Talk:English Civil War

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English Civil War article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3: 3 months

Military history: British / European / Early Modern / Wars of the Three Kingdoms

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Early Modern warfare task force (c. 1500 – c. 1800)
	Wars of the Three Kingdoms task force

Christianity: Anglicanism Mid‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as High-importance).

England High‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

European history Mid‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Factual nonsense in need of clarification

In the section English overseas possessions is the statement: "The Parliament began assembling a fleet to invade the Royalist colonies, but many of the English islands in the Caribbean were captured by the Dutch and French in 1651 during the Second Anglo-Dutch War." That is an impossible statement, as the Second Anglo-Dutch War began in 1665, over a decade after the fact. There was a First Anglo-Dutch War, but this, too, is after the fact. In English overseas possessions in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms#The Caribbean, it is stated: "Over the next month Barbados was blockaded. Dutch ships were seized, an act which would be one of the causes of the First Anglo-Dutch War." That makes a lot more sense. This section is unsourced and needs serious attention from a subject matter expert. 2001:558:6017:107:D5B4:958E:C45E:CAE4 (talk) 20:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that paragraph seems to make no sense. In the absence of a subject matter expert, I'll delete it. Netanyahuserious (talk) 11:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Death symbol

Anybody mind if I swap the skull and crossbones after King Charles's name with the more usual dagger (†) symbol? The scull and crossbones makes him look like a pirate. And also add one to John Hampton, who also died in the war. Netanyahuserious (talk) 09:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this one: † Netanyahuserious (talk) 02:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Netanyahuserious (talk) 02:54, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to revert this. By general Wikpedia convention (Template:Infobox_military_conflict), the "dagger" synbol is reserved for persons killed in action. Charles I was actually executed (beheaded) after a trial, however biased or prejudiced; hence the "pirate" (skull and crossbones) symbol. This does not appear to be official Wikipedia convention, but seems to be common in Military History articles. NB: persons captured and immediately slaughtered on the battlefield also seem to merit the "dagger" symbol. Again, this does not apply to Charles I. HLGallon (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't remember seeing the deaths head used for execution. My problem with using it here is that it is used for so many other things. Also he died during the civil war so the dagger might make sense. He wasn't just executed, he was executed as a direct consequence of the war (that was my thinking anyway). I have a feeling not many people really know what either of these symbols mean in this context. Perhaps we should just write "died" and "executed." Netanyahuserious (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok someone reverted it, which does seem to be consistent with other Wikipedia articles but I would like to see some evidence that the skull and crossbones is ever used this way outside Wikipedia. I cant find any. I still say it makes King Charles look like a pirate (or poisonous). Netanyahuserious (talk) 10:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It blatantly doesn't matter that it makes Charles "look like a pirate", or that it isn't used outside of Wikipedia. The fact is and remains that Template:Infobox military conflict and Template:Executed establish the skull as sign of execution in military infoboxes, and none of your arguments against it are valid. Wikipedia will not update this convention just because it makes people look "poisonous" or "like a pirate", nor because it's not in use by other resources. LVDP01 (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It matters because no one knows what it means. Of course it matters if no one outside Wikipedia uses it in this way. Netanyahuserious (talk) 02:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a template? It just seems made up by Wikipedia, which we're not allowed to do. Netanyahuserious (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a template? It just seems made up by Wikipedia, which we're not allowed to do.

... What do you even mean with that? LVDP01 (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We're not meant to do original research. It's something made up by Wikipedia. It doesn't even make sense, it's not a symbol anyone associates with executed. Netanyahuserious (talk) 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat to my surprise, I agree. I'm not aware of any consensus for using the symbol this way. LVDP01, could you point us to the relevant guideline? Deb (talk) 12:01, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, it appears to be an unwritten convention; used in pages like Battle of Holmengrå, Italian Civil War, Battle of Tewkesbury, Battle of Shrewsbury, Battle of Villalar, Second French intervention in Mexico, etc. I assumed this would be documented somewhere but only the template itself makes mention of it. LVDP01 (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page of the template suggests that there was never a consensus for it. Deb (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh participation in the English Civil Wars

It seems the discussion of the Welsh in the English Civil Wars is too brief. I would like to see a more detailed discussion of battles fought in Wales, was loyalty equally divided between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians, and were there distinct loyalty differences between North and South Wales during UKHistory23 (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially there is no reason why an independent article couldn't be created on this topic and linked to from here. There are plenty of sources. Deb (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background Section

If I may offer a suggestion, I think the readability of the article would be a little better if the background section was directly after the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thathistorystudent (talk • contribs) 22:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roundheads/Cavaliers?

In English parlance, I tend to find the terms Roundhead (Parliamentarian) and Cavalier (Royalist) to be the common terms. While I feel like the alternate names are much more descriptive, perhaps in the infobox we could put something like "Parliamentarians ("Roundheads")" and "Royalists ("Cavaliers")?

Cavaliers is used in the article but never defined, while Roundheads appears in an image description. Thoughts? Couruu (talk) 13:25, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]