Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/English invasion of Scotland (1650)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15 October 2021 [1].

English invasion of Scotland (1650)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) and Girth Summit (talk)

Another joint venture from the itinerant repeat nominator Gog the Mild and the Scottish history expert Girth Summit. Charles I was king of England and Scotland, as two entirely separate matters. When the English chopped his head off they didn't consult the Scots. So when the Scots crowned Charles II it was as king of Britain (not Scotland). Which, with massive understatement, could be described as a provocation. In short order Oliver Cromwell was leading an English army across the border. The campaign was hard fought, but ended with the whole of Scotland subjugated. OK, in some ways it ended with Charles and the Scots' army going down to defeat in Worcester. Which part of Scotland is Worcester in, you ask? Read the article. Lovingly crafted and fresh from a rigorous GAN courtesy of Tayi Arajakate we believe this is ready for the exigencies of a FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt

[edit]
  • "the English government, exasperated ..." can we lay responsibility to something that can be linked to? Possiblities in the body include the Rump Parliament and the New Model Army, for example.
Technically it was the Rump Parliament, so so linked.
  • "After years of rising tensions the relationship between Charles and his English Parliament broke down in armed conflict, starting the First English Civil War in 1642.[3]" I might cut the words "in armed conflict", not only does the causation read oddly but the words seem redundant.
Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Godly war" shouldn't this be lower case per MOS:GOD?
Done.
  • You refer to the "Scottish government" or "government" a number of times, but it is not clear who this is. Is this the same as their parliament?
Well yes and no. Is any nation's government the same as its parliament? It wasn't clear at the time who this was, hence the repeated internecine fighting and purges.
See also the Committee of Estates. The question of whether it's the parliament, or the committee, or both, isn't always clearcut and the sources often just say 'government' - I think that trying to be specific each time would be difficult, and errors might be made. Government is accurate, if slightly vague.
  • "Subsequently strict military discipline was enforced." A comma might be useful here.
You clearly use commas differently to me. I have stuck one in, but placement was largely guesswork. Could you check, and if you don't like it move it? Thanks.
  • "Large musters took place at Northampton, Gloucester, Reading and Barnet, and the London trained bands assembled 14,000 strong on 25 August and Fairfax secured Yorkshire." A bit of a run-on sentence.
Split.
  • transported to North America to work as forced labour." Is this the fate you allude to in the last sentence of "Battle of Dunbar" as "were deported to become indentured workers on English possessions overseas"? If so, and if the sources permit, I would be specific as to North America in the Dunbar allusion. The reader my be vague as to English colonial holdings in the 1650s.
Just checking, you are suggesting a change to Battle of Dunbar here? I'm not disagreeing, just checking that I understand.
I think there's a misunderstanding here. The Dunbar prisoners were, I believe, transported separately from the Worcester ones. I think what Wehwalt is asking is whether we can be specific as to where the Dunbar prisoners got sent to.
I've checked the source, which discusses prisoners from both battles being (separately) transported to various parts of North America. It doesn't talk about possessions elsewhere, so I've changed the text to mention NA specifically. GtM - if you're aware of them going elsewhere as well, please rephrase as necessary. Girth Summit (blether) 11:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After seven months the Army removed Richard and re-installed the Rump in May 1659." The date comes as something of an afterthought. I might say "In May 1659, seven months after Oliver Cromwell's death ... "
Done.
Correct. Would you like more?
Is it necessary to end both the lede and the body in identical phrasing?
Obviously not. Is there a problem with this? If so, which would you like rewriting? (Or both?)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Wehwalt, I think that is all of your comments addressed, although a couple with queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Some images are missing alt text
Apologies. Not sure what happened. Even the cut and pasted from previous FAC images lost their alt text. All now present.
  • File:Battle_of_Dunbar_medal.jpg: tagging for the original work is fine, but I'm wondering about the image - was the source given the first publication?
Ah. Very good point. The photographer is unknown, and I struggle to track it back further than 1967. I am off-Wiki for a few days, so I will let Girth Summit have a look at it. They have access to sources I don't. But we may have to remove it.
  • File:Battle_of_Worcester.jpg: source link is dead; where was this first published?
Relinked. In 1810 in a work by Machell Stace. (Cromwelliana: A chronological detail of events in which Oliver Cromwell was engaged from the year 1642 to his death 1658.)

Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GS, could you have a look at the Dunbar Medal thing and ping Nikkimaria once you either resolve it or fail to and remove it. Up your street I think. :-) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I'm not sure I'll be able to go back further than 1967, but I see that on commons there is File:Thomas Simon, Oliver Cromwell, Commemorating the Victory at the Battle of Dunbar (obverse), 1650, NGA 117631.jpg - that seems to have had all rights waived by the owner, would we be on more solid ground using that image (which shows the same thing)? Girth Summit (blether) 18:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one would be fine with improved tagging - the current tagging reflects only the status of the image and not the medal itself. (Should be pretty simple to just port over the tags from the current image, if they're picturing the same object). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria Better? Girth Summit (blether) 18:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Swapped in article now, thanks for the advice. Girth Summit (blether) 18:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative suggestions for lead

[edit]

As an older Englishman I already know that Charles II was a king - but for younger foreigners would the first sentence be improved as something like "In 1650 the English Commonwealth's New Model Army invaded Scotland, intending to forestall a Scottish army led by King Charles II invading England." ? And that sentence could perhaps be its own paragraph (maybe add another sentence with result later) as the next sentence is a flashback?

So my concern about calling him King Charles II is that, at the point in his life that we're talking about here, the question of whether he was king and where he was king of is somewhat contested. He was not yet King of England, and while the Scots had proclaimed him "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland", it's obviously not clear that they had the authority to do so. Plus he hadn't been crowned yet (that happened in January 1651). We can't possibly unpack all of that in the first sentence, and so I personally think it's better to refer to him as "Charles II" (which is his COMMONNAME) in the opening sentence, and then explain things more fully later on in the article. Girth Summit (blether) 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And would it be better to use a different tense next like "From 1642 to 1648 Royalists, loyal to King Charles I of England, had fought Parliamentarians in the First and Second English Civil Wars" ?

This wouldn't be wrong, but it's not clear to me that it would be an improvement - I'll see what GtM thinks. Girth Summit (blether) 11:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other reviewers would certainly then ask why the article was written in two tenses. Currently we have picked one and used it consistently. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please take a look and comment on my submission here Chidgk1 (talk) 13:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie891

[edit]
  • Not sure what "paridly" means?
That it is a typo. Thank you.
  • "was able to regain control of the government" had they previously held control?
Very well spotted. Let us not delve into that. Tweaked.
  • Do we have a number of people purged by the commission the first time around?
Not that I have been able to find. GS?
I've gone back to the sources, but I'm not seeing numbers for the first purge. They talk more about the quality, rather than quantity, of people who were purged - it got rid of a lot of the pesky experienced officers who had seen fighting on the continent in the 30 years wars, obviously not the sort of person you'd want in your army if you thought you were about to go up against Cromwell. Girth Summit (blether) 17:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how many english soldiers there were?
We do. A sloppy omission. Added.
  • "Edinburgh Castle held out until December" Maybe add a date when the city was first taken so we know how long that is?
Good thought. Done.

Very nice overall, only a few minor thoughts. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eddie, good stuff as usual. Responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You write prose that is so easy to review. Happy to Support Eddie891 Talk Work 17:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley

[edit]

Rather an unwelcome change for a Gog article – the bad guys won! (Still, the good guys won ten years later, as you mention at the end.) As far as I can tell, knowing little about this period, the content is well balanced, and the sources look excellent to my layman's eye. I offer some minor comments on the prose, but very few, as the article is excellently constructed and beautifully written:

  • In 1650 Scotland was actively raising an army – can one raise an army passively?
    Changed to 'rapidly' - any better?
    Per Eddie's review above, I see that I actually changed it to 'paridly'. Oops.
  • the English were willing to fight to defend the republic – was the term "republic" used at the time? Question asked from a position of complete ignorance, but the word seemed vaguely anachronistic/parachronistic to me)
    I believe the word was used at the time (and there's the Dutch Republic too).
Widely used in the scholarly literature. I could provide quotes or point you towards analyses of Milton's or Cromwell's political views if you would like. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the authority to approve all of the king's councillors …. all of the King's subjects in Scotland – superfluous "of"s here, à l'américaine.
    Hmm. Looked alright to me, but I bow to all of your pronouncements on matters of prose. :P
Afterthought: I am painfully aware that attempting the capitalisation, or not, of royal job titles is the road to insanity, but I can't help noticing the king/King in this bit of the text. I most decidedly do not press the point.
Fiddled with caps throughout.
  • bitterly divided on whether or not to ratify its terms – does the "or not" add anything useful?
    Gone
  • Exasperated by Charles' duplicity – strange form of the possessive, where one would expect the usual "Charles's"
    True - fixed
  • Scotland was actively rearming – actively, again. Seems an odd word.
    actively --> rapidly
  • They pressured Thomas Fairfax – is pressuring someone different from pressing him?
    Changed
  • launch a preemptive attack – you hyphenate "pre-emptive" earlier (as does the OED)
    changed
  • so as to enable – the first two words seem otiose
    I don't know what otiose means (sounds like a brand of breakfast serial), but changed regardless.
It is a large, South American, aquatic mammal. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right for being lazy. It means "superfluous" but is quicker to type and easier to spell. Tim riley talk 18:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just realised I typed 'serial' while thinking 'cereal'. Any I imagine I can write FAs? Girth Summit (blether) 19:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It can happen to andone. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which by this point was short on supplies – short of supplies?
    Hmm. This bit was Gog's, so I'll leave this for him to comment on - either would be correct in my view.
Oops. Caught. 200,000 cases of "short on supplies": [2]. It would seem that "of" is more common, but has been declining in frequency of use, while "on" is an acceptable (alternative?) use which has been gaining currency. As ever, I would seem to be at the cutting edge of the use of English prose.
  • called up all of the troops it could – another strange "of"
    gone
  • On arrival in France, he declared he would rather be hanged than ever to return to Scotland. – and did he ever return? A footnote would be nice, telling us yea or nay.
    I'm fairly confident that he never set foot on Scottish soil ever again, but I would need to check the sources to see whether I could actually source that in a footnote. I'm not in a position to do that right now, but may return to it.
    Woolrych confirms that Charless II never returned to Scotland, so I've added a footnote.

Those are my meagre gleanings. Tim riley talk 12:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review Tim riley - I believe I've addressed all of your concerns. GtM is away at the moment, gets back tomorrow - I'm sure he'd be delighted to find a support from you waiting for him! Girth Summit (blether) 16:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Mr riley, and thank you for your usual attention to detail. My colleague seems to have dealt with dealt with your concerns better than I would, and probably could, have - I shall have to go away more often - and we await your magisterial decision with trepidation. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't do any such thing, you cheeky beggar! You know jolly well I'm going to support, which I hereby do. Thanks for the requested footnote: I think it rounds the matter off satisfyingly. To conclude my review: as a non-expert reader I can't comment except in general terms on the substance of the article, but it looks more than fine to me, and is well and widely sourced. It is commendably neutral, and thoroughly readable. Top-notch work by the two nominators. Meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Tim riley talk 18:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry sir, Mr riley sir. Additional work for being cheeky in class has been completed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There really is going to be trouble next time we meet at the Wehwalt Arms. Tim riley talk 19:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully not anything I can't lubricate my way out of with sufficient red wine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass

[edit]
  • Ref #31: "Woolrych 2002, p. 483–484." needs a pp not a p.
Done.
  • "Dow, F.D. (1979)" should be "Dow, F. D." with spaced initials per MOS:INITIALS. The hyphen in the year range of the title also needs to be made into an endash.
Done.
  • I know John Philipps Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer are linked on their first mention in the Sources section (Edwards, Peter (2002)), but I think linking them as chapter authors for "Kenyon, John & Ohlmeyer, Jane (2002)" and "Ohlmeyer, Jane (2002)" would also be useful to the reader.
I just know that someone is going to object, but done.
Someone always does, but I always prefer to add aids to the reader. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lodge, Richard (1969)" is formatted differently because it uses {{Citation}} rather than {{Cite book}}: for consistency switch it to the latter.
Done.
  • "Stewart, Laura A.M." should be "Stewart, Laura A. M." with spaced initials per MOS:INITIALS (for both the 2016 and 2017 sources).
Done.
  • "Wheeler, James Scott (2002)" needs an endash in the year range of the title.
Done.
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • Searches don't reveal any glaring omissions, this article appears to accurately cover the source material.
  • The nominators are experienced and trusted editors, so spotchecks are not necessarily needed. That said, I have Wanklyn, Malcolm (2019) and Brooks, Richard (2005) on my shelf, so I did spotchecks against those, which check out fine.
  • Further checks for copyvio or close para-phrasing revealed nothing of concern.

That's a wrap. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:18, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Afternoon Harrias and thanks for picking that up. All done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all good. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

[edit]
  • "an independent nation at the time". Sounds a bit colloqial to me. How about "which was then an independent nation"?
Done.
  • "twelve years after being crowned by the Scots". Above you say the Scots "declared" him king of Britain. Why not say crowned? BTW it must be a unique title?
Because the Scots declared on 5 February 1650, Charles arrived in Scotland on 23 June, but wasn't crowned until 1 January 1651.
"King of Great Britain, France and Ireland". I'm not sure. Girth Summit may know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear on what I'm being asked to comment on here - can you expand on "BTW it must be a unique title"? Girth Summit (blether) 18:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took "king of Britain" literally as a possibly unique title. If it was "King of Great Britain, France and Ireland" then I think you should use that term. Also I think it is important to say that he was crowned by the Scots. It is odd to say both in the lead and the text that his 1661 crowning was twelve years after the first one, but never to mention the first one specifically. Perhaps at the end of the first paragraph "The Scottish Parliament, which had not been consulted prior to the execution, declared his son, Charles II, King of Great Britain, France and Ireland on 5 February 1650, and he was crowned on 1 January 1651." Dudley Miles (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
​ So, a few things to unpack. I think we're focussing on the 'king of Britain' bit, rather than the full formal title, because that's what the sources focus on. The English weren't particularly bothered about the other bits - it was the fact that the Scots were calling him king of Britain, and therefore of England, that they felt threatened by. The sources talk about it in these terms, I don't think we should gloss over that, but we also don't want to spend a whole paragraph spelling it out.
With regards to where to mention the coronation, my feeling is that this point is the wrong context to being it up - it happened after the defeat at Dunbar, when the Scots were already very much on the back foot. If we were to insert it at the relevant chronological point however, it doesn't work to just drop it in as a random factoid, it would require discussion, and again I don't think we want to give it its own paragraph.
I wonder how you would feel about the addition of a footnote at the point in the paragraph you have suggested, where we give the dates, locations and unique titles used both for the declaration and the coronation? That would allow us to present all the information, without distracting from the flow of the article. Girth Summit (blether) 19:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well we may have to agree to disagree, which would be no big deal. I do not think you should say that he was declared king of Britain if that was not his title, but you can easily get round this by saying that he was declared king full stop, without specifying of where. If you do not want to mention in the text that he was crowned, then I think you should leave out that his 1661 coronation was 12 years after the first. My immediate reaction was 'what - where did the article say he was crowned?' Dudley Miles (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry - I totally agree with you that we should introduce the facts of the coronation somewhere, since we allude to it later in the way that we do - I'm sold on that. For me, it's just a question of whether it's better done with in a footnote, or as a (potentially awkward?) factoid in the body of the text, or as a properly explained (but potentially distracting?) tangent from the narrative we're putting across.
We can't just say that he was declared king - that is omitting a crucial point, which all of the relevant sources mention: the Scots had declared him king of Britain, which the English saw as a direct challenge to their new Commonwealth. Nobody can say whether they English would have reacted differently if they'd just reverted to the old title 'King of Scots', but the sources are very clear that the Scots' decision to declare him 'king of Britain' was very relevant. Girth Summit (blether) 20:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realised as soon as I posted that just king would not work and my post on that was apparently accepted even though it crossed with your reply. I do not see why you should not use his full title and I think that it is misleading to use a wrong one, even if it was used colloquially at the time. On the second point, I do not think a footnote would do as most people probably do not read footnotes. An alternative would be to spell out the first coronation when you mention the second - something like Charles had been crowned by the Scots on date, now twelve years later he was crowned again. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have put the details of his Scottish coronation in a footnote straight after his English coronation. I have no objection to putting the information in the text given your (to me curious) dislike of footnotes, but after several several attempts have not been able to do so felicitously.
  • "Under pressure from the English to withdraw their forces now the war was over," This threw me a bit as I had not realised that the Scots kept their forces in England against the wishes of the English. I think you need to explain their remaining earlier in the paragraph if you say how they left.
Unpacked a little.
  • Portrait of Charles I. I think you should say by Anthony van Dyck
Why?
I think it is unfair to use an artist's work without giving him or her credit, but maybe that is just my personal view. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to clutter up this sort of information in line. If a reader is interested in discovering who the artist was they can click on the image and the answer is there, as is the norm for photographs. They are probably used to this approach from Wikilinks.
  • "the New Model Army purged Parliament and established the Rump Parliament. This had Charles tried for treason against the English people; he was executed on 30 January 1649,[13] and the republican Commonwealth was created". "This had Charles tried" is unclear and colloquial. How about "the New Model Army purged Parliament and established the Rump Parliament, which appointed a court to try Charles for treason against the English people. He was convicted and on 39 January 1649 he was executed.[13] On 19 May the country became a republic as the Commonwealth of England.
I will take the advice of m'learned friend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what is unclear or colloquial about the original phrasing, but I have no objection to the proposed alternative. Done, with some minor adjustments to the second sentence. Girth Summit (blether) 18:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "declared his son, also Charles, King of Britain." Again, why not crowned?
Cus he wasn't. See above.
  • "Scotland was rapidly rearming" This repeats the previous sentence.
Rephrased.
  • "Lambert was sent to capture Edinburgh". This is the first mention of Lambert, who is only identified below. Also, it would be clearer to say that Cromwell sent Lambert (assuming he did).
    I've reordered the references to Lambert, so that he is properly introduced at first mention. I'm not sure I see the problem with Lambert being sent to do something - the article is already quite heavy with clauses where Cromwell is the subject, it's nice to have a bit of variety! Girth Summit (blether) 20:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several of his officers, however, refused to take orders from him". Did they leave because he had been defeated or because he was not godly enough. You should clarify this.
Who knows. Even the sources of the time tended to report facts rather than claim to be able to peer into men's souls.
The sources I've read don't spell this out. From the context, I infer that it was the ignominy of defeat, but I wouldn't be able to back that up with a solid citation. Girth Summit (blether) 20:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exhausted Scots paused in Worcester". Did they take Worcester or were they invited in. You should clarify this.
Neither. Worcester didn't have a military garrison. They just marched down the street, as they had in all the other towns they passed through. Worcester only became important with hindsight as the Scots paused and were so were later brought to battle there.
I have added a footnote.

Dudley Miles (talk) 21:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles, Gog the Mild, some responses above. Cheers Girth Summit (blether) 18:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, are you satisfied with the responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see the nominators have not replied to my last two posts on 10 September on title and crowning, and on Carlisle/Worcester. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Probably crossed wires. Apologies. I am on my way to bed, but will try to look at them first thing tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Dudley, I was wondering if you have had the opportunity to review my recent response to some of your comments above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about the name

[edit]

Given the recent 'move drama', I do think the article would benefit from some discussion about the naming, specifically about the recent discussion about "Third Civil War/Third English Civil War" not being a suitable label. Girth Summit provided plenty of evidence in the discussion, and it seems a glaring omission from the article itself. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias, could you unpack/explain a bit what you are asking for, cus I honestly don't know. Are you suggesting that something is missing from the article? Or something else? Thanks, and apologies if I am being a bit slow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. During the move discussion(s), Girth demonstrated that there is a fair bit of discussion amongst subject experts, not necessarily relating to an appropriate name, but certainly highlighting that "Third Civil War/Third English Civil War" is not a suitable name. While there is some discussion about this elsewhere, such as at Wars of the Three Kingdoms and English Civil War, I think the move discussion(s) demonstrated that the article would benefit from some discussion about whether it is considered part of the "English Civil War", whether "Third Civil War" is a suitable name, and why not. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias - I agree with you that a short section on this would be warranted - I was holding off on putting anything together until the move discussion was concluded, since that would obviously have affected how such a section was worded.
The sources that I'm aware of which discuss the name 3CW itself (rather than merely using it) are Woolrych, Wanklyn, Ohlmeyer & Kenyon, and Grainger. All of them are critical of '3CW' for various reasons, but they would allow us to say that it has sometimes been called that, and to make attributed statements about why that name is problematic. What I would really like to be able to do would be to say something along the lines of 'In <year>, <name of historian> proposed that the conflict should be considered as the Third Civil War because <reasons>. Other historians have criticised that viewpoint, <attributed statements criticising it>. I am not in possession of any source that would allow me to do that though: I have looked, but have not been able to find out who coined the phrase, or identify any scholars writing about it in positive ways. Even scholars who still use the phrase sometimes find it necessary to point out that it wasn't actually a civil war (e.g. Malcolm Atkin) - I've found nothing at all that would help me to write about the positive case for that name. I do not want to be criticised for writing something that comes across as one-sided, so I would be very grateful if anyone is able to point me at sources that would help me to put 'both sides' of the naming issue. (I don't need additional sources that just use the name however - they won't help us write about the name). Girth Summit (blether) 18:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, I've added a short paragraph on this. Comments very welcome, from you or anyone else. Girth Summit (blether) 18:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that I'm content with what has been added. More would be great if we can find sources, but this acknowledgement of the topic is sufficient for the requirements of the FA process I feel. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/English_invasion_of_Scotland_(1650)/archive1&oldid=1050133085"