Talk:English Civil War/Archive 2

Deleted sections
Since I last edited this page in early July there have been several substantial deletions to the text with no discussion on the talk page about whether this information should have been deleted ( Diff between Revision as of 07:27, 3 July 2006, and Revision as of 23:12, 28 August 2006) these deletions include:
 * The section Introduction.
 * The Scottish section of the 3rd ECW.
 * The section Theories relating to the English Civil War
 * In removing Theories all the end of the article was chopped including the sections: Re-enactments, See also, and Further reading

I think the note in the header section on the War of the Three kingdoms is sufficient to cover most of what was in the section Introduction, but mention of the other names for the conflict should be restored to this article and the paragraph:
 * The wars led to the trial and execution of Charles I, the exile of his son Charles II, and the replacement of the English monarchy with the Commonwealth of England (1649 - 1653) and then with a Protectorate (1653 - 1659): the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell. The monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship in England came to an end, and the victors consolidated the already-established Protestant aristocracy in Ireland. Constitutionally, the wars established a precedent that British monarchs could not govern without the consent of Parliament.

I think the Scottish section should be restored as it is usually included in accounts of the Third English Civil War. Also unless there is another page which details the Theories section I would like to restore it as it is a classic example of Historical revisionism. What do others think? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Broadly in agreement: it's a long article, and sections which refer to main articles might benefit from being briefer summaries. The Scottish aspect of the 3rd civil war is presumably well covered in Scottish Civil War, which could be linked as a main article for that section. The theories section looks as though it would stand well as an article on its own, with brief notes here and at the Wars of the Three Kingdoms linking to it. Re-enactmentsand Further reading should be restored (and updated), See also appears to need some expansion ...dave souza, talk 09:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dave I agree with what you say and but until someone moves the theories section out into it's own article I think it should remain in this article. Likewise the Scottish section can be reduced, providing that the "Scottish Civil War" does at least include the same level of detail as this article. This is also true of other sections.... --Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Campaign Box
Does the English Civil War battles need a battle box like the Scottish Civil War battles have ? :

Campaignbox Scottish Civil War -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.137.109.177 (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but also the English Civil War timeline needs filling out with a lot more battles. There also has to be some sort of consensus over what to include in a battle box as there were thousands of local encounters that were no more than small skirmishes that have gone down as the "battle of this and that" and are well remembered in the local areas, for example the Battle of Chalgrove Field. There are also many many sieges some of which are notable because they had a wider impact on the war, but many which are only of interest in the counties in which they happened. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection
I have placed a request on Requests for page protection for semi-protection as "this page has for a very long time been subject to vandalism by IP user(s). More edits are vandalism and rvv than anything else" --Philip Baird Shearer 10:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is all very good, but did you actually realise that despite you putting up the RFPP on this article, it is, according to what I just saw, already Semi'd? You are requesting page protection for an article which is already protected... Thor Malmjursson 14:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

See the time stamps, it was protected by SV after my request. Thank you SV :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem with dates on English Civil War
I have a relation who is an English Civil War re-enactor, and we have some concerns about the dates of the article specifying when the English Civil Wars took place. According to my relation, the First English Civil War, was indeed from 1642 to 1645. However, there were also the Bishop wars, which kicked off all the crud with Parliament, which were from 1639 to 1640/1641.


 * See the article section on Terminology and the article Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Usually the start of the English Civil War is taken from the raising of the King's standard at Nottingham on 22 August 1642.

Apparently, the Second English Civil War was from about 1647 to 1650. Charles I had been in captivity for 2 years from 1645 to 1647, and escaped in 1647. Charles I was executed on January 30th, 1649. Could we please possibly get some verification on this, and get the article as close to accurate as possible. Thanks Thor Malmjursson 19:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Whether one argues that there were only two civil wars or three is open to debate although few would argue that the English Civil War ended at the Battle of Worcester 3 September, 1651. As to the dates for the second civil war, I am of the opinion that if one accepts that there was more than one phase &mdash; because there was a lull in the fighting between the first and the second phases &mdash; then surly the recapture of Charles I and his execution marks a lull between for second and third phases?


 * So the date of the Start of the English Civil war is usually taken to be 22 August, 1642, and the end 3 September, 1651. How one divides the other bits is not set in stone and is open to debate with different people holding different opinions on the matter. But one thing is for sure having the war divided into three phases is not a Wikipedia invention, see for example: The Third Civil War 1649-51. This UK government site acknowledges that the second civil war was fought in 1668, and says lower down the page "Cromwell took his army to Scotland, but Charles II responded by invading England. The two sides met in a great battle at Worcester in 1651. This campaign is sometimes known as the third civil war." If the campaign is not known as the third civil war then what name should we give to the campaign? I think that looking at these two articles as examples, that dividing the war into only two phases called wars is not a clear as dividing it into 3 phases called wars--Philip Baird Shearer 01:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Show Trial?
It is simply ahistorical to call the trial of Charles I of England a "show trial". This implies the result was pre-ordained. Whilst this reflects the view of many historians of late, recent research shows that the trial was one of the first to be organised following modern English concepts of jurisprudence, including various innovations that were not to be formally embraced for some two centuries. Geoffrey Robertson's recent book, "The Tyrannicide Brief" is an excellent source of this new historical analysis. However, to make any comparison between the trial of Charles I and the trials staged by Stalin is an affront and simply inaccurate and poor scholarship. Fc1922 06:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC) fc1922, 15 December 2006.

Cavaliers and Roundheads?
The terms Roundhead and Cavalier are the insulting names chosen by each side for the other side. Surely the NPOV terms for the two sides in this conflict should be Royalists and Parliamentarians? --RichardVeryard 15:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, The terms are no longer insulting, for a contemporary example, is the term Tory insulting to a member of the Conservative party? Both sides supported the King and Parliament. The Roundheads just did not like the Kings advisers and nearly half of the members of Parliament supported the King. To imply that it was simply a split between supporters of absolute monarchy and supporters of "parliamentary sovereignty"/republicanism is a gross simplification.


 * Further the terms were used about the other side at the time of the war and its aftermath and can be found in contemporary records eg The Protector's Instructions to General Disbrowe where its use is not pejorative but in the same way as the modern meaning. Wikipedia is not alone in using the terms, a quick Google on both articles and book titles shows this. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)UTC)


 * I am uncomfortable about two aspects of Philip's argument. (1) Firstly I don't agree with the suggestion that NPOV doesn't apply because the terms are "no longer insulting". The fact that a term was once insulting means that there is still a POV implicit in the term, even if the people who held this POV are long dead. I accept that "Tory" is no longer insulting, but it was once, and I should not wish to see WP using the term as if it were merely an NPOV synonym for the Conservative Party. In one place in this article, the use of the word Cavalier seems to be an attempt at elegant variation, which I think WP should probably avoid. (2) Secondly, I think that "Wikipedia is not alone in using the terms" is never a valid defence, since few other websites have as exacting standards as WP. The Internet is riddled with incorrect, misleading, biased and sometimes extremely insulting terminology, and Google can sometimes find you the worst examples of this. (3) I do appreciate Philip's point that the "official" terms (Royalist, Parliamentarian) are not strictly accurate, and so perhaps there is some POV implicit in these terms as well, but I should say this is the lesser evil. --RichardVeryard 00:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the negative POV that is implicit in the terms Cavalier and Roundhead? When I wrote that Wikipedia is not alone in using the term, I was not referring to blog sites but as I wrote to "articles and books" which are considered by Wikipedia to be within WP:V, i.e. to use the terms is neither original research, or coining a neologism. The terms Royalist and Parliamentarian are no more official than Cavalier and Roundhead so why are the former the lesser of two evils? --Philip Baird Shearer 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What is the negative POV? I quote from the WP article on Cavalier: '"Cavalier" is chiefly associated with the Royalist supporters of King Charles I in his struggle with Parliament in the English Civil War. Here again it first appears as a term of reproach and contempt, applied by the opponents of the king. ... These derogatory terms (for at the time they were so intended) ...'
 * And I am aware that lots of articles and books use the terms Cavalier and Roundhead. Indeed, these were the terms that I learned when I was at school. I was merely objecting to the idea that "a quick Google" is a satisfactory way of resolving something like this.
 * In any case, I think this is generally an excellent article, and I merely propose to make a couple of small changes to improve clarity and to remove one instance of elegant variation. --RichardVeryard 01:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad to see someone has read one of my additions to this Encyclopaedia (March 2006) :-) But I also added "It was soon adopted (as a title of honour) by the king's party, who in return applied Roundhead to their opponents, and at the Restoration the court party preserved the name, which survived till the rise of the term Tory." The source for this addition was the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Veryard seems to be the exact definition of "political correctness" gone amuck. His arguments may have some validity, but are in the end utterly irrelevent. 70.18.52.185 (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
I have problems with his box. For example it is debatable if the wars In Ireland (and Scotland (which is not mentioned)) are part of the English Civil War. Also commanders seems to be too simplistic, implies they were two captains of a sports team, when in reality there were a number of commanders on both sides and their influence varied over time. This is particularity true on the Parliamentary side where the modern idea separating the army commanders from the civilian leaders was far more developed than was common during this period. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Effects in the British colonies
Should there be a section about the effects of the ECV in the British colonies (more than just Ireland)?  Chiss Boy 01:55, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to start an article on it. It will encompass Antigua, Bermuda, Barbados, Newfoundland, New England, the Chesapeake colonies, and hopefully more. It will include the Eleutheran Adventurers, the Plundering Time, the Battle of the Severn, and Fendall's Rebellion. What should I name it? The English Civil War in the Colonies, the Colonial English Civil War, and the Colonies in the English Civil War are some suggestions.--Countakeshi (talk) 05:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would suggest English Civil War and Interregnum in the colonies (unless colonies is usually capitalised as it is a descriptive name). Recently, while looking for a reliable source that uses Cavaliers and Roundheads I came across: William Roger Louis The Oxford History of the British Empire, Oxford University Press, 1998 ISBN 0198205627, 9780198205623. p. 223, the events it records might make a useful addition to the article.


 * If both the war and the interregnum is included might I suggest the English Revolution in the colonies? This will naturally expand the article to include the First Anglo-Dutch War and the Anglo-Spanish War (1654).--Countakeshi (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that name be confused with American Revolution in many readers minds? Besides many British people do not consider either to be a revolution (hence the term Civil War and Great Rebellion, and the name American War of Independence!).
 * The article on English Revolution conflates the civil war and the interregnum/commonwealth into an era of radical change, hence a less unweildy title for the article. I was actually more concerned that it would be mistaken for the Glorious Revolution which also affected the colonies.--Countakeshi (talk) 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

War of the Three Kingdoms

 * See previous discussions on this subject
 * Archive 1: English Civil War?
 * Archive 1: British Civil Wars

The War of the Three Kingdoms would be a more appropriate name for this page. --MacRusgail 20:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There's a separae article at Wars of the Three Kingdoms which suggests this is the article for just the English Civil War bit. Timrollpickering 23:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Tricky one this. Obviously in popular "English" history it has always been called the "English Civil War". However most historians of the 17th Century now use the phrase "The British Wars" or the "British Civil Wars" because the different conflicts in Scotland starting with the Bishops' War in 1638 and culminating with Cromwell's suppression of the Irish rebellion in the 1650s are seen as a whole; part of the same conflict between Charles I and his three kingdoms. See, for example, Simon Schama's History of Britain Vol.II. So, I would favour the page being called "The British Civil Wars" but the whole article would need a substantial re-write of course. (Bd2007 21:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Erm so where does the War of the Three Kingdoms article fit into all of this? Currently the articles and categories are treating that as the overarching conflict, with the English Civil War as a subset (albeit the most prominent) - see Category:English Civil War. Wouldn't it be better to keep this article focused specifically on the English bit and get the Three Kingdoms (under whatever title) as the overarching thing? Timrollpickering 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed before see Archive 1: British Civil Wars --Philip Baird Shearer 20:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

English civil war - the attacks on the churches
My understanding, at least from the book "Cavaliers and Roundheads" was that the Puritan armies and its partisans very methodically destroyed all statuary, stained glass and other religious embellishments in every church, chapel and cathedral in England, considering it idolatrous.

If this is so (and I am by no means sure that the tale laid out in C's & R's is wholly accurate) then perhaps it ought to receive some mention in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penbay (talk • contribs) 01:47, 20 November 2007


 * They did damage lots of churches and cathedrals (and banned Christmas festivities), but a lot of damage also predated the war ... I agree that the religious differences as apposed to just the political ones do need more emphasis in this article. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures and Photographs
Added a photo of a civil war re-enactment Megatonman (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

British Isles
Reverted the change to the extent of the effects of the English Civil War only affecting England to the British Isles. It is a very old fashioned view that the English war can be considered independently of the various other conflicts within the British Isles during these times. Its effects were directly felt in Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, not least at the end when they found themselves in a unified state.MAG1 (talk) 11:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the above editor aware of the Irish Rebellion of 1641? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We should be able to word this to avoid controversy. The term BI seems reasonable in the current context, and was referenced. I've reverted the latest change pending more detailed discussion. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give reasons why you reverted my edits. I provided detailed research, plus citations.  --Bardcom (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We simply need an "outside" opinion, preferably several such opinions, to try and obtain agreement/consensus or whatever. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 22:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? No we don't need an "outside" opinion.  We need articles that are researched and accurate, and my edits are researched and referenced.  Nobody needs "permission" to make edits.  If you have an argument or discussion to make, then fine.  Otherwise, your edits will be construed as vandalism. --Bardcom (talk)

22:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is not vandalism. The issue is the removal of the term BI, often as an apparent side-effect of wider-ranging edits. As I've said elsewhere, such removals are controversial and don't necessarily need to take place. Therefore I ask you yet again, please obtain consensus before removing this term. Of course you have a right to edit what you like, but please be aware of other editors views on this matter. I think the rule is that for controverial issues you should obtain consensus. 86.27.230.177 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Bardcom the editor using IP address 86.27.230.177 is in part correct you have made a substancial edit which made a large change to a section:
 * 21:19, 27 April 2008 Bardcom (→Theories relating to the English Civil War: Added references and expanded text)

The citation you have given is: "Civil Wars of the Three Kingdoms". which I do not think is enough, I think you need to add author and publisher to this citation. See WP:CITE). Further it would be better if the citation came from a more reliable source than "www.historybookshop.com", but at least in the citaion you can include the sting. "The author(s) of this article claims it is derived "from John Kenyon and Jane Ohlmeyer (eds.), The British and Irish Civil Wars. A Military History of Scotland, Ireland and England 1638-1660 (Oxford University Press, 1998). "" --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Philip, the section was complete uncited with no references, and as the section already referenced Jane Ohlmeyer, I included what I felt was good online reference that was appropriate to this section, and expanded the section to follow the logic and reasoning cited. --Bardcom (talk) 11:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * See the next section for details on citations. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk)

Casualties
From the edit history: --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 21:13, 27 April 2008 Bardcom (→Casualties: Provided scholarly references for casualty figures and updated the section.)
 * 10:10, 30 April 2008 PBS (→Casualties: This section has recently been re-written replacing text that was coarser but sourced with unsourced numbers. It needs sources for the numbers in the new edits)


 * Hi Philip, the references to Matthew White were removed primarily because on his own web page, he states My academic credentials are pretty slim -- a couple of years of college and that's about it. I'm not a university professor or anything like that, and I currently earn my living as a librarian.. That's not intended to question the sources he quotes, but perhaps calls into question the validity of directly referencing his page.  The new section was sourced from the reference given (pages 209 - 214) as it was the best and most complete reference available that calculates casualties.  The numbers are all sourced.  --Bardcom (talk) 10:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately there seems to have been a slip betwixt cup and lip because AFAICT you did not include the page numbers in the citation.


 * The question is not whether Matthew White is academically qualified, but whether the citations he give are correct. To date I have not seen any criticisms on any talk page of the many articles that cite his references, of the references he gives. I am all in favour of including better references, but the page numbers for each paragraph should be cited independently (down to the page number) so that people can easily check the source. This will become even more important if other editors start to add other figures from other sources. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Philip, I followed the references and felt that the article would benefit from referencing the book directly rather than referencing Matthew's page. Matthew does not try to be a scholarly reference, and does not claim to have researched the material.  As you say yourself, things can change - Matthew's page may not always be available or may not always reference this material. --Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a good reason why older material in Wikipedia articles do not carry citations (when they were written it was not considered necessary) but I think that all new facts and figures should carry a citation for the sources they are derived from. That way as text of the articles improves, so too will the level of citations in older articles such as this one. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Philip, I agree with you. Good advice. Clicking on the reference I did include takes you to the correct page.  Would you like me to make the corrections and to put the page numbers against the relevant paragraphs? --Bardcom (talk) 11:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes that is the reason for me placing the fact template on the page. If I had known the page range I might well have done it myself, but now that you have offered (teach a man to fish). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Popularity of Elizabeth
'War broke out less than forty years after the death of the popular Elizabeth I in 1603'

Just out of curiosity, is there any evidence that Elizabeth was a popular Monarch?. Was this not just a nostalgic invention of early 17th century Englishmen?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inchiquin (talk • contribs) 11:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's Elizabeths successfulness (at not being overthrown) that should be noted rather than her popularity? The former is an absolute fact whereas the latter can only be inferred.

Marxist view section
This section is entirely irrelevent, since the conflict took place centuries before Marxism existed. It looks like somebody has wrote a college essay and just randomly thrown it in here. This is about England, not Karl Marx and his followers. - The Cavendish (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The "section" under question consists of a single sentence and one quote. I hardly think this warrants major complaint. And, while the Civil War predated Marxism, Marxist historians have as much right as Whig historians and revisionist historians to describe and comment on the events. HLGallon (talk) 01:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. In so far as all human history can be interpreted from a Marxist point of view, and that the Marxist perspective stands as one of the major contextual interpretations of human history, it would be at least informative to have a section on it here. Further, I note that there is nothing in the article concerning the origins of such syndicalist movements such as the Levellers and the Diggers. That too should be added (might do this myself - I see there are articles on these movements already). --gilgongo (talk) 21:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but can we at least have a citation for how the Marxist interpretation replaced the Whig one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.134.207 (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is also important because the influence Christopher Hill's pamphlet The English Revolution 1640 had in helping to encourage an intellectual environment that supported for the left wing in British politics and helped bring about a labour party victory at the end of WWII. The first paragraph of the essay makes it clear what Hill's position was: "THE object of this essay is to suggest an interpretation of the events of the seventeenth century different from that which most of us were taught at school. To summarise it briefly, this interpretation is that the English Revolution of 1640-60 was a great social movement like the French Revolution of 1789. The state power protecting an old order that was essentially feudal was violently overthrown, power passed into the hands of a new class, and so the freer development of capitalism was made possible. The Civil War was a class war, in which the despotism of Charles I was defended by the reactionary forces of the established Church and conservative landlords. Parliament beat the King because it could appeal to the enthusiastic support of the trading and industrial classes in town and countryside, to the yeomen and progressive gentry, and to wider masses of the population whenever they were able by free discussion to understand what the struggle was really about. The rest of this essay will try to prove and illustrate these generalisations."

--PBS (talk) 18:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Calendar
Are dates in WP articles such as this reckoned in the Julian or Gregorian calendar? Drutt (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The English Civil War is in Julian dates with the start of the year adjusted to 1 January. So Charles I was executed on 30 January 1649, not as the contemporary Parliamentary records state 30 January 1648, or under the Gregorian calendar date of 9 February 1649. This is justified under Wikipedia using the same dating method as is used in most reliable sources on the Civil War.


 * This is covered in guideline Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and there are more details in the article Old Style and New Style dates. --PBS (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Confusion over Dates
According to the article, the war ended in 1651; however, the regicide occurred in 1649. Did the war continue after Charles' execution? Also, what happened between 1651 and 1653, the latter year marking the beginning of the reign of Cromwell? <-- Missed this part of the article. --DMP47 (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell and the crown
Wasnt Cromwell offered the crown but he declined prefering to be Lord Protector. This is what i was taught, whether it was correct or not is a completely different matter....Willski72 (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That was after the Civil War in the Interregnum. It could be mentioend in the in the aftermath, but I don't think it is necessary. --PBS (talk) 18:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that because it mentions him becoming Lord Protector it could just say that he declined the crown. Im not that bothered though!Willski72 (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove Tag
As it stands, any attempt to add a tag to the head of the article is reverted. Meanwhile, there are 51 tags, with only seven or eight paragraphs not sporting one. This is horribly ugly, and implies incorrect information where in fact the information is undisputed and merely needs confirmatory sources.

It has been argued that the tags are more specific than a single tag at the head of the article. However, this is to state that the specific paragraphs requiring cites are effectively all of them. This is like the oxymoronic "specialising across the board". I will try and find a few cites in the next few days, but this article ought to be reviewed for style. At present it looks awful, and invites the reader to believe that the information is false. HLGallon (talk) 02:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Display panel
This is not appearing correctly but I do not know how to edit it.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In-line citations...
I've gone through and had an attempt at getting the bulk of the citations for the article sorted out. A couple, I'll admit, defeated me. I have deliberately not attempted to answer the question of whether any individual point in the article best reflects the balance of academic work out there - if a reliable source supported the point being made, I've given the article a reference for it.

As an aside, my general feeling working through the material out there was that...

...the article was quite strong on the 'general X did this; general Y did that' basic chronology for the war.

...the article could probably do with a little more context, in terms of English/Scottish/Irish early-modern society at the time etc.

...the literature seemed to make more of the religious issues in the conflict than the article does.

...some of the broader statements in the article were hard to back up with references, because the state of the debate has moved on since.

Anyway, at least that's a start on the citations! :)

Hchc2009 (talk) 11:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)