Talk:Battle of Poitiers

Several problems that need to be discussed
Since is asking me to give my points on the talk page before I modify the article (although I've already done it, right above), here they are : It is obvious that primary sources explicitly used by secondary sources shouldn't be described as "modern sources". Why is it the case in this article? It makes people believe that these estimates come from modern computations, whereas the authors using them explicitly mention that they are primary estimates. Sumption, Rogers or Hoskins are the relays of these primary estimates, not the source of any of these estimates. Therefore, to say that "according to different modern sources, 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms and either 500 or 800 common soldiers were taken prisoner during the battle" is wrong. And to add that "approximately 2,500 French men-at-arms were killed" in an assertive tone is also wrong. It is the same thing for the infobox, it should be precised that these estimates come from contemporary (English for the highest, French for the lowest) sources. Why are the (real) sources of these estimates never mentioned?

Also,, you've made several mistakes. The French source mentioned by Hoskins (have you read it?) claims that 800 French were killed and 700 captured, in total (not 800 common soldiers killed and 700 captured). It's obviously lower than the truth, just like the claim that 3,800 common soldiers were killed or captured is higher than the truth, since it would mean that the common soldiers were annihilated at 100% or more. However, it is never mentioned that this estimate comes from a contemporary source.

When you write that "According to different modern sources 2,000 to 3,000 French men-at-arms were taken prisoner", for the high estimate, you're referring to Sumption. However Sumption writes that "the very large number of prisoners attracted unfavourable comments when it became known in France. There were 3,000 of them" He never mentions that these are only men-at-arms. Indeed, he adds "they included about 1,400 belted knights".

Also, I don't really see why you decided to keep the casualty numbers used by Sumption but not the strength of the French army he proposed.

Hello, you've told me to open a discussion to talk about our recent edits, so here it is... LaHire07 (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * LaHire07, the consensus around featured articles are some of the strongest in Wikipedia. Things in historical FAs can be changed, if a strong and reasoned case is made and if pains are taken to build consensus. The post-FAC changes to Battle of Crécy are, I like to think, a case in point. In the case of your suggested changes I don't think that bringing your own interpretation of how sources should be read and referred to and insulting experienced editors ("Also, Gog the Mild, you've made several mistakes. The French source mentioned by Hoskins (have you read it?) ..."; titling a section "Wrong methodology") is the best way, or any way, to generate a consensus for change. Just because you write that something is obvious does not necessarily mean that anyone agrees with you, still less that there is a consensus that it is the case. If you wish to try and build a consensus for any, or all, of your suggested changes which is stronger than that which saw the article promoted to FA, then good luck to you. Unless you considerably temper your strident tone, WP:RGW attitude and assumption that I am an idiot who should never have been allowed to edit Wikipedia I shall continue to endeavour to minimise my interactions with you. Good day. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You've repeatedly cancelled my very justifiable edits with little to no explanation, and when you've told me to open a discussion on the talk page, which I did, you ignored it, so I had hoped you would understand my "strident tone" (which is really not strident). Now, I don't think there is a need to overreact by pretending that I "insulted" you and even that I assumed you were "an idiot who should never have been allowed to edit Wikipedia". When I'm trying to correct some quotes that are clearly miswritten in the article, you're attributing to me quotes that I never wrote. Interesting. I hope you're not trying to use these false pretexts to avoid any conversation on the content, which is more interesting. And I had also hoped you would not use the feature article status of this article to make even the most beneficial edit impossible, but it seems I was wrong there too. Finally, understanding that "according to contemporary sources relayed by modern historians" can't be rewritten as "according to modern sources" is not a matter of interpretation. My case is strong enough to make a change. You misquoted a historian, and I have the quote right in front of my eyes. If that's not strong enough, nothing is. LaHire07 (talk) 23:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Additions to the info box
Things that could be added to the info box Smilus32 (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No doubt lots of thing could. This does not necessarily mean that they should. Or that it would be helpful to a reader if they were. What did you have in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am wanting to add the following people to the commanders section of the info box.
 * England:
 * Thomas Beauchamp, 11th Earl of Warwick
 * William Montagu, 2nd Earl of Salisbury
 * Jean III de Grailly
 * Sir James Audley
 * France:
 * Charles, Dauphin of France (later know as Charles V of France)
 * Philip, Duke of Orléans
 * Jean de Clermont
 * Arnoul d'Audrehem
 * This is because each commanded their own group of troops and some lead attacks as they went, some even without orders. The duke of Orléans left the battle before he attacked, as well as having the men he commanded follow him in an orderly formation. Meanwhile, Jean de Clermont was killed in the fight. Finally the marshal, Arnoul d'Audrehem, was made a prisoner. Although some may have been ordered to by the main leaders, it was they who had to perform the attack and decide who it should play out. Smilus32 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of all that, I wrote most of the article. It sounds like a lot of unnecessary clutter to me. If a reader wants that level of detail, they can simply read the appropriate part of the article. Given that the relevant policy, under "Purpose" includes "The less information it [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I think that keeping the current version, which a consensus for was established at FAC, would be best. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there is anything particular you would like to be added to the infobox or even the page in general? Smilus32 (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The infobox seems MoS compliant to me and I can't think of any changes to it which would help a reader. Both it and the article had an unusually strong consensus for more or less their current states at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest utilising a new, previously unknown parameter:   :)    ——Serial  19:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It was a strategic withdrawal. Absolutely no one ran away. Definitely no member of the royal family. Oh no. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Recent revert
, Okay, I'm in copyedit mode at the moment mainly to keep my Wikipedia Library access alive. Your recent reversion had the edit summary: Mostly reverting the attempted imposition of personal preferences, non-corrections and copy editing of direct quotes, a couple of which changed the intended meaning.

I disagree with this summary statement but so here is what I want to know:
 * 1) copy editing of direct quotes, a couple of which changed the intended meaning &mdash; I've checked the diffs and for the life of me, I can't find that so perhaps you could point that out.
 * 2) non-corrections &mdash; what is a 'non-correction'?
 * 3) attempted imposition of personal preferences &mdash; please ilucidate. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * 1. The quote box towards the bottom of "Fourth attack", you added "and" to Geoffrey le Baker's words.
 * 2. Eg changing "a similar ploy by a French force at the 1349 Battle of Lunalonge" to 'a similar ploy by a French force in the 1349 Battle of Lunalonge".
 * 3. Eg changing south west to southwest.
 * Twelve editors contributed to the consensus for (pretty much) the present version at FAC. You were one of them. ("Support - very enjoyable read".) You supported promotion of this version after just one - very constructive - proposed change. I was nonplussed to see you changing your mind over so many details. And baffled why after our one previous entirely constructive and amicable discussion of this article that having changed your mind you didn't bring your proposals to the talk page first. (All of which may have contributed to the somewhat terse edit summary.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response.


 * To (1), I got that wrong and hadn't spotted the fact it was inside a quotebox, but you said that it "changed the intended meaning". It didn't, but nevertheless it shouldn't have been altered.


 * You said there was another instance?


 * To (2), the example you quote shows two grammatically correct versions. Surely the appropriate course of action would have been to change that edit without reverting the whole copyedit?


 * To (3), there were two instances where I changed "south west" to "southwest". The first one was describing a geographical area, and the second was describing a direction of travel, but in both cases, the outcome is the same. If the area is actually called "South West", eg South West (Nigeria), then fine, but if used in a general sense (as it is in the article) then the correct description is "southwest". Usage in terms of a directional movement, the term is also "southwest". So, dispute that those are 'personal preferences'.


 * Yes, because it's on my watch list, I came back to it to re-read what is undoubtedly a very fine article and I have "not changed my mind" on that, as you appear to be suggesting. My copyediting involved spelling corrections and relatively minor grammatical tweaks that included the removal of wordiness from some of the phraseology. None of these changed the meaning or the tenor of the article nor would they have required 'permission' from talk page discussion. Ironic though that you jumped straight in with a revert coupled with an odd edit summary while I responded to the talk page to seek reasons. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You have twice stated that I reverted the whole copy edit. I did not, as a cursory glance at the history demonstrates. I would be grateful if you would withdraw the accusation. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)


 * No problem. I used the word "whole" when I should have used the term "most of". --Bill Reid | (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Appreciated. South west: you are correct that this is wrong - it is my original prose, so I am not sure what I was thinking. Regarding your change, I should have switched it to the hyphenated form, per the OED, but got it wrong again. I need to watch that. Now corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your response. I appreciate that a lot. --Bill Reid | (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I’ve had to make a couple of changes for grammar because of the last set of edits. Things like “While there were no large French forces were facing them” are gibberish, while some of the other changes were not improvements per se. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You were editing the partially reverted article by Gog the Mild who introduced the rogue "were" into the article. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:52, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 * FFS, I said my changes were "because of the last set of edits". I wasn't finger pointing at anyone in particular nor do I care who did what. I was just pointing out that I've made some changes. If you want me to go through your edit in particular to pick holes in it, I'd be happy to, but I'm not sure it would be terribly constructive to question your addition of American-style commas, or your choice of dehyphenating "battle axes" when the English language has long had it (like the OED) as "battle-axes", or any other the points Gog the Mild has elucidated. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)