Talk:English longbow

message: Don’t edit war, you’ll just end up blocked. Per WP:BRD, as you have been reverted put forward your arguments here rather than reverting again. You need WP:CONSENSUS to change the article and you don’t have it. DeCausa (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Welsh longbow” 

message: The thing was seldom named a "long" bow at the time of its use, that's mainly a modern-period usage although a very widespread one. As Hardy and Strickland point out, (The Great Warbow: From Hastings to the Mary Rose, 2011), it was usually a "hand" or "lugg" bow when it needed to be differentiated from a crossbow, otherwise just a bow. And it wasn't limited by nationality, originating in South Wales, used by English armies and then by Scots and French. I feel that we would have a more accurate and more stable solution, also one free from patriotic irritation, if we retitle this article to, perhaps "Mediaeval War Bow". Does anyone have any thoughts or further suggestions? Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s irrelevant what it was called at the time of it’s use. Wikipedia uses WP:COMMONNAME. “Mainly a modern-period usage although a very widespread one” is exactly how Wikipedia articles should be titled. English longbow is what it’s refered to in modern historiography. I see no issue with that. DeCausa (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed a specific type of longbow, confusing though that word is for the average encyclopedic reader. But it isn't uniquely English, nor was the use of powerful longbows in mass. Mediaeval longbow captures the essence a lot better. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be the first to agree that current name isn't ideal.  The problem comes in what to call it instead.  We could try European Longbow, as this would allow us to bypass some of the Uk-based nationalistic POV yet at the same time maintain a focus that doesn't include longbow traditions from India, the far East or the Americas.  However, we will still need to have some focus on English use in the Middle Ages, simply because it was militarily significant and drove some of the spread to other nations, like France and Burgundy.  The problem with using Medieval in the title is the risk of falling foul of definitional issues as use continues into the 17th century.  "Warbow" is a modern coinage to distinguish the Victorian-style sporting longbow from an approximation of the medieval military one, though, as two words, John Smyth used it to refer to the livery bow as a distinction from civilian weapons.  The danger of confusion with the modern term is probably too great to make this an easily-identified name for the lay reader, which wikipedia guidance requires.Monstrelet (talk) 11:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I should also add a move away from current title, to, say, Medieval or European Longbow would need quite a bit of rewriting to reflect the shift of emphasis.  Monstrelet (talk) 12:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks Monstrelet. Indeed, European longbow might well be the best available title. More accurate and puts identity politics out of the way. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. There's no mention of use by anyone other than the Welsh and English in the article. "European longbow" might be appropriate if there was a decent amount of coverage of use by Continental powers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree too. where is there any evidence that WP:RS use the term “European Longbow”? There is no problem with the current title. We have an article about the Longbow. This article is about the foerm of the Longbow primarily associated with the English. There’s a WP:NPOV issue with disassociating it with English usage unless anyone advocating that can produce WP:RS that is WP:DUE disassociating it. Can those who think there is a problem with the title cite those RS please? DeCausa (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

text: As said above, if one were to move down this route, it would require a complete rewrite.  It could be done and it would be legitimate to do so in (weapon) usage terms. That said, I don't think we have an editorial community that could do the heavy lifting on this and the chances of POV editing guerilla warfare would probably still be there.  We may simply remove one POV disruption and create another. Monstrelet (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks to all who have commented, but I think I'll shelve the idea for the moment. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably wise.  Though the conversation does demonstrate some coverage gaps about European adoption, especially French and Burgundian use. Monstrelet (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I found this interesting as a (possible) reason for limited non-Anglo-Welsh adoption. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidentally, I read this yesterday.  Agree it does offer another perspective, though we say so little on non-English use, it hard to see how it would fit in the article at the moment. Monstrelet (talk) 09:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Serendipity! I am also a little surprised that The Efficacy of the English Longbow: A Reply to Kelly DeVries doesn't crop up in the article. I have found it useful in several articles I have taken to FA, such as Battle of Crécy and Battle of Poitiers. (Numerical Analysis of English Bows used in Battle of Crécy also provided some interesting snippets for each.) Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename?