Jump to content

Talk:First English Civil War

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Motivations section

[edit]

This really has to go as well, or at least be highly ammended. I can just about follow what the author means but that's because I already know a fair bit about the wars of the three kingdoms and am familiar with its historiography. A reader without this background would be completely lost.

Not only that, but what we have here is highly pov and speculative. For example, what does any of this actually mean?

the deep-seated loyalty which was the result of two centuries of effective royal protection; the pure cavalier spirit, foreshadowing the courtier era of Charles II, but still strongly tinged with the old feudal indiscipline; the militarism of an expert soldier nobility, well represented by Prince Rupert; and lastly a widespread mistrust of extreme Puritanism, which appeared unreasonable to the Viscount Falkland and other philosophic statesmen, and intolerable to every other class of Royalists. The foot of the Royal armies was animated, in the main, by the first and last of these motives. In the eyes of the sturdy rustics who followed their squires to the war, the enemy were rebels and fanatics. To the cavalry, which was composed largely of the higher social orders, the rebels were, in addition, bourgeois, while the soldiers of fortune from the German wars felt all the regulars' contempt for citizen militia.

On the other side, the causes of the quarrel were primarily and apparently political, ultimately and really religious, and thus the elements of resistance in Parliament and the nation were at first confused, and, later, strong and direct. Democracy, moderate republicanism, and the simple desire for constitutional guarantees could hardly make head of themselves against the various forces of royalism, for the most moderate men of either party were sufficiently in sympathy to admit compromise. But the backbone of resistance was the Puritan element, and this waging war at first with the rest on the political issue, soon (as the Royalists anticipated) brought the religious issue to the front.

How did the author know what motivated the Royalist infantry, for example? What on earth is 'pure cavalier spirit?' Who are 'sturdy rustics'? He may have some points here but this are generalisations far too grand for wp. And in any case, this kind of stuff is still being hotly debated by historians.

Similarly, this;

The Presbyterian system, even more rigid than that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Laud, and the other bishops, whom no man on either side save Charles himself supported, was destined to be supplanted by the Independents, and their ideal of free conscience. But for a generation before the war broke out, the system had disciplined and trained the middle classes of the nation (who furnished the bulk of the rebel infantry, and later, of the cavalry also) to centre their will on the attainment of their ideals. The ideals changed during the struggle, but not the capacity for striving for them, and the men capable of the effort finally came to the front, and imposed their ideals on the rest by the force of their trained wills.

I'm not even sure what the author is getting at here.

Jdorney (talk) 11:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jdorney but I am busy with some other things at the moment... . The editor of BE is in line with wigs and communist in this brief summation. Indeed if you do a search on "middling sort" and "the middle sort of men" you will see that it was also a contemporary view, Richard Baxter is one of the better known he calls "sturdy rustics" by a less bombastic term but makes a similar point:
In the contest between King and Parliament, the generality of the nobility were on the King's side. After Edgehill fight, when the King was at Oxford, a great part of the Lords and many of the Commons went over to him. A very great part of the knights and gentlemen of England (who were not Parliament men). adhered to the King except in Middlesex, Essex, Suffolk, Norfolk and Cambridgeshire etc. where the King with his army never came. And he could have no footing there it's like that it would have been there as it was in other places. And most of the tenants of these poor gentlemen, and also most of the poorest of the people, whom the others call the rabble, did follow the gentry and were for the King.

On the Parliament’s side were the smaller part of the gentry in most of the counties, and the greater part of the tradesmen and freeholders and the middle sort of men, especially in those corporations and counties which depend on clothing and such manufactures. ... the reason which the party themselves gave was because, say they, the tradesmen have a correspondence with London, and so are grown to be a far more intelligent sort of men than the ignorant peasants that are like brutes, who follow any that they think the strongest ... and the freeholders, say they, were not enslaved to their landlords as the tenants are. ... The other side said that the reason was because the gentry, who commanded their tenants, did better understand affairs of state than half-witted tradesmen and freeholders do.
I put together the quote above from several sources, but most of it can be found in Stuart England by Angus Stroud page 89. As we know the reasons why many of the gentry and the "middle sort of men" chose one side or another are more complicated and there were lots of exceptions, than this brief summary can give, but the editor of the EB was not saying anything other than that which most agree. --PBS (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very much still debated stuff though. Like I said, he may have some points but its just not very encyclopedic to put in the 1911 author's pov lock stock and barrel. If there were some sort of statistics or hard data, or contemporary sources to back it up, that would be a different matter. I still don't what it adds to the article. At best it could be cited as part of the war's historiography.Jdorney (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible that this section has been so poorly written for five years? It starts with a list of flowery statements without adequate setup to give them any context or meaning. This is the worst writing I've seen on Wikipedia. Has someone been reverting edits to this mess since 2008? 108.93.144.184 (talk) 03:45, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here just to comment on how bad this section is. It reads as though copied from a particularly conservative pro-royalist history book. It is mostly opinion, while omitting some basic facts, for instance the anger stirred by Charles I attempting to essentially rule without parliament - surely number one on the list of motivations for the conflict, along with taxation attempts arising from that. In fact it is so wildly inaccurate that I'm afraid it should not be here until a more factual and balanced picture of the background to the war can be written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.20.132 (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, I have added in an intro line to try to counterbalance the clear bias in this section. I'm afraid it isn't well enough referenced yet. Actually the whole section needs to be rewritten so this is a quick fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.36.20.132 (talk) 13:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General reader

[edit]

As a general reader who came to this article without knowing a great deal about this conflict, I completely agree that the article is far too long, wordy, and filled with trivial details that, to a general reader, makes it a chore to get through. Encyclopedia articles should not be written for specialists, but rather for the general public, who are reading these articles to obtain a concise, to-the-point overview or summary of the topic. This article is written as if it were being done for a specialized military magazine to be read by military historians and English Civil War enthusiasts, not a general reader who just wishes to know the basic facts and overview of the war in question. Furthermore, some of the wording is not neutral or objective, as would be used in a typical encyclopedia article. Too many Wikipedia articles seem to be written by hobbyists, who in their enthusiasm for their particular topic, often go overboard on minute details and long, pedantic discussions that make these articles a disorganized, often incoherent, mess, and do little to help a general reader understand the topic. Basically, this article badly needs a complete rewrite and some serious edits to hit the "high points" of the conflict, and not give exhaustive discussions of every single battle, skirmish, and thoughts and actions of practically every person involved in the conflict. That's fine for specialized magazines or blogs, but not a general encyclopedia article. Just my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.162 (talk) 06:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles in War of the Three Kingdoms

There are also hundreds of other articles such as individual battles and biography articles.

See Wikipedia:Summary style. For an overview of this war see the article English Civil War — it is less detailed. This article is currently 113k, in comparison the article American Civil War 214k (it also lasted 4 years).

The IP above writes "Too many Wikipedia articles seem to be written by hobbyists, who in their enthusiasm for their particular topic, often go overboard on minute details and long, pedantic discussions that make these articles a disorganized, often incoherent, mess,"

May be, but this article was created by copying text from the EB1911 (as a reading of the References clearly states), so it was not written by hobbyists, nor is it a mess although the prose could be improved with copy-editing.

I created the year articles by copying the content of this article into them, and intended to expanded them and move and some of the details in this article into those articles. However I have not done so and when I have time to edit Wikipedia I find more pressing issues. If on reading this, if you (who ever you are) have time, then perhaps you can start to do the task. -- PBS (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing style

[edit]

Does anyone else see an issue with the way the article is written? It seems more ornamental than functional, and often it's difficult to actually understand what a given sentence is trying to say. For example, in the Aftermath section, there's this sentence, which is 106 words long, with 12 commas separating clauses before you finally get to the period.

The Presbyterians and the Scots, after, Cornet George Joyce of Fairfax's horse seized upon the person of the King for the army (3 June 1647), began at once to prepare for a fresh civil war, this time against Independency, as embodied in the New Model Army and after making use of its sword, its opponents attempted to disband it, to send it on foreign service, to cut off its arrears of pay, with the result that it became exasperated beyond control, and, remembering not merely its grievances but also the principle for which it had fought, soon became the most powerful political party in the realm.

What's the subject? The verb? What did Fairfax's horse do to the King's person? You can pull this all apart, especially if you already know what it's trying to say, but if you don't know this history (ostensibly why you're reading the article), it's nearly impossible. Or am I alone on this?

Qwerty0 (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and I suspect that this is because much of the text has simply been lifted from an archaic (out-of-copyright) reference source. I'm sure it could be rewritten in more modern and accessible style if someone were to spend the time. W. P. Uzer (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was not Farifax's horse that did anything but Cornet George Joyce of Fairfax's horse that did something. I suppose the first thing one has to know is that histories of the 17th century refer to cavalry as horse. The verb is "seized" means to take or to capture. The "person of the King" the crown is personified in the physical body of the monarch, "for the army" means "for the army". I will rearrange the sentences, in the paragraph so they make more sense -- I am sure that they were as convoluted to a 1911 reader as they are now, and as always as W. P. Uzer says it can "be rewritten in more modern and accessible style if someone were to spend the time". -- PBS (talk) 09:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that'd make a lot more sense if it was old text from an expired copyright work. Thanks for clarifying and working on it. I realize now a major stumbling block was realizing "horse" meant "cavalry unit," not an actual horse. Very confusing. Is this is a common usage in British English, or is it archaic everywhere?
Qwerty0 (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Horse for this period is really quite common even in modern source and not just in the UK. Here is an America book about the 17th century talking about New York p. 88 in The History of Ulster County, New York, edited by Alphonso T. Clearwater (1907), which is about the same date that EB1911 was written. Here is a modern source page Handbook of British Regiments by Christopher Chant (2013). The regiments have the name Horse so that tends to be used for the sub-divsions as well eg a squadron of horse or more commonly a troop of horse (see for example page 22 Colonial American Troops 1610-1774 by Rene Chartrand (2002). This was also common for Foot regiments as well. Eg 73rd Foot. Notice the third cited book is also about American units. The bracketed comment "(a junior officer in Fairfax's horse)" could be expanded into "a junior officer in General Fairfax's Lifeguard Troop of Horse" as could many mention of horse in this article, as every general (and King had a Horse Guard) -- See the origins of the first three troops of the Queen's Life Guards. Hope that helps. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't realize it was common even among American historians. That said, since I learned about this use of "horse" and "foot", I've heard it used several times. But I think I've also been watching a lot more British TV. In any case, it's pretty uncommon in the US among laypeople, and American readers are very likely to be unfamiliar and confused by this. Definitely one type of terminology I'd recommend avoiding.
Qwerty0 (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of obsolete words that need removal are "invested/investment" which should probably be replaced by surrounded, encircled, becoming surrounded. And "perforce" which in some places should just be removed, i.e. "had perforce to" should just be "had to", in other places maybe "required to", ", of necessity"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.128.78 (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Newark fully invested by a Scottish army and contingents from English New Model Army.
Investment (military) is a miliary term of art and means more than just surrounded or encircle. -- PBS (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty0: You should see the original source the text was borrowed from, where that sentence is even longer! I don't think it's too controversial to say that sentences over 100 words should be discouraged. Richard Nevell (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First English Civil War. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge

[edit]

I'd like to suggest deleting the year by year pages ie First English Civil War, 1643, 1644 etc. These are essentially the 1911 version, broken into years, now superseded by this rewrite. The individual battles, events (eg Pride's Purge) have their own separate articles, so its not clear what value these add.Robinvp11 (talk) 13:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a very bad idea. The EB1911 article "Great Rebellion" as a paper based encyclopaedia breaks the "Rebellion" into three main sections with subsections and treats the war in Great British as one (mixing the campaigns in England and Scotland in to the same narative).

The article "English Civil War" which is an overview of the war(s) and the three major summary style articles First, Second and Third. I modified the structure of this article to be based on years as roughly speaking that allows the a natural division based on summer campaigning season, but is not restricted to describing the major campaigns. The reason I did this is because the overview by the EB1911, and what is here now, is only an overview and there is a lot more detail that can be added into each year. So I do not agree with your premise that "these are essentially the 1911 version, broken into years, now superseded by this rewrite", as you new text is in many ways less detailed than the EB1911 version. Instead of redirecting them they need to be expanded (per summary style).

The civil war is extremely complicated and many of the problems facing the protagonists are based around choices that they had to make given limited resources. Further this rewrite is really quite superficial for example:

"When Essex learned of this, he marched on Worcester, where the first major encounter of the war took place at Powick Bridge on 23 September. A relatively minor Royalist victory..."

That is nothing but a very brief summary of events. For example why was Worcester of interest, because it did not make sense geographically. However it does make sense once one knows that Royalist cavalry was sent to Worcester to protect the silver convoy making its way from Oxford to the King's location.

In this summary there is no mention of the "Battle of Kings Norton" which took place before the Battle of Edge Hill. It was roughly on the same scale as Powick Bridge and arguably was a Parliamentary victory. Both these skirmishes would have been a major talking point among soldiers and the newspapers of the day.

While this article is not one that needs to includes Kings Norton into the narrative, it is the sort of thing that can and should be mentioned in the First English Civil War, 1642.

-- PBS (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Most of this seems to be a defence of the original decision taken in 2008 to split Atkinson; I'm sure it was reasonable at the time, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined.
(2) Since 2008, there has been a huge expansion in the number of battle-specific articles, individual leaders etc. If people want to know why Essex fought at Powick Bridge, there's an article on it.
(3) Condensing a complex topic in a way the general user (ie the Wikipedia customer) can understand is hard work, so maybe you should revisit use of the word 'superficial.' The sections on motives, political developments weren't even included in the original and the number of Sources I've used shows the research and effort that went into it. The 1642 Year article doesn't even mention the Militia Ordnance, the struggle for the ports and armouries which drove the two sides etc, while the Maps make it far easier to follow. Far from being 'superficial', this article provides a balanced and far more comprehensive view of the context than Atkinson.
(4) More importantly, it seems to work; Daily Page Views, for the last 90 days, by individual year, eg First English Civil War 1642: 7 ...1643: 5 ...1644: 4 ...1645: 6
(5) Daily Page Views last 90 Days for First English Civil War: 271 ie roughly ten times all the others combined.
So these are articles no one's reading, perhaps because like me, its not clear what they're for. They are certainly not fit for purpose, since they contain large numbers of unsupported statements and loaded wording that I would challenge eg (from 1643) "Disorders broke out in London, and, while the more determined of the rebels (loaded statement) began thus early to think of calling in the military assistance of the Scots, the majority were for peace on any conditions." Not true.
They either need to be worked on or deleted, not simply left because it was a good idea in 2008. And if so, why not just link to the EB? What value do these articles add to Wikipedia, if they're simply a regurgitation of content from elsewhere? Robinvp11 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd second all this. The Civil War in England has been well studied in recent years so there are in theory a whole load of detailed sources that are much better than the 1911 EB. We have articles by year, by county (like the Shropshire one); English Civil War; oh and Wars of the Three Kingdoms too. It's all too detailed, with too much duplication, often imprecisely written even at headline level ("political machinations"?) and I'd agree that that focusing on minor tactical points can obscure the major dynamics.
Most people using Wikipedia as a 'history' source are approaching this from a very simple angle usually devoid of much understanding of context - the page views for the Battle of Culloden far outweigh those for the 1745 Jacobite rising for example. Clear and concise explanations of context will help such users a lot (leavened with a few really illuminating details, perhaps).
As an example in the Second War there was a well defined 'rising' in North Wales but it was always intended as a sideshow, involved a few hundred active combatants, and at least one of its major figures (Bulkeley, in Anglesey) was an 18 year-old who in reality got involved to try and wring a better deal out of Parliament for his family. Even I can see that talking about this is not going to help anyone understand the basic dynamic of Engagers, Presbyterians and pay disputes along with Charles's intransigence that drove the conflict. So rather than shoehorn the North Wales stuff into the main article I've put most of it into one about the North Wales rising's main skirmish - that way it's there, linked from the main article, if anyone's curious.Svejk74 (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"2008 to split Atkinson; I'm sure it was reasonable at the time, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be examined." of course not, but as I did the split, I think you could have enquired why created the various articles, including all three of the main civil war articles which were always intended to be more detailed than the English Civil War article which ought to be seen as an summary style article, with much of the details of the specific wars outlined in more the more specific articles. In the talk section above #General reader there is a tree with an overview of the general articles on the War of the Three Kingdoms.
"And if so, why not just link to the EB? What value do these articles add to Wikipedia, if they're simply a regurgitation of content from elsewhere?" because the text on Wikisource is an EB1911 copy and it can not be changed, while as the Five pillars used to say "any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited" the text here can be. It was never my intention that any of these articles (First Second and Third) should remain facsimiles of Atkinson. They were created to be expanded upon, with details either added or removed from the various levels to the appropriate level or place. For example an early removal from this text was the Scottish conflict. That I have not made large alterations to this articles is because there are lots of other holes in Wikipedia that I consider to be needed fixed first.
user:Robinvp11 you write "The 1642 Year article doesn't even mention the Militia Ordnance, the struggle for the ports and armouries which drove the two sides etc" While not in 1642 it was in the "Armies" section of this article "Both the king and the Parliament raised men when and where they could, and both claimed legal justification. Parliament claimed to be justified by its own recent "Militia Ordinance", while the king claimed the old-fashioned "Commissions of Array". Whether or not that needs to be included again in the 1642 article is an editorial decision (and there is nothing preventing it being added to that article if there is consensus to do so), as it will almost certainly be mentioned in the English Civil War article as well as the First English Civil War. This balance is also one that needs to be made between the rewrite that you have done here and what should or should not appear in the English Civil War article. I am not sure why you object to my statement ("maybe you should revisit use of the word 'superficial.'"), it is inevitable that in a hierarchy of articles per summary style, that the information given at one level which is appropriate for that level my be considered superficial in a more detailed article.
User:Svejk74 you write "We have articles by year, by county (like the Shropshire one); English Civil War; oh and Wars of the Three Kingdoms too. It's all too detailed, with too much duplication." To which year articles are you referring? As to the articles English Civil War and Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Given the modern revisionist developments that emphasise the all the wars an their interrelations would you scrap the English Civil War article or keep it within a summary style hierarchy, where a reader can drill down to a much detail as they wish to have? (see the tree in the section #General reader above -- which does not list the individual detailed accounts of battles and sieges etc.
BTW As I wrote the phrase "political machinations" years ago, I would like to know what do you think is wrong with it? After all there was fighting and simultaneously the various parties were in talks, often perusing their own interests with the enemy against those of their supposed allies, or in the case of Charles to sow discord among his enemies.
I am currently busy in the real world and so may not reply a promptly as I would normally do. However will make one more point before I end. This is a comment on conduct and only indirectly about content. This edit, and the comment that goes with it is backwards. The links were in this article for many years, and as there is yet to be a consensus on whether to remove them, reverting a revert is usually considered edit warring. -- PBS (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Coming fresh to this I am astonished that there is a separate article for each year of the war. I do not, personally, see that any of the above has answered Robinvp11's query "so its not clear what value these add". I am also a little surprised that a 110-year-old source is being used in defence of anything. (I have nothing against the 1911 EB as such, I have used it myself on a couple of occasions.) It is possible that I am missing the background of the discussion. I have left a note on the talk page of the Military History Project to encourage contributions. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per Gog, and Robin. I too, do not see "what value these add". We do not do the same for American Civil War, 1861, for instance, because it just doesn't make sense. the main ACW article should provide an overview, and for more detail, users can go to the specific battles and campaigns. The same should be true here. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Eddie891 you wrote "and for more detail, users can go to the specific battles and campaigns." due to the nature of war during the English Civil War the years and campaigns tend to match up. The nature of the war is much more complicated to explain than the American Civil War there was only one theatre (England is not very large), but within that theatre inter related campaigns means that it is useful to look at the campaigning season, particularly as there was different foreign intervention in the war in different years. Taken to it's absurd level—why break the English Civil War into three articles? After all there is an English Civil War article and so why bother to have this article as well? -- PBS (talk) 10:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Gog the Mild - especially when Timeline of the English Civil War already exists. While there's nothing inherently wrong with an 110 year old source, the use of it by itself (especially when it's not an academic study but a tertiary source), is troubling. Aza24 (talk) 23:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aza24 it should not be troubling to you because, the are between [[:Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica|11,000-12,000 articles that include text] from EB1911, in all cases it is expected that over time that the text will changed and augmented with more modern sources (WP:IMPERFECT). These articles (indeed including this one) can and should be developed in a similar manner. In the case of the English Civil War most primary sources had been catalogued in archives by the beginning of the 20th century, by such Victorian historians asS.R. Gardiner and C.H. Firth, so the facts of the events were available to C.F. Atkinson (the author of the EB1911 article). What has mainly changed in the last 100 years is the move away from the Whig historian's explanation for the motivations of the main actors, to the mid-20th century Marxist view, and more recently the pressures from local events, external events being emphasised in the other two kingdoms (Hence the War of the Three Kingdoms), and the affects on the general population. There is an overview of this in the section English Civil War#Historical interpretations. Most of the information contained in the year articles is not about the motives of the actors, but about what happened on what date. -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the editing policy there is a section to which WP:PRESERVE links. removing text, that is reliably sourced, ought not to be done. The section goes into details about what to do with the text:

Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page. The editing process tends to guide articles through ever-higher levels of quality over time. Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts.

To look at a specific year (1643):

Therefore to change the articles into redirects is a break of the editing policy.

Indeed in this article -- now that the text for all the year sections has been reduced since February 2020‎ from 112,000 to 22,000 byes -- less than the size of the the 1643 article; and less than half as large again as the coverage of the years in in the English Civil War article (13,000 bytes) -- what is now the purpose of this article? -- PBS (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(1) As per the Five Pillars; Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. Principles and spirit matter more than literal wording "Wikipedia standards" have been quoted several times in this conversation, the clear implication being that they haven't been followed; I spent literally weeks rewriting this article, providing numerous up to date and relevant references. I'm more than willing to be judged on 'Principles and Spirit';
(2) The articles under consideration are not original content; the majority of people in this conversation apparently agree they have been superseded or are out of date; the editor responsible for their creation admits they have not been updated since 2008; the Page Views tool shows no one is reading them. So I'm struggling to understand what would constitute grounds for deletion;
(3) Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia; that is the key difference with the 1911 EB, not whether it was Whig or Marxist interpretations of history, hence why simply copying huge chunks of it is unhelpful. It requires a different approach - look at the Page Views; the online version of the EB doesn't use their 1911 content, so why should Wikipedia? Not only that, but the EB online equivalent of this article, ie the First English Civil War is considerably shorter than what I've produced here; if anything, you should be urging me to reduce it;
(4) This article gets ten times more Pageviews than the other five combined. The comment above ('What is the purpose of this article?') appears to suggest its somehow less relevant. That seems strange.
(5) There has been far more attention and effort focused on these pages in the last few weeks than at any time in the 12 years since their creation. We're all busy - why expend so much effort on defending them? It just seems backwards. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge; while I have sympathy with the argument that the individual year articles could exist to avoid this article being too detailed and cumbersome, I think other splits are more natural, such as those made geographically. As others have said, the individual battle articles give much more detail, and should combine with this article. There is possibly scope for some 'campaign' articles, to give an overview of a few battles. Overall, I think the entire structure of the WOTK articles needs looking at. We have a lot of duplication and confusion, such as Timeline of the English Civil War and Timeline of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms (I'm not saying that we shouldn't have both, but the scopes need to be clear.) Harrias talk 10:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been running for four months and it seems that a consensus is emerging. I am pinging those editors who have expressed an opinion but not posted here in the last few days to ask if any of the arguments posted since they posted have swayed them @Richard Nevell, Svejk74, Eddie891, and Aza24:. For the avoidance of doubt, I personally continue to:
  • Support merge, per Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I still think that it would help to merge the content, and do something fairly radical to move beyond the 1911 EB. Using it as a framework made sense initially, but it runs the risk of fossilising the structure and priorities of the 1911 writers. This is a slight cop out as while the period is certainly interesting, I do not have the energy to do much to help – for which I can only apologise. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to the OP's point, it does trouble that 11,000-12,000 article use the 1911 Britannica source, but they seem to have ignored that my original comment was that statement in conjunction with others. Echoing what Harrias said, I can't imagine a reader who would find a year by year division more useful than a battle by battle division – and if they might, it's already here in the main article, more than that seems to serve little purpose.. Aza24 (talk) 06:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_English_Civil_War&oldid=1216919647"