Talk:Battle of Chalgrove Field/Archive 1

External links modified[edit] Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Chalgrove Field. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204111246/http://www.johnhampden.org/jhdeath.pdf to http://www.johnhampden.org/jhdeath.pdf When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

As of 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 (last update: 15 July 2018).

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) 14:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Military engagement[edit] showText copied from Wikipedia:Teahouse#Content war Re Battle of Chalgrove

@User:John Hampdens Regiment you inserted the following into the lead while at the same time changing the word skirmish to 'fight' (diff). I removed it and changed 'fight' meeting engagement to (diff)

showBattle or Skirmish - Why the Confusion user:PBS copied the following (with signature) from Wikipedia:Teahouse diff

My contribution to the entry 'Battle of Chalgrove' with the above title may have been in the wrong place and been too explicit. Will you allow me to resubmit a reworded entry with accusations removed. This new entry would be placed in the body of the page complete with references. Being new to the ways of Wikipedia and struggling to understand its concepts may you forgive my transgressions. Resolving the issue of Battle or Skirmish and its importance to English and the American War of Independence (I will explain) is fundamental to the understanding of the early part of the English Civil War; it will fundamental to English Civil War Key Stages of the British educational curriculum. By deleting my entry Wikipedia has inadvertently acted as censor to original and researched historical facts. My amendment of skirmish to 'fight' compliments the terminology used by Prince Rupert's narrator, who was by his side at the battle. Although your 'meeting engagement' is technically correct the 17th century terminology by size of encounters is skirmish - raid - fight and battle. The difference between fight and battle is a battle is planned before the encounter while a fight is a usually a chance encounter but can be equal in size to a battle. John Hampden, who was mortally wounded at the Battle of Chalgrove, features strongly in the American War of Independence. James Otis used John Hampden's name as an alias at a rally in 1765 to quote the immortal words, 'No Taxation without Representation'. Hampden/Sydney college founded 1775 - nine towns with the name Hampden - Liberty Land. Hampden helped finance in the founding of Saybrook 1634 and Harvard 1636. One could gone on! Is your permission to re-write Battle or Skirmish forthcoming? Regards, John Hampdens Regiment (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Relevant to the article on John Hampden, but not an article on the battle. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC) We were ships passing in the night! Before you added the above to the conversation at Wikipedia:Teahouse, I added the following. I think that we need to take this conversation point by point. So please answer my question (below) and then once that has been done with any counter points, I will start to address the points you made in the posting of 19:28, 22 October 2017. -- PBS (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

IMHO that is not something that should appear in the lead if the guidance in WP:LEAD is to be followed. I would like to address this is a slightly different way. There are a number of different types of armed engagements that take place in wars, eg sieges (and the storming of a breach), pitched battles, encounter battles, skirmishes (which may be an encounter battle), ambushes, and holding actions, an example of which is the [holding] action at Genappe in 1815. Have you any other types of armed engagement to add, and which one do you think best fits this type of engagement? -- PBS (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC) Exactly. It was what we commonly call a battle. The semantic debate is not ledeworthy. Valetude (talk) 15:54, 11 September 2018 (UTC)