Talk:Battle of Tewkesbury

message: the link to the contemporary account is broken
This article is supposed to be about the battle of Tewkesbury, not the whole Wars of the Roses.  Five major headings before the Tewkesbury campaign is clearly excessive.  The article needs drastic trimming.  There should be no more than onne Background heading, and possibly a separate heading on the battle of Barnet, before proceeding to the battle of Tewkesbury itself.  Pirate Dan (talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: As with many articles concerning the War of the Roses, this is very difficult to understand due to the confusion between Lancastrian Prince Edward and Yorkist King Edward IV. Please, please, please, can editors ensure that any use of the name "Edward" is clearly distinguished, ideally by using consistent prefixes "King" or "Prince". Unfortunately I don't have enough historical knowledge to go through the article myself and add these distinctions. It would be helpful if Wikipedia historians could agree a consensus on a consistent naming convention for all the major actors in the War of the Roses, as we have several Henrys and Richards too - it is currently very difficult to track one Edward, Henry or Richard between one article and another linked article. Andrew Oakley (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not my, or any historian's, fault that the royalty and nobility had such little imagination at the font. In this article, "Edward" unadorned or unqualified consistently refers to Edward IV, while Margaret of Anjou's sprog is always referred to as either Prince Edward, or once as Edward of Westminster. However, I will try to tidy things without being too verbose, repetitive or condescending to the reader by giving glimpses of the blindingly obvious. HLGallon (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editors, please distinguish your Edwards: Prince or King IV 

message: HLGallon, is there a reason you reverted my edit?  If you go here and here, you will see that the numbers in the article should be a range rather than exact.  Thank you.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apologies if my reversion was a bit brutal. However, the original figures were quoted in citations, and should not be changed without providing another cite for them. In this case, the changes would not have materially altered the balance of the article, but I am always wary of facts or figures which are improperly supported by citations. HLGallon (talk) 15:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's cool.  How about I add in the references I listed above, in addition to keeping the references that are already there?  Would you be ok with that?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to replace the references. The original cites are really estimates from authors anyway (first hand sources on Tewkesbury are skewed or fantastic), so any reasoned source will be OK. HLGallon (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I just ordered a book on the battle, so I'll see what it has to say and see if I can find more resources.  In the mean time, I thinks it's best to leave the strengths as they currently are.  I'll revisit in about a month.  Thanks for your input.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tewkesbury Strengths 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Tewkesbury. 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/20100709204052/http://www.r3.org/bookcase/arrival5.html to http://www.r3.org/bookcase/arrival5.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hillsdale.edu/personal/stewart/war/Ren/1471-Tewkesbury.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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under “Aftermath of the battle”:
“The Prince of Wales was found in a grove by some of Clarence's men. He was summarily executed, despite pleading for his life to Clarence, who had sworn allegiance to him in France barely a year before.”
In the article Edward of Westminster, Price of Wales, under “Battles of Barnett and Tewkesbury”::  
“According to some accounts, shortly after the rout of the Lancastrians at Tewkesbury, a small contingent of men under the Duke of Clarence found the grieving prince near a grove, and immediately beheaded him on a makeshift block, despite his pleas. Paul Murray Kendall, a biographer of Richard III, accepts this version of events."  But then continues:  “However, none of these accounts [includes an another aforementioned  version of Edward's ending] appear in any of the contemporaneous sources, which all report that Edward died in battle.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_of_Westminster,_Prince_of_Wales
Shouldn’t these two versions of Edward’s death be reconciled within the same encyclopedia, perhaps lifting the passages and sources from the latter article along with its conclusion?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction between two Wiki articles regarding Prince Edward's death