he did not get them back at the Restoration. Lindley's book details all of the different groups of drainers in the 1630s and 40s. - *jb

There were two types of people involved in Fen Drainage. The 'Adventurers' and the 'Undertakers' The role of the Adventurer has been widely covered, but the 'Undertaker' was the person who actually undertook the work. In this day and age he(she) would be known as a 'Contractor'.(TonyDodson 09:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Was the Dutchman Cornelius Vermuyden an 'Adventurer' or an 'Undertaker'? TonyDodson 08:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An undertaker. 131.111.164.208 14:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Formation

From the Formation section: "The three principal soil types resulting from this are the mineral-based silt, resulting from the energetic marine environment of the creeks and clay from the marsh and mud-flats." Only two soil types are listed, unless the sentence following is meant as the third. Educated clarification is needed. Pjrich 20:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that is clearer. If not, discuss it further. It was interesting to find that someone had read it! :-) (RJP 21:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Ely Cathedral

Ely Cathedral, on a rise of ground surrounded by fenlands, is known as the "Ship of the Fens". Its siege in 1071 is a story in itself.

Then tell it, either here or in the Ely Cathedral article (which currently says nothing about it); hinting that something interesting happened but not saying what is unbelievably irritating! Loganberry (Talk) 04:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. The trouble is that it involves Hereward "the Wake" and as it stands, the article on him needs a lot of work before it can usefully be referred to from other articles. That in turn involves a controversy between those who accept the Hereward story more or less as history presents it and those who regard it as more or less myth. It is easier to write about something else. :-) (RJP 07:35, 22 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]

All right then; I'm certainly no expert (if I were, I'd have written the story up myself!), so I agree that removing the reference seems like the best plan for the moment. Loganberry (Talk) 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is an excellent source on the medieval history of Ely now in print - the Liber Eliensis, which has recently been translated and edited. It is a medieval chronical from Ely, from either the 12th or 13th century (don't remember date of first entries). It includes a medieval account of Herewald the Wake and the seige of Ely. Any historian would say that there is no problem presenting the story as written in the sources, with the note that this storyis controversial (and citations to academic history which questions it). History is all about presenting and questioning historical sources. - 65.94.48.44 21:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC) username *jb[reply]

Draining the Fens

"Nonetheless, these works are now much more effective than they were until the mid-twentieth century" doesn't make any sense. I've delete the 2nd half. If the original author would care to explain what they meant then we can have something that doesn't leave the reader baffled as to what is being conveyed.Ewx 14:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Just passing through here, but this page would really benefit from a map of the area. Matthew 22:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting

I have been rewriting this article, but I do not have time to do it in one go. There is a lot of work that needs to be done. A map would be a very good idea, but I do not have access to one that is in the public domain. I may not get back to it for weeks or months, depending on when I have time. I have added headings to sections with the intention that they be expanded - for example, the pre-Roman settlement, Roman Farming, etc. Right now, the whole history section is very disorganised and disjointed, and needs to be reorganised chronologically.

One thing I am aware of is that this article is actually on the whole of the Fens in southern Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, etc. This is fine, but we need to be clear on what is happening where. For example, the Lincolnshire Fens were not drained in the seventeenth century - some drainers attempted to do so, but they were prevented by the riots and after the civil war the works broke down. However, in the Great Level, the drainers (eventually called the Bedford Level Corporation) had their title and authority reaffirmed after the Civil War, and continued to run the drainage there until about 1920. Obviously, this means the history and economy of the levels could be very different, and we need to be clear on which bit of the Fens we are writing about. We may need to look at added sub-articles. - *jb 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]