Talk:Weardale campaign/Archive 1

Copyright problem removed
One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MLauba (Talk) 10:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Widening scope of article
As currently envisaged, there isn't really enough material to make a decent article for Stanhope Park. A night raid on an enemy camp would not normally be significant enough for its own article, IMO. However, it is part of a significant campaign and that leads to a significant milestone in the Wars of Independence, the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton 1328. The Weardale Campaign 1327 is significant also for being Edward III's first campaign and for its description by an active participant, Jean Le Bel, which is much quoted in describing the realities of medieval campaign life. I would suggest, therefore, subsuming this article into a wider piece on the Weardale campaign. I would be willing to contribute to such a pieceMonstrelet (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds sensible. FlagSteward (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Finally got round to doing the basic rewrite as aboveMonstrelet (talk) 12:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Night Attack 3rd-4th August
According to Le Bel, it was only "IIc "- that is 200 men at arms that Douglas led into Edward III's camp on the night of 3rd-4th August- not 2000, as stated in the introductory paragraph. Any one mind if I change it?JF42 (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As the original statement is unsourced and actually contradicts the infobox, I don't see why not, especially if you provide a referenceMonstrelet (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't 'IIC' mean 98 rather than 200, which would be 'CC' in Roman numerals? Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.11.52 (talk) 08:55, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No. Medieval writers would sometimes use the convention of numeral followed by c instead of the classical Latin way of writing numbers.  In Le Bel's case, he is writing in French so "c" is short for "cent".Monstrelet (talk) 09:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)