Talk:Battle of Newburn

Copyright problem

This article was founded with text from A Land Afflicted to which Wikipedia is not legally entitled, lacking proper licensing by the publisher. Some examples of copyright problems include [1], [2] (p. 44), [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11] (p. 49), [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. It seems the article will need to be rewritten to remove any remnants of text in these sections by this contributor, since he has verified that the publisher did not license its use. I am blanking the article accordingly and listing it at the copyright problems board. I hope that the contributors to this article will be able to help salvage it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

No revisions have been attempted. I have now deleted the sections containing copyvio text. — CactusWriter | ^needles 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the copyright violations have also to be excised from the article history. Where they clearly added in one group? Kbthompson (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Still need to do something about this ... suggest delete article; restore current version only (ie without the copyviol); with apologys to previous contributors in the history. Otherwise, the salvaged part will have to go ... HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Disputed

There is some confusion here. Article says Battle of Newburn was fought on 28 August 1640 by Scotland Covenanters were Supported by English Parliament, but conflict between King and English Parliament didn't start until 1642. In-fact, there was no Parliament at this time. Short Parliament was dissolved in 5 May 1640 and Long Parliament was established on 3 November 1640. Srinivasasha (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not dispute the military facts of this article. But I do dispute the statement of the political consequences. The article states that the consequence was the breaking of coal supply to London. It is discussed in a way which suggests an analogy with Britain's supply problems in WWII. But did this do Charles's cause much harm? London was mostly against Charles, it is hard to see how breaking London's coal supply weakened Charles. What did harm Charles was that during the Scots occupation he lost the coal taxes (levied at both Newcastle and London, and many writers are unwilling to acknowledge that state revenue was so strongly dependent on Newcastle), he had to pay the lodging costs of the Scots while they were in occupation and he had to buy Newcastle back from the Scots for £125,000. This ruined him financially. Under an act in the 1720s (referred to in Wikipedia), taxes could only be raised by Parliament, therefore to restore his finances Charles convened another parliament. This became the "Long Parliament" which eventually beat him.

The loss of Newburn Ford and with it Newcastle obviously reduced Charles's standing, but the direct and measurable consequence was his financial ruin. Kings are only powerful because they can pay for an army. Newburn Ford was not a battle OF the civil war, but it certainly SET UP the Civil war. Michael BellBeaverbell (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully this has been answered by the rewrite. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)