Talk:Sir Oliver Cromwell

Move
I think the disambiguation extension "(died 1655)" is likely to be confusing as it is close to the Protectors dod. I suggest that we either go with "Oliver Cromwell (royalist)" or with where his main estate was "Olive Cromwell of Hinchingbrooke?". -- PBS (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think of Hichingbrooke would be the most appropriate, it is less ambiguous.Beefcake6412 (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did think about this especially as it is close to the protector's DOD and I did consider (Royalist). However although there are references that decribe him as a Royalist, I would prefer to see evidence of practical pro-King activites during the Civil War. Although he inherited Hinchingbrooke, he actually sold it. There could be a variation on the Cromwell-Williams theme. However I concluded Keep it Simple, as the main purpose of a dambig extension is to disambiguate and not describe. I doubt if anyone looking for the Protector would include DOD in the search (and get it wrong) and probably few people would know his uncle was a Royalist before they read the article (I did'nt). Regards Motmit (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not so much what they know about this man as what they know about the Protector and they probably know he was no royalist. This article is too new to appear in a Google search yet, but his is what will appear:
 * Oliver Cromwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was an English military and political leader who overthrew the English monarchy and temporarily turned ...
 * and the second entry:
 * Oliver Cromwell (died 1655) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 * Sir Oliver Cromwell (c. 1566–1655) was an English landowner, lawyer and politician who sat in the House of Commons at various times between 1589 ...
 * Do people bother about reading (and comprehending) the stuff below the headline before clicking the link, or do they just read the bold part?  -- PBS (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Difficult to predict what search terms people might put into Google and what they might throw up. Typing "King Charles II" presents a Wiki article which is not obviously about the king. I suspect to make it absolutely clear to a google searcher we would probably have to title our man "Oliver Cromwell (not the one you are probably looking for)". :) At least there is a hatnote if anyone gets the wrong one. Calling him Royalist would probably up his hit rate because people would feel the need to check out an apparent contradiction (no problem with that though.) I think the protector's article ought to be more up front about his ultimate status as


 * Oliver Cromwell (25 April 1599 – 3 September 1658) was Lord Protector of England from ?? to 1658. He was an English military and political leader who overthrew the English monarchy and temporarily turned ...


 * Anyway I was 50/50 over whether to use (died 1655) or (Royalist) and I have set up a redirect page for the latter. If Royalist, it needs a sentence in the lead, and to have a sentence in the lead it probably needs more specifics about his Royalist activities. I note on the dambig page there is another Oliver Cromwell to come, so it is probably worth rasing the issue on the Protector's talk page. Regards Motmit (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (Because some people have no sense of humour) "what I am about to suggest is a jest": Simple solution we make "OC" a dab page to two moved pages to "OC (Royalist)" and "OC (No Royalist)" no confusion problem solved! -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Knowing that the discussion is 12 years back - now we have the HoP in 2010 that says "Cromwell’s sons Thomas and William fought for the king during the Civil War, and his eldest son Henry was apparently appointed royalist sheriff of Huntingdonshire in 1643. In the spring of the same year Cromwell himself armed his tenants under the pretext of protecting his property, a move which provoked a visit by his nephew Oliver Cromwell, who, as he later recalled, ‘not only disarmed but plundered him, for he took away all his plate’." Sir Oliver was too old for any real fighting, and he transferred most of his estates to his sons, who fought on the Royalist side. ネイ (talk) 07:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Reversion
This revert is both uncivil and unwise; I see it is also undiscussed. To call Sir Oliver's removal a purge without explaining the purpose is misleading. It also borders on plagarism; our purpose is to express the content of our sources, not to copy their metaphors.

As for chronological order; listing each re-election as a new sentence wastes the reader's time and attention futilely; what should be said is that he was (as might be expected in that age) re-elected as long as he cared to run. JCScaliger (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I can understand why the revert was made and saying that "[it] is both uncivil and unwise" is hardly the way to build a consensus with the person who made the revert. You have by and large reverted the revert and added more information without any more sources. So I will go through what I see to be the problems with your additions. If sources can be found to support them then well and good:
 * "as part of a drive against nepotism" says who? Nepotism is a specific reason, for a purge but it is not the only specific reason.
 * "he was re-elected to every Parliament of Queen Elizabeth's reign" You have not provided a link to a list of every QE parliament so how do you know this to be true?
 * "(Huntingdonshire is small, and there were too few gentlemen to enforce a strict rule that no family should have more than one.)" Who says? --also it is "H. was small".
 * "awarded a knighthood" changed to "elevated to a knighthood" one is elevated to the peerage not sure about knight hood (a knight is still tied in front of a jury of commoners -- his peers). The evidence in Google books suggests that awarded a knighthood is far more common (24,300 to 144), my choice would have been "granted a knighthood" (3,450) so I guess awarded gets first dibs.
 * "His father died in 1604, and" suggests a causal relationship between the death of his father and his election (which came first?) and is there a source to confirm the link?
 * "he was to serve in every Parliament of King James' reign but one" Source?
 * The division into two paragraphs which the sentence "His father died in 1604,..." starts means that there is no source to confirm the content of that paragraph.
 * As mentioned before your change in these two paragraphs has broken the chronological order. The sentence that starts in the previous version "He had to sell many of his estates," from its positioning suggests he sold in the 1620s, in its position where you placed it suggests it happened in the 1600s (naughties). I have not idea which is correct do you have a source to date the sales?
 * For these reasons I am reverting your changes. If you have sources or can show where the information in is then current sources, then please add the appropriate footnotes with each change.
 * -- PBS (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you had bothered to look at the online history of Parliament, which remains the indicated source for the section, you would have found Following the purge of justices of the peace in 1587 he was displaced, since his father was also on the commission, but he was reinstated a few years afterwards. It was probably felt that in a county as small as Huntingdonshire, the custom by which only one member of a family could be a justice was inapplicable — particularly in the case of the owners of Hinchingbrooke. I believe I have summarized this far more accurately than the reverted text. The rest of these are quibbles of wording, which would have been far more decently taken care of by fixing them. I shall restore the text with my own fixes when I have time to do so. JCScaliger (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your are doing it again writing "The rest of these are quibbles of wording", is precisely what the talk page is for but putting it in those terms changes what is essentially a discussion about text into a personal attack. Like wise "If you had bothered to look ..." is an personal attack that implies I am careless. Why not just point out your source without the snide comment?


 * There is a difference between custom and "a strict rule". A strict rule in cases like this can not be broken, a custom as soon ignored and the change is accepted as it is stops being custom.


 * You have added a template at the start of an article with a lead of "This article's factual accuracy is disputed". What is it in the current wording that is inaccurate? -- PBS (talk) 05:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have removed the template as there is no factual dispute. The issue only concerns whether it is worth including speculation provided in the source suggesting reasons he was removed and restored.Motmit (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Purge was a reach in the source, although it explained what it meant in the next sentence. This was not Colonel Pride, let alone Stalin, which is what a modern reader will most naturally think of. Without explanation, it is misleading to the point of inaccuracy. If a reader looks at our article, and is then surprised by looking at the source, that's a flaw in the article.


 * PBS has a right to complain about "if you had bothered to look" at the source, if he did look; but if he had, why ask where small comes from? It's right there. If he did not look, reversion as unsupported is -what shall I say?- questionable.


 * As for the quibbles, they are quibbles; nor do we require that every change of wording be discussed and approved on talk. Most of them are justified, for what little they are worth.  If you had made any of the changes of single words  you suggest, that would have been less trouble for  you, and I would have left them alone; as it is, I will certainly say that the knighthood was granted or conferred. JCScaliger (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I an restoring the template. Later today If there is any more mere reversion, I shall be taking this to Mediation. If either of you prefers Mediation Cabal, do let me know. JCScaliger (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since it has been expanded, I have changed tag. In fact he was elected in 1589, re-elected for every Parliament for 25 years, stayed out of one Parliament, and then relected to the same seat twice more. Why not say that?


 * This is disguised by the present repetitious text, which spends much more space to say less. Do we, in John Morley, or Tony Blair, chronicle each reelection with such elegant variations as:
 * ''In 1589, Cromwell was elected Member of Parliament for Huntingdonshire.
 * ''He was re-elected MP for Huntingdonshire in 1593
 * ''In 1597 he was re-elected MP for Huntingdonshire
 * '' In 1601 he was elected MP for Huntingdonshire again
 * ''Cromwell was re-elected MP for Huntingdonshire in 1604.
 * ''Cromwell was re-elected MP for Huntingdonshire in 1614 for the Addled Parliament.
 * ''He was elected MP for Huntingdonshire in 1624 for the Happy Parliament.
 * He was re-elected MP for Huntingdonshire in 1625 to the Useless Parliament.?
 * No. Furthermore, by interrupting the story, such as it is, of his house-sale, it makes both harder to follow. JCScaliger (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I have now collected the text so that each subject is a single paragraph, and added that his father was Keeper of the Rolls before him. Other than that, I have retained each sentence; does anybody have a reason to make his seat in Parliament eight sentences, when the whole (including the dates) can easily be two. JCScaliger (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The full duration of his parliamentary career is given in the lead. It is also shown in the succession boxes where an unexplained gap in his parliamentary career is indicated. It is therefore unnecessary to replicate it at this level in the body. The body should be an expansion to contain relevant details. In this instance his notability is primarily down to his election to several parliaments. Any serious reader interested in parliamentary details needs to know to which parliaments he was elected and for which constituency. (Note that parliaments at that time were not contiguous as they are now and therefore he was not an MP all the time). It is normal in a biography to present individual events in chronological order. There are often interdependencies between events and presenting the material in this way makes it easier to identify possible interdependencies and explore them further. Cromwell's interactions with the king and financial difficulties were concurrent with his later parliamentary career and it is not difficult for a reader to follow both threads. The sentences listed above are phrased differently to fit in with the flow of the text and so should not be run together. Regards Motmit (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I edited this in the first place because I found a wall of text; it attempted to tell two or three different stories at the same time, and was unintelligible. This version is still a maze to the reader new to it; and she is whom we are supposed to be writing for.


 * Two important connexions are now in the text, and sourced; the dates are still there, for any reader who likes to guess at others. One reasonable conjecture (that Sir Oliver did not stand for Parliament in 1621 because he was running out of money) is probably sourceable; I will consult Trevor-Roper when I have the chance. (His father's nickname, and the reason for it, should be included, for the reader's benefit.)


 * I agree that the mass of sentences on his re-elections should be altered; they shouldn't be here at all. What other MP has a sentence on each of eight elections to the same seat? JCScaliger (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Compartmentalising things in this manner seriously devalues the article for the reasons given and ignored above. It has been carried out against consensus, and according to the justifications given is simply to dumb it down. It will be necessary to restore the original structure, particularly as more parliamentary history is incorporated. Meanwhile there is issue with the statement introduced by User:JCScaliger that Cromwell was dubbed knight bachelor by Queen Elizabeth in 1598. This apparently derives from an offline source which is a short history of Cromwell's nephew. The complete listing of Knights Bachelor by Le Neve does not record this. Only eight individuals were knighted by the elderly Queen Elizabeth in 1598. Edward Baron Cromwell was knighed in 1599 in Ireland but there are no other Cromwell (or Williams) entries in this period. This is supported by Brown Willis's parliamentary listings which give him as Oliver Cromwell Esq in 1601 and as Sir Oliver in 1604. All the main sources - British History Online, Venn and History of Parliament online state he was knighted in 1603.  Therefore we need to know what source Bennett offers for this claim. It would also be valuable to know if Bennett gives this 1598 knighting instead of or as well as the well substantiated knighting of 1603. Thank you. Motmit (talk) 10:24, 3 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the article is better off as a chronological ordering, this makes it much easier to understand the context of an event. I think that the concerns over the knighthood should be addressed sooner rather than later and removed from the page until it is decided (no information being better than wrong information). I am going to make some minor changes to the text and some larger ones to the citations, but that should not be taken as my endorsement of the current layout. -- PBS (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should have no prejudice against off-line sources, given the number of on-line sources that are unreliable. (And Bennett's life of the younger Cromwell, which appears to be available through Google books, is only one of many sources for the obvious; one was expected to be KB before admission to the orders.) JCScaliger (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is not whether a source is on line or in a public library. What is more pertinent is whether sources agree. If they do not then further investigation is needed, and if editors can not make up their minds then the discrepancy should be footnoted. For example do any of the off line sources you refer to cite their primary sources? I do not understand what you mean when you write: "is only one of many sources for the obvious; one was expected to be KB before admission to the orders." what is obvious and what is "the orders"? -- PBS (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Knighthood in 1598
The complete listing of Knights Bachelor by Le Neve page 95 does not record that Oliver Cromwell of Hinchingbrooke was awarded a knighthood in 1598.

Martyn Bennett (2006) mentions the knighthood, but the notes are not available online. If someone has access to the notes then this can probably be cleaned up. 

However I found a lot of Victorian sources online that quote or cite Mark Noble. For example John Forster (1840): Mark Noble is famous for not being as accurate as some would like, but on page 40 of volume 1 of Nobel's Memoirs of the protectorate-house of Cromwell:... he cites Sylvanus Morgan's 1661 work The Sphere of Gentry: Deduced from the Principles of Natvre, an Historical and Genealogical Work.... unfortunately I can not find that source in a readable format online.

However Diana Poulton (1982) says in a footnote "much information concerning this member of the Cromwell family is in Mark Noble's Memoirs of the protectorate-house of Cromwell (1787). He is incorrect however in giving Master Oliver's knighthood as 1598.

Yet Alan Palmer (1999) in a general reference work states that the knighthood took place in 1598. ( endnotes A. Fraser Cromwell, Our Chief of Men (1973)) That book is not available online, but another by the same author is: Antonia Frase (1973) in Cromwell, the Lord Protector page 13 writes "He had been knighted by Queen Elizabeth in 1598. In 1603 King James 1 stayed at Hinchingbrooke on his triumphant progress south from Edinburgh to ascend the English throne. Fatally - for the future - it was generally agreed that the ..." (only available online in Google Book snippet view).

So it seems to me that without a secondary source that cites a primary source, the best we can do is mention it and then footnote that the secondary sources disagree on this point. -- PBS (talk) 08:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. It looks as if a claim by Sylvanus Morgan has been propagated through various biograpers of the Protector, but ignored by those concerned with Sir Olly. It is the power of Wikipedia to put the record straight when myths are perpetuated or highlight discrepancies which cannot be resolved. If Bennett does not cite any sources then perhaps we should reference one of the others that do. Regards Motmit (talk) 17:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been waiting for JCScaliger to join in this conversation. But s/he has not edited Wikiepdia since the 5 Jan. so I guess it is time to change the text without JCScaliger's input. I propose to add the words "may have" to the to the sentence and use Diana Poulton and Le Neve as an example sources of why it may not be true. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Have you got a source that it's a myth? or is this more original research? The proper solution is to add the doubt to the footnote; if PBS's fiddling with formats will allow us actual footnotes.   JCScaliger (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are listed in the first post to this section. Oh and of course a footnote will be added explaining the difference (I did not state that because I thought was implicit in what I wrote). JCScaliger do you have access to the notes in Martyn Bennett (2006)? If you do and the source is given then we can probably clear this issue up. -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

History of Parliament two biographies
The link to the history of parliament is broken when looking to mend it I notices that the site has two entries and perhaps further checking is needed. The link appears to be to the older biography: But there is now a newer one: And this biography needs to be checked against the newer one. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)