Talk:English Civil War/Archive 2

message: Since I last edited this page in early July there have been several substantial deletions to the text with no discussion on the talk page about whether this information should have been deleted ( Diff between Revision as of 07:27, 3 July 2006, and Revision as of 23:12, 28 August 2006) these deletions include:
* The section Introduction.
* The Scottish section of the 3rd ECW.
* The section Theories relating to the English Civil War
* In removing Theories all the end of the article was chopped including the sections: Re-enactments, See also, and Further reading
I think the note in the header section on the War of the Three kingdoms is sufficient to cover most of what was in the section Introduction, but mention of the other names for the conflict should be restored to this article and the paragraph:
:The wars led to the trial and execution of Charles I, the exile of his son Charles II, and the replacement of the English monarchy with the Commonwealth of England (1649 - 1653) and then with a Protectorate (1653 - 1659): the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell. The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England came to an end, and the victors consolidated the already-established Protestant aristocracy in Ireland. Constitutionally, the wars established a precedent that British monarchs could not govern without the consent of Parliament.
I think the Scottish section should be restored as it is usually included in accounts of the Third English Civil War. Also unless there is another page which details the Theories section I would like to restore it as it is a classic example of Historical revisionism. What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Broadly in agreement: it's a long article, and sections which refer to main articles might benefit from being briefer summaries. The Scottish aspect of the 3rd civil war is presumably well covered in Scottish Civil War, which could be linked as a main article for that section. The theories section looks as though it would stand well as an article on its own, with brief notes here and at the Wars of the Three Kingdoms linking to it. Re-enactmentsand Further reading should be restored (and updated), See also appears to need some expansion ...dave souza, talk 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted sections

message: Does the English Civil War battles need a battle box like the Scottish Civil War battles have ? :
--—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 October 2006  (UTC)
:Yes, but also the English Civil War timeline needs filling out with a lot more battles. There also has to be some sort of consensus over what to include in a battle box as there were thousands of local encounters that were no more than small skirmishes that have gone down as the "battle of this and that" and are well remembered in the local areas, for example the Battle of Chalgrove Field. There are also many many sieges some of which are notable because they had a wider impact on the war, but many which are only of interest in the counties in which they happened. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign Box

message: I have placed a request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for semi-protection as "this page has for a very long time been subject to vandalism by IP user(s). More edits are vandalism and rvv than anything else" --Philip Baird Shearer 10:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is all very good, but did you actually realise that despite you putting up the RFPP on this article, it is, according to what I just saw, already Semi'd?  You are requesting page protection for an article which is already protected... Thor Malmjursson 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Requests for page protection 

message: It is simply ahistorical to call the trial of Charles I of England a "show trial". This implies the result was pre-ordained. Whilst this reflects the view of many historians of late, recent research shows that the trial was one of the first to be organised following modern English concepts of jurisprudence, including various innovations that were not to be formally embraced for some two centuries. Geoffrey Robertson's recent book, "The Tyrannicide Brief" is an excellent source of this new historical analysis. However, to make any comparison between the trial of Charles I and the trials staged by Stalin is an affront and simply inaccurate and poor scholarship. Fc1922 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Show Trial?

message: I have problems with his box. For example it is debatable if the wars In Ireland (and Scotland (which is not mentioned)) are part of the English Civil War. Also commanders seems to be too simplistic, implies they were two captains of a sports team, when in reality there were a number of commanders on both sides and their influence varied over time. This is particularity true on the Parliamentary side where the modern idea separating the army commanders from the civilian leaders was far more developed than was common during this period. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: *See previous discussions on this subject 
**Archive 1: English Civil War?
**Archive 1: British Civil Wars
The War of the Three Kingdoms would be a more appropriate name for this page. --MacRusgail 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a separae article at Wars of the Three Kingdoms which suggests this is the article for just the English Civil War bit. Timrollpickering 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm so where does the War of the Three Kingdoms article fit into all of this? Currently the articles and categories are treating that as the overarching conflict, with the English Civil War as a subset (albeit the most prominent) - see :Category:English Civil War. Wouldn't it be better to keep this article focused specifically on the English bit and get the Three Kingdoms (under whatever title) as the overarching thing? Timrollpickering 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed before see Archive 1: British Civil Wars --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  War of the Three Kingdoms 

message: My understanding, at least from the book "Cavaliers and Roundheads" was that the Puritan armies and its partisans very methodically destroyed all statuary, stained glass and other religious embellishments in every church, chapel and cathedral in England, considering it idolatrous.
If this is so (and I am by no means sure that the tale laid out in C's & R's is wholly accurate) then perhaps it ought to receive some mention in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Penbay  (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 November 2007 
:They did damage lots of churches and cathedrals (and banned Christmas festivities), but a lot of damage also predated the war ...  I agree that the religious differences as apposed to just the political ones do need more emphasis in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  English civil war - the attacks on the churches 

message: Added a photo of a civil war re-enactment Megatonman (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures and Photographs

message: 'War broke out less than forty years after the death of the popular Elizabeth I in 1603'
Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence that Elizabeth was a popular Monarch?. Was this not just a nostalgic invention of early 17th century Englishmen?.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popularity of Elizabeth 

message: This section is entirely irrelevent, since the conflict took place centuries before Marxism existed. It looks like somebody has wrote a college essay and just randomly thrown it in here. This is about England, not Karl Marx and his followers. - The Cavendish (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The "section" under question consists of a single sentence and one quote. I hardly think this warrants major complaint. And, while the Civil War predated Marxism, Marxist historians have as much right as Whig historians and revisionist historians to describe and comment on the events. HLGallon (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. In so far as all human history can be interpreted from a Marxist point of view, and that the Marxist perspective stands as one of the major contextual interpretations of human history, it would be at least informative to have a section on it here. Further, I note that there is nothing in the article concerning the origins of such syndicalist movements such as the Levellers and the Diggers. That too should be added (might do this myself - I see there are articles on these movements already). --gilgongo (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Agreed, but can we at least have a citation for how the Marxist interpretation replaced the Whig one?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.134.207 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Marxist view section

message: According to the article, the war ended in 1651; however, the regicide occurred in 1649. Did the war continue after Charles' execution? Also, what happened between 1651 and 1653, the latter year marking the beginning of the reign of Cromwell? <-- Missed this part of the article.  --DMP47 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over Dates 

message: Wasnt Cromwell offered the crown but he declined prefering to be Lord Protector. This is what i was taught, whether it was correct or not is a completely different matter....Willski72 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was after the Civil War in the Interregnum. It could be mentioend in the in the aftermath, but I don't think it is necessary. --PBS (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cromwell and the crown 

message: As it stands, any attempt to add a  tag to the head of the article is reverted. Meanwhile, there are 51  tags, with only seven or eight paragraphs not sporting one. This is horribly ugly, and implies incorrect information where in fact the information is undisputed and merely needs confirmatory sources.
It has been argued that the tags are more specific than a single tag at the head of the article. However, this is to state that the specific paragraphs requiring cites are effectively all of them. This is like the oxymoronic "specialising across the board". I will try and find a few cites in the next few days, but this article ought to be reviewed for style. At present it looks awful, and invites the reader to believe that the information is false. HLGallon (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refimprove Tag 

message: This is not appearing correctly but I do not know how to edit it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Display panel 

message: I've gone through and had an attempt at getting the bulk of the citations for the article sorted out. A couple, I'll admit, defeated me. I have deliberately not attempted to answer the question of whether any individual point in the article best reflects the balance of academic work out there - if a reliable source supported the point being made, I've given the article a reference for it. 
As an aside, my general feeling working through the material out there was that...
...the article was quite strong on the 'general X did this; general Y did that' basic chronology for the war.
...the article could probably do with a little more context, in terms of English/Scottish/Irish early-modern society at the time etc.
...the literature seemed to make more of the religious issues in the conflict than the article does.
...some of the broader statements in the article were hard to back up with references, because the state of the debate has moved on since.
Anyway, at least that's a start on the citations! :)
Hchc2009 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line citations...