Talk:Battle of Poitiers

message: Since  is asking me to give my points on the talk page before I modify the article (although I've already done it, right above), here they are : It is obvious that primary sources explicitly used by secondary sources shouldn't be described as "modern sources". Why is it the case in this article? It makes people believe that these estimates come from modern computations, whereas the authors using them explicitly mention that they are primary estimates. Sumption, Rogers or Hoskins are the relays of these primary estimates, not the source of any of these estimates. Therefore, to say that "according to different modern sources, 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms and either 500 or 800 common soldiers were taken prisoner during the battle" is wrong. And to add that "approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed" in an assertive tone is also wrong. It is the same thing for the infobox, it should be precised that these estimates come from contemporary (English for the highest, French for the lowest) sources. Why are the (real) sources of these estimates never mentioned?
Also, , you've made several mistakes. The French source mentioned by Hoskins (have you read it?) claims that 800 French were killed and 700 captured, in total (not 800 common soldiers killed and 700 captured). It's obviously lower than the truth, just like the claim that 3,800 common soldiers were killed or captured is higher than the truth, since it would mean that the common soldiers were annihilated at 100% or more. However, it is never mentioned that this estimate comes from a contemporary source.
When you write that "According to different modern sources 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms were taken prisoner", for the high estimate, you're referring to Sumption. However Sumption writes that "the very large number of prisoners attracted unfavourable comments when it became known in France. There were 3,000 of them" He never mentions that these are only men-at-arms. Indeed, he adds "they included about 1,400 belted knights".
Also, I don't really see why you decided to keep the casualty numbers used by Sumption but not the strength of the French army he proposed.
Hello , you've told me to open a discussion to talk about our recent edits, so here it is... LaHire07 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: LaHire07, the consensus around featured articles are some of the strongest in Wikipedia. Things in historical FAs can be changed, if a strong and reasoned case is made and if pains are taken to build consensus. The post-FAC changes to Battle of Crécy are, I like to think, a case in point. In the case of your suggested changes I don't think that bringing your own interpretation of how sources should be read and referred to and insulting experienced editors ("Also, Gog the Mild, you've made several mistakes. The French source mentioned by Hoskins (have you read it?) ..."; titling a section "Wrong methodology") is the best way, or any way, to generate a consensus for change. Just because you write that something is obvious does not necessarily mean that anyone agrees with you, still less that there is a consensus that it is the case. If you wish to try and build a consensus for any, or all, of your suggested changes which is stronger than that which saw the article promoted to FA, then good luck to you. Unless you considerably temper your strident tone, WP:RGW attitude and assumption that I am an idiot who should never have been allowed to edit Wikipedia I shall continue to endeavour to minimise my interactions with you. Good day. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You've repeatedly cancelled my very justifiable edits with little to no explanation, and when you've told me to open a discussion on the talk page, which I did, you ignored it, so I had hoped you would understand my "strident tone" (which is really not strident). Now, I don't think there is a need to overreact by pretending that I "insulted" you and even that I assumed you were "an idiot who should never have been allowed to edit Wikipedia". When I'm trying to correct some quotes that are clearly miswritten in the article, you're attributing to me quotes that I never wrote. Interesting. I hope you're not trying to use these false pretexts to avoid any conversation on the content, which is more interesting. And I had also hoped you would not use the feature article status of this article to make even the most beneficial edit impossible, but it seems I was wrong there too. Finally, understanding that "according to contemporary sources relayed by modern historians" can't be rewritten as "according to modern sources" is not a matter of interpretation. My case is strong enough to make a change. You misquoted a historian, and I have the quote right in front of my eyes. If that's not strong enough, nothing is. LaHire07 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several problems that need to be discussed