Talk:Battle of Crécy/Archive 2

Publication dates on references
Some references on the bottom of the page display both an original year of publication and the year of its reprinted edition (e.g. Ayton & Preston 2005/7). This is completely unnecessary as the hardback and paperback versions were published a mere two years apart and are identical. In such case, only the original year of publication should be necessary, unless a following edition is a revised one or shows different page numbers. I tried to have this rectified but the changes kept being reversed.Aforst1 (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Aforst1. Thanks for bringing this here. You and I may both feel that using both dates is unnecessary, but it is a case of what Wikipedia policy says on the natter, not our personal preferences. On a first check of Citing sources, which seemed the logical place to start, under "What information to include"; "Books" it suggests that one should include "date of publication of the edition" and "edition, if not the first edition". To me, being reprinted in paperback counts as a new edition, and I assume that this is where we disagree. If I am incorrect in that, apologies and perhaps you could flag up where you think that we disagree. If I am correct, perhaps you could cover why a reprint in paperback should not be considered a different edition?
 * I note that Wiktionary, which I do not claim is an infallible source of definitions, has a usage of edition as "The whole number of copies of a work printed and published at one time." I would argue that reprinting a book in a different format two years later would make it a different edition under this definition. In one of your edit summaries you wrote "Its best to put just the original year, unless the book in question is a revised edition or something similar." I suggest that if the guideline meant that, it would say so.
 * I would also suggest that if this discussion were to come down to a reasonable difference of interpretation, as it may, it would seem more reasonable to leave the information in: it does no harm, interrupts no narrative flow and may be necessary to meet the guideline; taking it out removes information for, so far as I can see, no particular benefit to Wikipedia.
 * Cheers
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, Gog the Mild, thanks for the reply.
 * I understand your position; I had initially made a point of using the earlier date since that's generally how a source is cited elsewhere – the date of its first publication being displayed rather than a later arbitrary date of a reprinted version. I would nonetheless suggest – as a compromise if anything – that the later date be placed somewhere else in the citation, as in the example given in WP:CITE. For instance, "Ayton (2007) [2005], Battle of Crécy ..." could instead be displayed as "Ayton (2005), Battle of Crécy (2007 paperback ed.) ..."
 * I would also suggest that, when individual chapters are concerned, the book in which they are contained should not be cited more than once. This happens over and over again in Ayton & Preston's book: the title, ISBN, publisher, etc. are mentioned repeatedly as many times as the number of chapters used in the entire article. I think the format should be similar as to in this past edit, in which the chapters in the reference section appear like this: "" The "" would in turn point to the book itself, the details of which would only need to appear once, and not each time a new chapter is cited. I believe you sent a 'thanks' when I made this edit, but switched it again once you reformatted the reference section.
 * Aforst1 (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aforst1. I find your suggested compromise interesting, and it would seem to be MoS-compliant. However, it would introduce an inconsistency with how such sources as Burne and Oman are treated in this article. Those references could also be tweaked to the format you suggest, but this seems to be creating unnecessary work. It would also not match the 'standard' layout which results when one uses the normal template: It is also quite a bit longer and slightly more complicated than simply going with the template. In short, if we are agreed that both dates will be presented I am unsure what the point is of "reinventing the wheel".

With regard to your second point, regarding whether to give full details of a cite or not, I have a personal preference, but that is irrelevant. Citing sources says that when citing a chapter one should give:
 * name of author(s)
 * title of the chapter
 * name of book's editor
 * name of book and other details as above
 * chapter number or page numbers for the chapter (optional)

The "other details as above" are:
 * name of author(s)
 * title of book
 * volume when appropriate
 * name of publisher
 * place of publication
 * date of publication of the edition
 * chapter or page numbers cited, if appropriate
 * edition, if not the first edition
 * ISBN (optional)

In other words your proposal is not, IMO, MoS-compliant. If you are aware of other parts of the MoS which suggest that it is, or believe that my comments above are misinterpreting the MoS, don't hesitate to detail this. Unless you do, I will change your edit to make the citing MoS-compliant. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The problem with the guidelines you mentioned is that they don't quite make a distinction of a single chapter being mentioned or multiple chapters of the same book; this forces the reader to rely on common sense. If there are multiple chapters, then by this logic the 'other details as above' would have to be repeated over & over again. Besides, there is at least one wikipedia article (King John of England) which organizes the individual chapters the way I mentioned.Aforst1 (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed the guidelines don't make a distinction. If they wished to, they would. "when citing a chapter one should give" seems entirely clear to me. No doubt one could find in Wikipedia's near 6,000,000 articles multiple cases of breaches of every aspect of the MoS, but that does not mean that one should therefore disregard the MoS. If King John of England, or any other article, is not compliant with Citing sources you should feel free to correct it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

...”within 2 miles of Paris”
While this new version is obviously better, it still leaves the reader with the inaccurate impression that the vasty swath of destruction reached nearly to Paris. It did not; the later smaller raids were limited by the fact that the bulk of the English army was farther away than that of the French, and on the wrong side of a river. I think this still needs some tweaking. Qwirkle (talk) 23:52, 24 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I may well be being slow, but could you be more precise/rephrase? "the bulk of the English army was farther away than that of the French, and on the wrong side of a river" Further away from what; why is the side of the river relevant? (Anyway, the English had a bridge at Poissy, so I doubly miss the relevance). What tweaking would you suggest? Rereading both sources seem to support the wording in the article; if a reader were to gain the "impression that the vasty swath of destruction reached nearly to Paris" then they would be left with the impression that I was after reading the sources. Could you provide a source for "It did not; the later smaller raids were limited"? Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Deleting material
Hi I have reverted your two edits where you deleted material with the edit summary "he campaign account is already huge and this in particular is irrelevant to the development of the battle". Obviously, as the editor who recently took this article through GAN and FAC I disagree, or I wouldn't have left it in. More importantly, the article has recently become a featured article, and at FAC the reviewers each signed off on "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail" (from the FA criteria). If you feel strongly about this, could you discuss it here before re-editing, pinging in potentially interested editors, per WP:BRD. Thanks.

Wikipedia works by establishing a consensus. If an article is a FA, especially a recently promoted one, one can reasonably assume that consensus has been reached, and one should, therefore, be cautious to ensure that one has an ongoing consensus for any changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I still believe it's rather pointless piece of information. It actually does go "into unnecessary detail" by mentioning the status of the city of Caen within Normandy, the casualties of the battle and the captivity of the Count d'Eu – all of which change have zero relevance to the subsequent events. More importantly, we already have separate articles (Crécy campaign and Battle of Caen) in which this information would be relevant. This trivial stuff (WP:IRI) should not have more than a quick mention in the 'battle of Crécy' article, in order to give space to more relevant information. Moreover, an article should not be unnecessarily big (WP:TMI).Aforst1 (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Let the boy win his spurs!"
There is the famous story that Edward, when asked to send reinforcements to his son the Black Prince, refused and replied, "Let the boy win his spurs!". I am willing to believe that the story is apocryphal, but it is very closely associated with the battle and has been for a long time: it's not just something that cropped up in a recent film, for instance. So I think that it really ought to be included briefly, even if only to be debunked. But there seems no mention of this in the article currently and no discussion on the Talk page or its archives. Is there a reason for this obvious omission, or is it just an accident that no one thought to include it or knew where to put it? Jmchutchinson (talk) 20:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Jmchutchinson. I get this quite a bit. Usually regarding Froissart's more fanciful inventions. I dislike adding fantasy to then tell a reader that it's not true; I don't feel that that is what Wikipedia is for. If someone were to create an article on Medieval myths invented by Froissart I may grudgingly include a link. In the case of the "Let the boy win his spurs" tosh, it is excluded because it is demonstrably tosh. Edward snr, being a calculating and cynical veteran obviously sent immediate assistance, of which there is plenty of contemporary (more so than Froissart) evidence and which is included in the article. "Edward sent forward a detachment from his reserve battle to rescue the situation." Even Froissart was sarcastic about his own Chronocles as a historical record. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hmm. It seems to me that one role of Wikipedia ought to be authoritatively correcting widely held but erroneous versions of the historical record. Many people will consider this myth to be the truth and they ought to be able to turn to Wikepedia to find out whether it is true or not. You seem to have the material at hand to satisfy their curiosity. A separate argument is that there is more to any historical event than just the sequence of events that occurred. The folklore associated with it is also a valid topic of study, even if it is not your interest. Widely held false beliefs about historical events can sometimes turn out to be hugely important (e.g. the belief in inter-war Germany that the German army could have fought on in 1918 if it hadn't been let down by the politicians). You might want to hive all that sort of stuff off into a separate article to which you link, but that is not always practical. Anyway, I have no interest in writing this, and probably you neither, but I hope that you will be open to others who might so wish. Nice article, by the way! Jmchutchinson (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that my real objection is a disbelief that the myth is widely known. If it could be demonstrated that it were, then your "duty to debunk" argument would weigh heavily. I am not totally adverse to this: I was persuaded, I confess kicking and screaming, that several reliable sources mentioned Queen Philippa begging the lives of the Burghers of Calais, and so I included it in Siege of Calais (1346–1347). I even include a reference to the trebucheted messenger in Battle of Auberoche. But I am doubtful that "Let the boy win his spurs" is as well known as you suggest. Obviously, I am open to evidence to the contrary. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

"Not lacking courage"
A more neutral way to phrase this would be to include the historian who described it as such. Saying it as being inherently true is a matter of POV, as one man's courage is another man's stupidity. Ispokeforthetrees (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Ispokeforthetrees, that is a fair point. Probably the reason why that approach hasn't been taken is that all of the historians who have considered the matter have been of the same opinion. And no one so far as I am aware has ever put forward a different view. There is further commentary on this later in the article: "According to Ayton, the heavy losses of the French can also be attributed to the chivalric ideals held by knights of the time; nobles would have preferred to die in battle, rather than dishonourably flee the field, especially in view of their fellow knights." In this source he makes pretty much the same point that you do re one man's courage is another man's stupidity, which is why I wrote it in towards the end, explicitly claiming the high French losses as due their excess of courage/stupidity. But one doesn't expect any army to behave rationally, as Montesquieu wrote: "A rational army would run away." Does this context make you any happier?


 * If not, how would you feel about 'Contemporary and modern historians agree there was no lack of courage on either side.'? I would consider this a poor second as articles should be written predominately in Wikipedia's voice, and sourced (and with any significant disagreements between sources clearly flagged up); not with every sentence beginning "Such-and-such has written that ... " Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * PS I could put, say, four cites after it, to demonstrate the ubiquity of the opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * PPS A leading modern scholar summarising the contemporary sources view of the French at the battle "it is not easy to disregard the testimony of the chronicles, much of it no doubt based upon the eyewitness accounts of heralds. And their testimony is clear: once committed to battle, whether owing to their own ‘pride and envy’ or the king’s misjudgement, the flower of French chivalry preferred the likelihood of death or capture to a dishonourable flight"
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think my preferred answer would be to remove the problematic "courage" and instead hammer out a phrasing along the lines of "Both sides tried to live up to the ideals of chivalry." That leaves it up to the reader to decide if living up to those ideas was courageous or stupid. As for the rest, it's a bit more personal taste. While I appreciate that it should be interesting to read, phrases like "melted away into the forest" are bit more romantic than is appropriate for a dispassionate encyclopedia article IMO. Ispokeforthetrees (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, there has to be a balance between readability and a dry recitation of facts. And that gets very subjective.
 * Again a reasonable point. But chivalry is a notoriously ill-defined concept. So you would like to replace the sentence in question with something like "Both sides lived up to the ideals of chivalric behaviour in the face of the enemy."? Yes? Or could you suggest a concrete alternative? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Casualty figures for the English
The article, quoting Devries apparently, says that 3, 30 or 300 high-profile Englishmen died. The middle number should actually read 40, not 30, and it also seems to represent a total tally of the dead rather than only notables (Ayton p. 191 and Prestwich p. 151). Ayton also suggested that this number is too low and argued for 300 to be likewise considered as representing all dead. This section should therefore report that 40 men were found to have been killed in a count after the battle, and that one historian suggested a higher figure, 300. The infobox should read 40–300 killed.

The phrase "While some modern scholars consider the English casualty figures given to be improbably low, Rogers argues that they are consistent with reports of casualties on the winning side in other medieval battles" seems rather out of context. "some modern scholars" is not only vague but I am also not familiar with any source that gives a death toll higher than 300, so the phrase isn't really referring to anyone here and I think it should be removed. To give the specific names of the Englishmen killed also seems rather redundant. Aforst1 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Aforst1. Thanks for bringing the query here. Apologies for not getting back to you sooner. I am away for the weekend, so could you bear with me for a couple more days and I will then dig my sources out and get back to you properly. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your continuing interest in this article, and apologies for taking so long to get back to you.
 * Your first point. I do not "quote" DeVries, I cite him. Their is no "apparently", the citation is explicit. You are quite right that the middle number should read 40, per Geoffrey the Baker and I have changed it; thanks for picking that up. DeVries is quite clear that this is a figure for "English notables". He goes on "No original source mentions numbers of non-notable English dead." It does not "represent a total tally of the dead rather than only notables".
 * Your second point. This seems, to me, a mix of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Have you read the DeVries? "Only three sources mention the number of English notable dead: 3 (Adam Murimuth); 40 (Geoffrey le Baker); 300 (Jean le Bel)." I see no reason to change the current text which (now, and thank you again) gives the figures of the only three contemporaries to record any: "All contemporary sources agree that English casualties were very low. Only three give specific figures for the English men-at-arms killed: 3; 40; and 300." If you have another contemporary source with a different figure I would, of course, be happy to include it. (Possibly the account of the German participant who claimed that only one English knight was killed? Which leaves open, of course, the number of other men-at-arms and non-men-at-arms killed.)
 * You may have a point with "some modern scholars consider the English casualty figures given to be improbably low". Let me dig into who Rogers is referring to. (I confess that most sources I can recall use words like "slight", "comparatively low", "light" or similar; and where specific numbers are given [rarely] they don't add up more than four figures at most.)
 * I don't like to seem pedantic, but when you write "To give the specific names of the Englishmen killed also seems rather redundant." what do you mean by "redundant". I have named a number of those killed on the French side, is that also "redundant"?
 * Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply and by all means take whatever time you need to respond. As I mentioned, DeVries is contradicted by Ayton and Prestwich (Battle of Crécy 1346 pp. 151, 191) who both say that the number 40 is a total for the entire English army. Remember that their book is a comprehensive work on the battle itself whereas Devries's isn't. As for the 'redundant' part, I chose the word poorly but what I meant was that the names of the two English casualties should be removed because they were largely inconsequential to the battle itself, unlike the named French casualties which include various counts, dukes and a king – all of whom had leading roles in the battle and whose deaths were highly significant at the time.
 * You mentioned the German source as well. But rather than just baldly list his and others' estimates, we should find a way to summarize the general consensus of the sources in a concise manner, keeping in line with the spirit of Wikipedia itself. For example, the text could read: "only three or four knights and squires were reported dead on the English side, and when the army mustered the following day it was reported that only 40 men in total had been killed. One historian considered these figures to be too low and argued for a death toll of around 300. Only two Englishmen – a knight and an esquire – killed at the battle have been identified; two English knights were also taken prisoner, at an unclear stage of the battle." That the sources barely mention the rank and file killed also surely deserves mention. Keep in mind that Jean Le Bel's figures are believed by historians to be wildly exaggerated, so I'm not sure his numbers should get attention.
 * Cheers. Aforst1 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your patience. You won't be surprised to hear that there is no support for the "some modern scholars consider" statement. Even Rogers says otherwise in other articles. (I "inherited" this statement when I took over the article as start class nine months ago, but that is a thin excuse for not checking it out properly.)
 * I think that you may be overweighting Ayton and Prestwich a little, but I don't see a need at the moment for us to have various sources - and goodness knows that there are enough of them - face off. How would you feel about:


 * The losses in the battle were highly asymmetrical. All contemporary sources agree that English casualties were very low. Only three give specific figures for the English men-at-arms killed: 3; 40; and 300. No contemporary source estimates how many non-notable English were killed. Modern historians believe that the total English casualties were fewer than 300, possibly considerably lower. To date, only two Englishmen killed at the battle have been identified; two English knights were also taken prisoner, although it is unclear at what stage in the battle this happened.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Gog the Mild. I would argue against relying too much on a mere footnote of DeVries's book here. We should drop the incorrect assertion that there are only three sources who give specific figures for English dead (Ayton, pp. 190–191, gives a handful). Also, the number 40 clearly [ represents the deaths in the whole army, not just men-at-arms]; DeVries must be wrong when he says the contrary, and in this he is contradicted by at least two historians in their more recent and more specialized work on the battle. The rest of your piece seems quite satisfactory. I suggest the following (changes from your paragraph in italic), with sources already included.
 * The losses in the battle were highly asymmetrical. All contemporary sources agree that English casualties were very low. Broadly, it was reported that English deaths comprised three or four men-at-arms and a small handful of archers and Welshmen, for a total of only some 40 men according to a roll-call made after the battle. It has been suggested that these numbers are too small and that English casualties might have numbered around 300. To date, only two Englishmen killed at the battle have been identified; two English knights were also taken prisoner, although it is unclear at what stage in the battle this happened.


 * Aforst1 (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no real objection to that, with some mild copy editing. It seems at least as well sourced as the current version, arguably better. And I suspect that it better reflects both your and my "feel" for what the casualties were. Change made. See what you think.
 * Also, it is entirely possible for both 40 "deaths" and 300 "casualties" to be correct. A highish ratio of wounded and captured to dead, but possible. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , this seems good, though I would only add that 300 seems to also refer to deaths. Thanks for taking the time to go through this. Aforst1 (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , and thanks for putting the work in and putting up with my tetchiness. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
 * , and thanks for putting the work in and putting up with my tetchiness. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Changes to the lead
Hi and thanks for your changes to this article. However, it is a convention in Wikipedia articles that information is only included in the lead if it is already in the main article. As there is nothing there on the killing of prisoners, I have reverted your mention of it in the lead. However, if you have a reliable source which supports this then please bring it to this talk page for discussion - I am unaware of any source which mentions the deliberate killing of prisoners. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistency in two articles
This in the section on archery duel, this article states "The English archers de-strung their bows to avoid the strings becoming slackened; the Genoese with their crossbows did not need to take precautions, as their bowstrings were made of leather"

However, the article on Genoese crossbowman say the following on the event: "The strings of the crossbows thus became stretched upon being drenched by rain. When the rain-soaked and now-stretched crossbow strings were used roughly an hour later during the initial attack against the emplaced and defending English, the crossbows were largely rendered useless." --2601:1C1:C200:D5:2F97:9C83:2374:669D (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This is probably because the statement in Genoese crossbowman is sourced to an 1875 book written by a retired British Army officer, while the one in this article is sourced to a modern (1996) book by a professional historian. Feel free to amend the statement in Genoese crossbowman. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Casualties
By all means let us discuss improvements and/or better sourcing. But please read WP:FAOWN. This is a Featured Article, which means that a strong consensus has formed as to its current state. You can't just change figures on the back of a lengthy edit summary. See some of the discussions above for how such changes to an FA consensus are usually thrashed out. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is the usual issue of complicated questions being squashed into an infobox. It might be better to just call the English casualties "low" and the French "high" in the box, with hidden notes not to meddle without discussion. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It may, but as the current approach has been accepted at GA, ACR and FAC it is going to take a strong consensus to change it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Greetings! I do not understand how you came to the consensus of the current state of the page to begin with. 40 (based on a random medieval "call") while modern estimates center around 300 as being more credible estimates. Or 4,000 nobles dead given by an English medieval chronicler despite the name of all the nobles who died in that battle are well registered in french archives is a bit much. Hence why I suggested the source was probably mistakenly including the Genoese as "nobles" as they were ignored in the casualties, while the infantry was mentioned. Their numbers when added to the nobles dead do make it to almost 4,000 indeed. My dearest apologies. I did not even see your first message. I would not have edited the page again without talking about it with you first. (Jules Agathias (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC))
 * , and greetings to you too. No harm done, you are at the right place now. Wikipedia can be a confusing place. It may be, optionally, worth your while skimming WP:FAOWN for future reference. Regarding this article, it may be worthwhile skimming, I don't think that you would want to actually read, the FAC review to gain an idea of the process and challenges the article has been through.
 * This certainly doesn't mean that the article is perfect or cannot be changed. For example, just above is the "Casualty figures for the English" thread where Aforst1 and I spent 6 weeks debating a very similar topic to this one, with much quoting of sources, which resulted in some changes to the text: see here.
 * The infobox is meant to be a brief summary - not an exhaustive one - of some features of the article. So everything in the infobox should be in the main article, where it should be cited to a reliable source. So a good place to start if you dislike something in the infobox would be to check where the same information is in the article, check that it is cited, check that the source cited is WP:RS, check that the citation actually supports the text in the article. If you feel that any one of those points breaks down then flag it up here.
 * If something in the infobox passes all of those checks and you still don't like it, then still feel free to comment on it here, but be aware that it may be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, in which case - as I know from my own frustrating experience - there is probably not a lot you can do about it.
 * Last but not least, thank you very much for your interest in improving this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it! Still kind of new to the whole process on english wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up (Jules Agathias (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC))
 * If something in the infobox passes all of those checks and you still don't like it, then still feel free to comment on it here, but be aware that it may be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, in which case - as I know from my own frustrating experience - there is probably not a lot you can do about it.
 * Last but not least, thank you very much for your interest in improving this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Got it! Still kind of new to the whole process on english wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up (Jules Agathias (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC))
 * Got it! Still kind of new to the whole process on english wikipedia. Thanks for the heads up (Jules Agathias (talk) 06:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC))


 * greetings. I was kind of responsible for the current English casualty numbers. Both the upper (300) and lower (40) limits were considered acceptable by the sources used in the article (Ayton & Preston pp. 151, 191). If you're interested in how the range came to be, it goes as follows. 40 is apparently a tally of total English dead counted right after the battle, and 300 is given by Jean Le Bel for English knights only. Since Le Bel frequently exaggerates, this has been speculated to mean instead the total number of dead. Rogers (War Cruel and Sharp, p. 270 n.) suggested it might even be higher, but likewise acknowledged that an eyewitness's estimate of 3 men-at-arms plus a few Welsh (which does sort of agree with the figure of 40 men) is also not impossible.
 * I do agree with your take on the French casualties. 4,000 does seem too high a number for the knights alone. In the article text, 4,000 being "deemed credible by historians" refers to a 1996 book by Prestwich, but the same author 10 years later in Ayton & Preston's Battle of Crécy makes no mention of it, and only used the more usual 1,542. Rogers and Sumption did the same, and it does make sense that the most precise number should be the correct one. I would also propose doing away with the last 3 sentences of the Casualties section, which give absurd and speculative numbers. Avis11 (talk) 22:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Avis! Yes the 40 and 300 casualties given in medieval accounts are mentioned Ayton and Rogers. The first is based on a record which gives the number of English dead following a call made after the battle but is not endorsed by them. While the second is their own modern estimates (which might be based on Jean Le Bel's works as you said) as they consider the first to be too small a number and unrealistic, as well as deeming the methodology (a call) to not be a credible source for the time period.
 * I took a look at various sources for the whole potential 4,000 nobles killed as well but yeah, this article is the only one giving such a high number. It is almost 3 times as many as the general estimates which gravitate around the 1500. Do you take care of it or should I? Have a nice day. (Jules Agathias (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC))


 * Neither. You reach a broad consensus; then you flag up your proposed new wording here and ping potentially interested parties; you leave it a couple of weeks for any comments; then, if the consensus holds someone can/will make the change.
 * For the sort of thing being discussed someone is going to need to do a review of the literature. To give a feel - I am not saying that this is the only way of approaching it - yesterday I responded to a query of whether a number in my current FAC - Battle of Cape Hermaeum - was the consensus of modern scholars. I responded with this summary of what eight sources' views were. (Only eight as this is a fairly neglected corner of history.) The fuller discussion is here - Featured article candidates/Battle of Cape Hermaeum/archive1.
 * Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * For a review of sources, the ones to which I have immediate access unequivocally give 1,542 or thereabouts for the number of noble men-at-arms killed. I can cite Ayton & Preston's (2006) Battle of Crécy (pp. 19, 151, 294, 394), Rogers's (2000) War Cruel and Sharp (p. 270), and Sumption's (1990) Trial by Battle (p. 530). Not used in the article is David Nicolle's (2000) Crécy 1346, which explicitly rejects the 4,000 figure as an exaggeration and again prefers 1,542. Based on all these, I propose rewording the entry on the French casualties to the following:
 * ... According to a count made by the English heralds after the battle, the bodies of 1,542 French noble men-at-arms were found, perhaps not including the [up to] hundreds who died in the clash of the following day or who were otherwise scattered throughout the field. Over 2,200 heraldic coats were supposedly taken from the field of battle as war booty by the English. No such count was made of the lower-born soldiers, as their equipment was not worth looting, (Sumption p. 530) although their casualties were also considered to have been heavy, and a large number were reported to have been wounded with arrows. (Rogers p. 270) The casualties on the second day of battle alone were said to have been exceptionally heavy (cf. Cavalry charges, final paragraph), with estimates varying from 2,000 to, according to Edward III himself, 4,000, killed. (Rogers pp. 270–271) One contemporary stated that the Genoese crossbowmen were annihilated (Rogers p. 270), but a modern historian suggested they might have only suffered light casualties (Mitchell p. 249, cf. Archery duel).
 * The parts in bold are new additions on my part. Note that the latter 4,000 is the number given by Edward III himself for the deaths on 27 August alone, and has nothing to do with the previously discussed number of 4,000 knights killed, which itself comes from Geoffrey the Baker. Avis11 (talk) 16:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi again Gog! Well that's quite the process! haha. Avis states he was the one to have put the casualties in the infobox. Considering not so "reliable" sorting of it as he himself admits, it is a bit surprising that the article stayed that way so long, while classified as a "featured article". Was there a previous consensus established? If anything close to 4,000 French nobles were killed at Crécy, there must be something extremely wrong with French records. That's more than 3 times the number of aristocrats registered as having died. This right here is one of the official archives and the nobles who died that day are all listed from page 319 to page 352.... https://books.google.fr/books?id=K6dSAAAAcAAJ Eleven of those dead were of High nobilty (the french king's brother and the king of Bohemia among them). I would have linked it as a source when I edited the page but it's in french and this an english website so.... haha. I could unfortunately not find it in the english language. I was even surprised to find it online a week ago. I originally saw the archives at the Bibliothèque nationale de France (France's national Library). Have a nice evening (or day depending on where you're from). (Jules Agathias (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC))
 * I am not responsible the current French casualty numbers in the infobox, only that of the English. Did you miss my post just above yours, in bold, addressing this very issue? Avis11 (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh I missed it. Sorry! Misinterpreted your previous post as well. I thought you were the one who inserted all casualties in the infobox. Much appreciated quotes, thanks. I mean yeah... with all of that, what exactly do we need a consensus for really? I was simply shocked to see 40 Englishmen killed and up to 4,000 french nobles alone (on top of the casualties among the other ranks) being given as credible estimates as french records and modern estimates do not match that. I mean sure there can be differences, but not to that ridiculous level, hence my edit. But hey, I'll leave this one to you guys. The whole process to change it seems to be a giant pain in the... if Gog is to be believed haha. I am out haha (Jules Agathias (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC))

Units
In this series of edits, changed the primary units used throughout the article to SI. At least one of the conversions (20 miles -> 20 km) was a flat-out error, but I've reverted en masse since I think this would merit discussion - this article has been extensively reviewed already and nobody else has had an issue with the units used. Courtesy ping to. Girth Summit  (blether) 09:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From WP:UNIT "In non-scientific articles with strong ties to the United Kingdom, the primary units for most quantities are metric or other internationally used units, except that: ... the primary units for distance/​length, speed and fuel consumption are miles". Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * In the Wikipedia MOS it states, "the main unit in which a quantity is expressed should generally be an SI unit or non-SI unit officially accepted for use with the SI". This article was about battle was in France, nationalities of combatants is irrelevant, the battle has stronger ties to France than the UK, if the French fight a battle in the UK should the primary unit be metric? Battle of Hasting? The manual of style overrules the preference of individuals. I personally would appreciate it if you could revert the article to SI primary.Avi8tor (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:UNIT is met, twicely: this is not a scientific article (!!!) and clearly it does have strong ties with the UK (the battle may have been in France, but it's disingenuous, to say the least, to suggest that being one of two combatants does not constitute a strong link). Cheers, ——  Serial  16:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It took place in Ponthieu, which was English. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * True, GtM, but I didn't want to encourage the French nationalists. Oops, too late :)   ——  Serial  06:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Avi8tor (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Not today it isn't, I think you both are trying to impose you personal opinion on something that is at odds with the MOS. I gave the example of Hastings in England, the French (Normans) took it in war, does that make it French now? Should all the units in the UK revert to SI primary because of that battle? After all, the French Normans took the took England in battle, just as the English did in Crécy, your rationale on the above would say so! Avi8tor (talk) 06:41, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , for an article to have gone through the rigours of a Features Article review, a lot of experienced editors will have looked at it very much with the MOS in mind - I'm not saying your view is wrong, but it's probably fair to say that a significant number of people have already thought about this and taken a different view. Hastings is a different situation altogether - it was part of England when William attacked it. Ponthieu was English when the battle took place. Girth Summit  (blether)  18:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ,I still believe it's an incredibly arrogant view to have, that a part of France in the 1300's shall now be classed as having a greater connection to England than to France. I think this edit should be investigated further, despite your suggestions, it does not comply with the MOS. This only happens because 2 countries still use miles while the rest of the planet does not. The mile in the 1300's were not the same distance as the present mile, every local area had a different mile. If you live in one of these 2 countries you of course want your unit to predominate, disregarding other English readers of Wikipedia. Avi8tor (talk) 05:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , arrogant, disregard - what's with the aggressive approach? No one has been rude to you, please rein it in. Don't make sweeping assumptions about other people either - if you read any article I've written you'll see that I always use metric as primary and convert. I recognise that there are other valid viewpoints however, and the MOS does not require that the ties to the UK be clearly stronger than the ties to any other nation, just that they be strong, which they are here - the units choice is therefore a judgment call, and a strong consensus would be required to change it on an article which has already been so thoroughly reviewed. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Avi8tor to an extent: there is a greater French connection than UK as it’s an English v French battle on French soil: UK factors = 1; French factors = 2. (I don’t think saying that it was English territory at the time works. It was never claimed to be part of the Kingdom of England. Edward was claiming to be King of a France.) But that’s not the test for WP:UNIT. That just requires that an article “with strong ties to the United Kingdom” (which this one undoubtedly has) uses miles. It doesn’t seem to matter that there might be stronger ties with another country. WP:UNIT seems to be written in an anomalously Anglo-centric way. But there it is. For information, I’ve queried this on the talk page of the MOS. DeCausa (talk) 09:52, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I should be clear on one other point: the article has both miles and km so I don’t think it matters anyway. Of more interest (I think) is the apparent anomaly in WP:UNIT.DeCausa (talk) 11:49, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry not trying to be aggressive, I'm just utterly amazed that someone could say a battlefield in France has more ties to the UK, it's a very UK centric outlook. I live in France but am not a native and would imagine any French person would take exception to the statement, I know French people who read the English Wikipedia, just as I read the French Wikipedia. Avi8tor (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , no worries. As I think is clear now, the argument is not that it necessarily has stronger ties to the UK, but that it has strong ties to the UK. You can review the discussion about the units with relation to the MOS at the article's FAC review. All I'm saying is that when an article has been thoroughly reviewed in that way, an individual editor shouldn't take it upon themselves to make wholesale changes to it because of their own interpretation of the MOS - it should be discussed. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  14:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are totally missing the point (and continuing to be very agressive). The point is not whether it has stronger ties to Britain than France, but whether it has stronger ties to Britain than to any other English-speaking part of the world that speaks a different variety of English, such as American English or Indian English .  This is the English Wikipedia, so the article is in English (I trust you are ok with that?).  The question is: which national variety is appropriate.  And, by the way and not that it matters in WP policy terms, the variety of English that the French are officially supposed to use, and get taught in schools, is British English.  Johnbod (talk) 16:14, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No I think it's you that are missing the point, this discussion was not which branch of English the article is in, it's about the language of measurement, and most of the world with the exception of the UK and the USA now talk SI (metric) exclusively, the UK more than the USA. It appears the UK uses metres for short distances and miles for long distances. English speakers in the Antipodes, Africa, etc don't talk inches or stones, etc. My daughter was incredulous when she found out the British used Stones for mass, she had no idea. The British also purchase fuel in litres but work out fuel economy in mpg, a different mpg than that used in the USA. There are too many articles in English Wikipedia where there is no SI unit. But I digress, measurement is also a language, understood worldwide when if in the SI. (unsigned)
 * Your household evidently lives in a permanent state of amazement at the stupidity of everyone else in the world. How very French. The British are in fact mostly thinking in kilos these days. The units used in any article (apart from conversion templates etc) normally go with the language variety. For example, one wouldn't expect this article to use lakhs and crores (better make sure your daughter is sitting down if you are going to tell her about these).  Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Location of battle
Crecy is in Picardy which is in the north-west of France — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnvanmaris (talk • contribs) 09:56, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Really? I guess you could make a case for it being in northern rather than north-east France, but that the battlefield is only 80 km from the modern Belgian border. If you think about France's north coastline, Britany is in the west, Normandy in the middle - describing Picardy as north-east doesn't seem like too much of a stretch. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with Johnvanmaris; I don't see how anything near the French coast could be considered "east." I edited the article to say "northern France." Brutannica (talk) 22:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Anyone who sees Blanchetaque or its environs as being in north-western France needs either their brains or their map-reading skills tested. ——  Serial  06:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Jean the Blind
To me it's noteworthy that the King of Bohemia died fighting for France in this battle. Am I the only one who feels this way? 71.209.83.224 (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, indeed you are not. From the text of the article "Famously, blind King John of Bohemia tied his horse's bridle to those of his attendants and galloped into the twilight; all were dragged from their horses and killed". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Use of the word "Welsh" in the introductory segment.
I want to build consensus on removing the word "Welsh" as a description for the English longbow force from the introductory description and will outline my reason why. The phrase "Welsh and English longbowmen" as a description of the force is very misleading. The phrase either implies that the force was comprised of Welsh and English soldiers in close or equal number, or that the Welsh presence despite it's small number was significant enough in the battle to constitute major recognition. Both of these implications are contrary to historical fact. Outlining a Welsh presence is fine for more precise breakdowns of the English army (although the same mistake of overstating the Welsh contribution is made later in the article in the army breakdown which I may also consider changing), but to describe the force in general terms as "Welsh and English" is simply incorrect and misleading.

If I don't get a response in a couple of days I'll assume that there is agreement that this edit is acceptable. Marvic 256 (talk) 15:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * You need to discuss this in the context of what WP:RS say not simply asserting your position. The reference to Welsh archers is supported by inline citations in the article. You’ll need to argue your point by explaining why the cited sources either don’t support the reference to Welshmen or there is some other reason (such as WP:UNDUE) why it should be removed. This seems unlikely given this article is an FA. 18:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * My issue is with the introductory statement which is a generalised insight into the content of the article and should be presented as such; the change I'm asking for isn't in breach of any points made in the article. I'm not arguing against the idea that Welsh people were in the English army, I'm arguing that the presentation of the Longbowmen as "English and Welsh" misleads people into thinking there was a parity between the English and Welsh contribution. The point I'm making is about LANGUAGE not ARGUMENTS, and communicating the historical context of the battle in a way that doesn't lead to people coming to the wrong conclusions, so your invoking of WP:RS and WP:UNDUE is irrelevant to the change I'm suggesting. Considering the minor nature of the change and the fact it doesn't dispute any arguments made within the main text of the argument this should be an easy change to permit. Marvic 256 (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the content of the body of the article. The reference to Welsh archers in the lead is because they are referred to in the body of the article, which in turn is supported by citations to WP:RS. In short, there’s no reason to remove the reference and you cited no reliable source supporting your proposal i.e. you presented no evidence that it misrepresents the role of the Welsh in the battle. It shouldn’t be removed therefore. DeCausa (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The introduction gives a general description of the English archers as Welsh and English whereas the reference to the Welsh in the article is in the context of a precise breakdown of the English army to outline all contributing elements. The context of each reference to the Welsh is entirely different and therefore dissimilar meaning that justification doesn't hold up. My change is about clarity of the communication not the fact of Welsh involvement so this change isn't relevant to WP:RS. No evidence has been provided that my change hinders the clarity of the communication or that it contradicts the content of the main text. It should therefore be changed. Marvic 256 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What you say makes no sense to me. The Welsh were an important element and reference to them shouldn’t be removed.DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, having now looked at the warnings/blocks on your talk page, I understand. You’re an WP:SPA on a campaign to “anglicise” multiple articles across WP. DeCausa (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As an FA, a strong consensus has formed around the current form of words. If you wish to change them an equally strong consensus to do so needs to be established. This does happen on occasion. Pinging all of those involved in the FAC to see if they agree with you or can be persuaded to do so would be a good start. Expect any unilateral edits based on your personal thoughts/feelings/logic to be reverted. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that the context of the use of Welsh in the introduction and it's use in the main text is different. In the introduction it is used to describe the longbowmen at a specific point in the battle as a general definition for that specific force, which after looking at the reference used, "The Battle of Crécy: Context and Significance", is actually incorrect, as the source makes no mention that the Welsh contribution is specific to the longbowmen, in fact in that same source on page 29 the only specific part of the army that is called "Welsh" are a force of spearmen, there's no mention of Welsh longbowmen, which is what is being stated in the introduction. Looking later in the article when the battle itself is discussed and specifically the archer duel, it states that it was English (not Welsh and English) longbowmen engaged in the duel. The article even addresses the fact that the only force of Welshmen that can be referenced specifically is a force of spearmen in the "Initial deployments" section. The reference to the Welsh in the breakdown of English army the article however is correct, as the use of Welsh is part of a general breakdown of the composition of the entire force and takes into account all elements rather than the incorrect longbow description in the introduction. I actually now have to change the nature of the argument I'm making because after reading the full article and it's sources about the Welsh contribution this isn't just a simple language issue anymore but instead a fundamental failure to use the source information correctly to the degree that the introduction contradicts the main articles text. It is for this reason that it needs to be changed, otherwise the article's introduction is making ahistorical claims that are inconsistent with the information and sources the article is presenting.Marvic 256 (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Use of the word "Welsh" in the introduction (continued)
In the last discussion I made a final argument incorporating issues concerning WP:RS that make the use of the word "Welsh" an issue, which is exactly what you asked for as the evidence for change. I waited a couple of days for a response and got no feedback, so I attempted to make the edit (believing the issue resolved) and have now been blocked. If you are going to prevent the edit then at least give your reason for why the argument is wrong. I'm going to repeat my argument below and expect some kind of justification for why the edit doesn't conform with the criteria for a necessary edit:

My point is that the context of the use of Welsh in the introduction and it's use in the main text is different. In the introduction it is used to describe the longbowmen at a specific point in the battle as a general definition for that specific force, which after looking at the reference used, "The Battle of Crécy: Context and Significance", is actually incorrect, as the source makes no mention that the Welsh contribution is specific to the longbowmen, in fact in that same source on page 29 the only specific part of the army that is called "Welsh" are a force of spearmen, there's no mention of Welsh longbowmen, which is what is being stated in the introduction. Looking later in the article when the battle itself is discussed and specifically the archer duel, it states that it was English (not Welsh and English) longbowmen engaged in the duel. The article even addresses the fact that the only force of Welshmen that can be referenced specifically is a force of spearmen in the "Initial deployments" section. The reference to the Welsh in the breakdown of English army the article however is correct, as the use of Welsh is part of a general breakdown of the composition of the entire force and takes into account all elements rather than the incorrect longbow description in the introduction. I actually now have to change the nature of the argument I'm making because after reading the full article and it's sources about the Welsh contribution this isn't just a simple language issue anymore but instead a fundamental failure to use the source information correctly to the degree that the introduction contradicts the main articles text. It is for this reason that it needs to be changed, otherwise the article's introduction is making ahistorical claims that are inconsistent with the information and sources the article is presenting.Marvic 256 (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring talk page arguments on Battle of Crecy article.

 * This was on my talk page, but seems a better fit here, so I am moving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

You seem to be the most active individual on the Battle of Crécy article in reverting my edits and insisting on talk page discussion. I have, twice now, made an argument on the talk page that is in line with the criteria you asked for, specifically WP:RS, and you have failed to respond to it. I'm happy to discuss whether it is correct or not however everybody active on the article seems to be wilfully ignoring the argument I'm making and not even responding. If you are so insistent on talk page discussion then please respond to why the argument I've made, rather than pretending it doesn't exist.Marvic 256 (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have responded. I disagree with you. The emphasis is on you, as the editor seeking to change the existing consensus, to establish a new one. So far you haven't. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No you haven't. I made a new argument specifically constructed around the WP:RS which is what you and others asked for. No one has responded to that argument. It's hard to get a consensus when no one reads and responds to the argument I'm making in order to try and build one. Marvic 256 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not asked you to construct any argument. If you think I have, please supply a diff. I have told you that you need to build a consensus at least as strong as the one which agreed the current form of words at FAC. I supplied some helpful tips as to how you might do this. Another helpful tip: referencing your preferred language to a consensus of reliable sources is likely to be helpful in building such a consensus. Your repeating your view, either in the same words or via "a new argument specifically constructed", is only effective in so far as it may help to build such a consensus. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You said to me that I can "Expect any unilateral edits based on your personal thoughts/feelings/logic to be reverted" which strongly suggests I need to build a consensus around an argument based on Wikipedia guidelines, which I did, and nobody has told me why it's incorrect. The tip you gave me was "Pinging all of those involved in the FAC". I have no idea who all those people are or where I can find them are so the best I can do is start a talk page section which they hopefully see so they can tell me where I've gone wrong, which nobody has done since I updated my argument. I'm not repeating my view, the only part which is repeated is the fact I want Welsh to be removed from the introductory description of the longbow force, the reason why however is completely different and relates to WP:RS which is an issue that should be considered. The only person who is consistently reverting my edit is you, so if you could at least do the courtesy of going to the Battle of Crécy talk page, read my new argument, and state why I'm incorrect then I will be satisfied. Marvic 256 (talk) 22:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Marvic 256, you need to gain consensus for your proposed change here on the talk page, don't just keep removing stuff from the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Ian Rose As you can see on this talk page I have for multiple times now introduced a rock solid argument concerning WP:RS for why any mention of Welsh bowmen should be removed from this article. This argument, which I was asked to produce in order to permit this change, has been totally ignored by everyone involved in this article's editing process, which leaves my only option to sporadically return to this article from time to time to make the change until someone at the very least addresses why the argument is wrong. Thanks, Marvic 256 (talk) 06:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the Ayton and Preston source makes frequent mention of Welsh archers in the English force; I can't understand what your argument is for removing it. Girth Summit  (blether)  17:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Girth Summit  (blether) they don't make any reference to Welsh archers only English Archers. The only Welsh soldiers explicitly referenced in that source are a contingent of Welsh spearmen. A good example of incorrect use of this source is in the aftermath section of the article when it states English and Welsh archers were used as mercenaries in Italy and cites page 30 of "The Battle of Crecy" to prove this. If you actually read page 30 it only mentions English archers, there's no mention of the Welsh at all. The Ayton and Preston source makes no mention of Welsh archers during this battle or as mercenaries after, this is why any mention of Welsh archers need to be removed from this article. Marvic 256 (talk) 12:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , try Ctrl+F "Welsh archers" and/or "Welsh longbowmen". There are many references. Girth Summit  (blether)  13:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Girth Summit  (blether) Welsh Longbowmen, 0 mentions, Welsh archers, 4. The first mention of Welsh archers concerns Edward III providing a small reinforcement force of 300 Welsh archers to the Siege of Aiguillon, Irrelevant to the battle of Crecy. The second mention is in reference to the surviving fragments Walter Wetwang’s accounts as a source for the Edwardian phase of the Hundred Years war. The use of Welsh archers is in a concluding statement that these accounts show little information about archer companies that may have been either English or Welsh throughout the Edwardian phase, so far from attesting to the existence of Welsh archers at Crecy, this actually argues we have little knowledge about Welsh and English archer companies over the entire Edwardian phase of the war from this source, which makes it irrelevant to the composition archer companies specifically involved in Crecy. The Third mention is from the quote "what can be said about the English and Welsh archers and spearmen at Crécy?". Considering that Welsh and English is being used in conjunction with spearmen and archers, and the only explicit reference to Welsh soldiers in this source are as Spearmen, it's clear that it's using Welsh to give a partial description of the Spearmen, not the archers, and is using English and Welsh as a broad description for the combined force of archers and spearmen, with the Welsh part being relevant to the Spearmen specifically. The last mention of Welsh archers is as a footnote from an estimate of archers that was arrayed above a specific ridge at Crecy. Far from confirming the existence of Welsh archers, it actually calls into question that they existed, stating that they are a mysterious contingent that was vaguely touched upon in the abstract of the Walter Wetwang accounts, hence why the only reference to them is as a speculative footnote and not in the main body of text. If this mystery contingent of Welsh archers that the author himself confines to a footnote due to the uncertain nature of their existence is what you're using to persistently defend the presence of Welsh archers in the text, then this article shouldn't be broadly defining the archers as Welsh and English, because the source you're using doesn't treat their questionable presence as warranting that kind of certain description.


 * To summarise, the source doesn't make "many references" to Welsh archers, it makes four, three of which being irrelevant to Welsh archers at Crecy, and the fourth being a footnote on the uncertain nature of a specific Welsh force attested to by a single, fragmented account. The fact the author has that kind of major uncertainty tells us clearly that we shouldn't be using broad, concrete descriptions of archers being Welsh in this article. If the source doesn't have the necessary certainty about there presence to warrant that description, then this article certainly shouldn't. Marvic 256 (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , hmm, I thought there were more than that. There's another one if you search for 'Welsh archer', that throws up "English and Welsh archer companies..." - does that set your mind at ease? Girth Summit  (blether)  17:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Girth Summit  (blether) I missed that one (which makes it five references to Welsh archers in total). It's talking about the general structure and organisation of archer companies (Whether they be English or Welsh) in the English kingdom during and around the time of the Edwardian campaign. It's not attesting specifically to a Welsh presence at the battle itself and therefore doesn't provide the evidence necessary to describe archers at Crecy as "Welsh and English". Marvic 256 (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I have been largely off Wikipedia for the past week and have lost track of just what this debate is about. But, would it help if I pointed out that the lead as it was promoted to FA contained "During a brief archery duel a large force of French mercenary crossbowmen was routed by English longbowmen"? I don't know who added "Welsh and"; possibly someone cleverer than me could identify them. If they care. Would there be consensus for me removing "Welsh and" under FAOWN? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Although note Sumption p. 492 "Welsh archers". Livingstone & Witzel pp. 163, VII 2 x "Welsh archers". M Loades (2013) p. 35 The Longbow "archers ... from Wales on the Crecy campaign". Ayton & Preston p. 216 "the English and Welsh archers and spearmen at Crécy"; p. 220 "About two-thirds of the archers at Crécy – the foot archers – had been recruited by commissioners of array in the English shires, or by the ‘stewards or bailiffs’ of the Welsh lordships."; p. 290 " the role played by the English (or ‘Welsh’ as some insist) archers in Edward III’s victory"; p. 370 "a contingent of Welsh archers attached to the prince’s retinue"; p. 161 "the companies of English and Welsh archers"; p. 188 "English and Welsh archer companies". Etc, etc, ad nauseum. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , the word Welsh was added a couple of years ago in this diff, and appears from a quick skim to have been uncontested until now. I don't imagine that there are many editors with your familiarity with the sources though - if you think it's not needed, I would bow to your judgment, but if you think it was an improvement I'd have thought that the sources referenced in your last post would be sufficient. Girth Summit  (blether)  06:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't say, nor mean to imply, that I thought it was not needed. Rather that this is Wikipedia and that my opinion is less important than the sources and the consensus based on them.
 * There seems to be no dispute that the sources all say that a lot of Welshmen fought at Crecy. Nor that many sources don't go out of their way to detail their specific roles. Which is slightly confused by all of the "spearmen" being Welsh, so this is sometimes specified while the archers are lumped together as "English". However, plenty of HQ RSs do specify that Welsh archers were present at Crecy - in an unknown ratio to their English counterparts. No source I am aware of gives any indication of disagreeing with the idea that a high proportion of the longbowmen at Crecy were Welsh. And given that there have been modern exchanges of journal articles on such topics as whether longbow arrows were capable of killing anyone (seriously!) it seems inconceivable that these frequent claims would not have been challenged if they were not the clear scholarly consensus.
 * All of this being so, it seems to me - speaking as just a single editor, albeit the main author of the article and off the back of over 20 FAs from the period having some familiarity with the sources - that the addition of "Welsh and" is an improvement, even in the brief summary which is the lead. It has also been in the article for some time now, and so seems to have become the consensual norm. In brief, I feel that no change to the lead is needed.
 * If I am understanding the position correctly [?] the argument for removing these two words is that either there is a total lack of sourcing to support the presence of Welsh bowmen, or a lack of a scholarly consensus. I feel that the ten supporting references I give above demolish the first argument (in passing, these came from a brief trawl of what I had to hand, there are many more similar HQ RS claims), and together with my comments above make the second improbable. As always, the status quo rules, unless an editor wishing to remove sourced text can both evidence a scholarly consensus against it and gain a Wikipedia consensus for removal. I look forward with interest to seeing 's response. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be a pretty convincing rationale (with the above collection of references) for keeping it in. DeCausa (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading through the rest of the page, my eye is caught by @ "which leaves my only option to sporadically return to this article from time to time to make the change". This seems to be stating that you intend to periodically vandalise the page. Can I urge you to step back from this position before more formal notice is taken of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too. Marvic256 has reverted 8 times since the 26 August. Another revert and the next stop would be WP:AN3 for non-3RR edit-warring. DeCausa (talk) 13:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a productive way to deal with this is to firstly go through the evidence that there were Welsh archers at the Battle of Crecy by examine the examples Gog the Mild has provided. Before I do it's important to note that the article references one book to prove the point that Welsh archers were present at the battle and every mention of Welsh archers in the article is accompanied by an in-text citation of this book. "The Battle of Crecy" by Ayton and Preston which is being used as the evidence doesn't support this fact whatsoever and I've already gone through in my previous replies excruciating detail to show that every reference to Welsh archers in that book doesn't attest to there presence at the Battle of Crecy. Even if I am wrong on the presence of Welsh archers, Which I've so far not been proven to be, the article is still fabricating conclusions based on a source that doesn't support them, and that on it's own is objectionable. Sumption's book references Welsh archers twice in a breakdown of the English army over the entire Edwardian campaign (including the Siege of Aiguillon which is the only case where Welsh archers are explicitly named as a small reinforcement detachment), not Crecy specifically, you can't use him as a source of evidence to attest to a Welsh presence at Crecy when he never makes that claim. The references to the Welsh on p.163 of the Livingston and Witzel source are discussing the Battle of Caen, not Crecy, so not relevant to this article. The Mike Loades book is not being used as a reference for this Wikipedia article so it's already irrelevant on that basis but it's also making comments concerning Welsh archers in the English military over the entire Crecy campaign and isn't attesting to their presence at the battle specifically, so it's also irrelevant on that front. I've already dealt with Ayton & Preston in great detail as to how every single reference to Welsh archers in that book isn't proving their presence at the Battle of Crecy, so I'm not going over it again.


 * It seems that every single piece of evidence being produced to prove their presence is quotes being taken out of context. Just because the phrase Welsh archer or something close to that is included in a book about or touching on the battle of Crecy doesn't mean that they are being specifically attested to in the battle itself. The fact of the matter is that the one book that really matters on this subject is the Ayton & Preston source, and the only reference to Welsh archers by the authors at the battle of Crecy itself is done with incredible caution as a footnote speculating on the great uncertainty behind a supposed Welsh archer contingent. This article has taken that reference and spun it into to an unambiguous description of the archers present at Crecy as "Welsh and English". If you are going to discuss the uncertain Welsh presence it should be in the English part of the "opposing forces" section of the article, qualifying the fact that their presence should be taken with a degree of caution equal to that which the source expresses. The introductory mention of Welsh archers needs to be removed for that fact, as does the unambiguous declaration of a Welsh Longbowmen presence in the opposing forces section. The mention of Welsh archer mercenaries in the aftermath section needs to be totally removed as p.30 of the Ayton and Preston source which is being cited as evidence doesn't even contain the word Welsh when describing the mercenaries.


 * Reading through this it's also worrying that Gog is trying to shift the Burden of evidence on me to prove that Welsh archers weren't at that battle. That's like saying that I can only prove that Godzilla wasn't at the battle of Crecy by finding a Scholar that specifically states "Godzilla was not at the battle of Crecy". That fact Scholars don't attest to Godzilla's presence at Crecy is the proof that he wasn't at Crecy. By the same vein scholars aren't attesting to Welsh archers at Crecy which proves the argument they weren't. The fact that all the sources are in a consensus by either omitting, or treating with great caution a Welsh archer presence at the battle is enough evidence to prove the point I'm making. The burden is on you guys to provide evidence which explicitly attests to a Welsh archer presence, not just out of context quotes. I have demolished every piece of evidence people have given me in order to prove a Welsh presence with both my first paragraph of this response and previous replies. As long as you can't find a solid source to prove your case then the presence of Welsh archers isn't a tenable position.


 * I've been fighting for this change for almost a month now, and I think I've built an incredibly strong case to permit this change. Marvic 256 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , and I don't think that you have built a case at all. You seem to have started with a conclusion and ignored any evidence which supports it. A number of entries from here get a tick. I repeat yet again, there is no requirement for anyone to engage with your argument - that is not how Wikipedia works. If you wish a change to be made it is up to you to build a consensus for this. So far you do not seem to have persuaded a single person of the strength of your opinion. Unless and until you do I am disinclined to waste further time engaging with your attempt to rewrite the rules on how Wikipedia works. It seems a classic WP:TIMESINK. And please do not vandalise the article again. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild I've addressed every citation you gave me to support your view and showed you in detail they aren't supporting your argument. You seem to be ignoring the fact I've been incredibly forward in dealing with your arguments. I would love to see you name any fallacies you believe I'm engaging in, because for you I can name quite a few including quoting out of context, argument from authority, Poisoning the well and even some In-Group favouritism, island mentality and Ad hominem. The fact of the matter is that I've come to this talk section and built an argument based on what you and others asked for, that is, one based on WP:RS which I have defended fully, all despite your bad faith attempts to smear the edit as WP:TIMESINK. If you feel I've re-written the Wikipedia rules please tell me where, because you can't just falsify claims as an ad hominem attack against me with no proof. You sadly seem more concerned with attacking me, my motifs and instigating bad faith attacks then addressing the arguments I made specifically tackling your argument. If this goes on we might need to bring in some third party to look at this because you are acting with incredible bad faith in this exchange. Marvic 256 (talk) 10:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * there are some very strong indicators that you are WP:NOTHERE. Firstly, you’re edits to date across WP are solely directed at a POV of “anglicising” articles per this on your talk page from an admin. Secondly, you appear to have come to this article with the aim of pursuing that POV here because you started with one argument and then switched to a totally different. That is a very strong indicator that all you are doing is groping around for arguments to push through your POV. Thirdly, you have threatened to edit war to get your way (which leaves my only option to sporadically return to this article from time to time to make the change). Fourthly, it’s clear that through WP:WALLOFTEXT and WP:BLUDGEON you are not respecting WP:CONSENSUS. It’s time for you to drop the stick. DeCausa (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * DeCausa Sure I have a niche interest but that doesn't prove bad faith in itself, as I've proven with my consistent attempts to engage in good faith dialogues I have the best interests at heart for building a good reference for factual knowledge. I've even backed down in cases where the editors of an article have presented a really compelling case, such as with my James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick edit. I find it a little silly that you're criticising my change of argument because it was actually you who originally said I needed to change it specifically to match Wikipedia guidelines for the change to go through and, in a show of good faith, I pursued an argument which matches the wiki guidelines after finding that the edit is in fact an improvement. I never threatened an edit war, I said how else I'm supposed to pursue this edit if no one would engage with the argument I'm making, with the only option remaining if that's the case being sporadic editing. As you should notice from my record ever since people have re-engaged with my argument I'm not edit warring with anyone. I also haven't been engaging in WP:WALLOFTEXT. The key difference is stated in the article: "Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful". Considering the fact I was directly addressing every point brought up with relevant detail it doesn't constitute a wall of text. I also wasn't engaged in WP:BLUDGEON. It staes that bludgeon is "making the same argument over and over, to different people". I was doing the complete opposite, I was making a different argument to the same people, or enquiring as to why people weren't responding. Previously, You said to my past argument that the reason Welsh shouldn't be removed is because "you cited no reliable source supporting your proposal i.e. you presented no evidence that it misrepresents the role of the Welsh in the battle. It shouldn’t be removed therefore.". Since then I have produced a new argument conforming to that standard, so can you tell me why my argument still isn't convincing to you? Marvic 256 (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * , I haven't checked, but I don't think that Mike Loades said that Godzilla was present in the English army during the Crecy campaign? Assuming I'm right about that, it rather undermines the comparison you make above.
 * Ayton & Preston's chapter on the English army at Crécy refers extensively to the significant Welsh contingent. "It would appear that the Welsh Marches, including both Welsh lordships and English shires, contributed more manpower to the army at Crécy than any other region of comparable extent in King Edward's realm" and "Whatever the social standing of an archer, whether he was serving in a mixed retinue or a shire company, the characteristic that all presumably had in common was competence with the longbow. It would be natural to assume that proficiency with the bow was widespread among the peasantry of England and Wales in the 1340s", for example. Crucially however, you have ignored the passage that Gog quoted above, so I'll quote it again: "About two-thirds of the archers at Crécy – the foot archers – had been recruited by commissioners of array in the English shires, or by the ‘stewards or bailiffs’ of the Welsh lordships." That is specifically about archers present at the Battle of Crécy, it says that they were recruited from both England and Wales. It doesn't give us any sense of relevant sizes, but it says that there were archers from both places. Can we drop this now? Girth Summit  (blether)  12:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Girth Summit The Godzilla comparison was making a point about the burden of evidence, I don't know what that has to do with Mike Loades. In the case of the Chapter about "Welsh Marches" (Which I think I already looked at in reference to other Welsh mentions) talks about the entire campaign not this single battle. If that's not enough the author introduces his insights with the following statement on page 215: "In all likelihood the great majority of them were English archers (Welshmen are not common), but in only one case – William Dun of Ocle, ‘archer’ – can we be certain". To summarise there is only a single Welsh archer who is specifically attested to on the entire Crecy campaign, which is an insanely small piece of evidence. This single name by the way comes out of "over a thousand men who received charters of pardons during the march across Normandy or in the weeks immediately after Crécy". To put that into perspective of the named archers we know for certain were on the Crecy campaign under 0.1% of them were Welsh. I don't think we can make concrete statements like "Welsh and English" archers when that's the ratio we're dealing with. A source mentioning the proficiency with a longbow in Wales isn't evidence that Welsh people were at the Battle of Crecy. The next point concerning "Welsh lordships" is interesting because it requires knowing what a Welsh lordship is. A Welsh lordship isn't a territory of modern wales, they include modern English counties on the border of Wales. Ayton and Preston helpfully show this fact when they are presenting a table for levying targets in Welsh lordships on page 182 and 183 where you can clearly see English areas like Cheshire, Hereford and Shropshire are counted next to Welsh areas like Pembroke and Brecon. Just because the source says "Welsh lordships" were a source of archer recruitment doesn't mean they necessarily came from Wales, and taking this into consideration with the fact that specifically named archer contingents (like the royal mounted archer guard) came from English Welsh lordship counties like Shropshire and Cheshire, it really doesn't help in that respect. Looking at this it can be concluded that the only evidence for Welsh archers at the Battle of Crecy is a single named Welshman (who may not have even participated) and the footnote p.370 which speculates on a possible Welsh Archer contingent attached to the Prince of Wales. This is the extent of the evidence for Welsh archers. I'm more than happy to drop this. You should ask that same question to the people persistently preventing this edit going through because I have provided more than enough evidence to warrant it at this point. Marvic 256 (talk) 15:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't use another editor's signature when to ping them. WP:PING might be helpful.
 * I think you've misinterpreted that bit of the source. It's talking about the difficulty in differentiating between archers and hobelars from the surviving records. The quote, if we include the preceeding sentence, is "What we have are the names of over a thousand men who received charters of pardons during the march across Normandy or in the weeks immediately after Crécy. In all likelihood the great majority of them were English archers (Welshmen are not common), but in only one case – William Dun of Ocle, 'archer' – can we be certain." I interpret that as saying: They were probably mostly English archers - Welsh names aren't common in the charters - but only in the case of William Dun of Ocle can we be sure of the profession 'archer'.
 * So, we have sources describing the constitution of the English army in the Crécy campaign saying that it contained Welshmen (but not large fire-breathing rubbery lizards, thankfully), and another source talking about the army at the battle, repeatedly talking about Welsh people being in it, discussing the apparent widespread proficiency with the longbow in Wales, etc. I don't see a problem with retaining 'and Welsh' here, even if we can't be certain about the actual number of Welshmen involved. You think you have provided more than enough evidence to warrant removing it, but that's not really the case: the amount of evidence you need to provide is "enough to convince other people". So far, I'm not convinced. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  16:17, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to repeat my argument, I never said that Welsh people weren't part of the battle, I've admitted that Welsh spearmen are explicitly outlined as present during the battle. My issue is with Welsh archers. I can admit that my interpretation of that part was a bit uncharitable, it does seem to be profession oriented in it's point, but my main contention stands, which is that it relates to the entire campaign with all it's different theatres and troop exchanges. You can't use that to prove that at one battle specifically there was a significant enough Welsh presence to constitute a broad "welsh and English" description for the archers. The extent of the assumptions you need to make to extrapolate it to a broad "Welsh and English archer" description doesn't follow cleanly. You found an example of a Welsh archer on the campaign, you know welsh people were in the army at Crecy, Welsh people could use longbows, therefore there were Welsh archers at the battle and "Welsh and English" is therefore a compelling description. You see why that doesn't work? You're the one instituting your own insights and assumptions based on your (not the scholar's) interpretation of the evidence and how it could prove a Welsh archer presence. The fact is that The Welsh archer presence appears to be minuscule, We already know the charters of pardon show a limited Welsh presence in general, the Welsh presence in it's largest and most explicit role were as spearmen, and the Welsh archer presence for that reason must be negligible. Scholars seem to agree with me on the question of Welsh archers which is why during their explanations of troop deployments at the battle itself they aren't talking about Welsh archers. To be clear the amount of evidence I need isn't to convince other people, it is to convince you guys, so tell me, what's the evidence you're looking for? I was receptive to when I was told to build an argument in line with Wikipedia guidelines but that doesn't seem to be enough. I've shown you that scholars aren't mentioning Welsh archers at the battle (expect as very cautious footnotes), I've shown you that the aftermath section of this article is falsely crediting the Ayton source for saying there were Welsh archer mercenaries in Europe after the battle when the source only mentions the English with no mention of the Welsh whatsoever, and I've shown you that recruitment in Welsh Lordships doesn't mean necessarily mean the recruitment of Welsh soldiers (archers for this case specifically). Is there anything else I haven't touched on which is keeping you bound to your view? Because if you tell me I'll gladly look into it. Marvic 256 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC).
 * , there's no need to repeat your argument, I think I've heard it, thank you. I'm not convinced. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  22:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You misinterpreted my argument and I'm not convinced by your rational for keeping it in, Thanks. Marvic 256 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As it’s you that would like to make the change it’s for you to convince others of your rationale (not the other way round). You’ve been arguing for this on this talk page for 4 weeks now and have persuaded no one and have been reverted 8 times by multiple editors. I think we’re done. DeCausa (talk) 08:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how to convince you. I've broken each and every argument against the edit yet the people who make them won't concede they are wrong despite not having any reply. I need people to tell me what kind of evidence they are looking for because I've shown each argument against the edit is wrong but obviously that's not enough. Marvic 256 (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)