Talk:Oliver Cromwell/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Ireland

It is unfortunate that a disproportionate amount of this article is focused on Ireland when so much of that Island's troubles are of it's and the Vatican's making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueSulla (talk • contribs) 21:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You've been accused of sockpuppetry on your User Page - this non-constructive post seems to support that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.18.61 (talk) 06:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Oliver Cromwell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081025014050/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUlaugharneJ.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/STUlaugharneJ.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216135450/http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/ to http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/index.php/staff/stewart/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414223411/http://www.cromwell.hist.cam.ac.uk/ to http://www.cromwell.hist.cam.ac.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140414223411/http://www.cromwell.hist.cam.ac.uk/ to http://www.cromwell.hist.cam.ac.uk/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:13, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Early History

Supposed descent from Jasper Tudor. The article currently states : "Cromwell was also a distant relation of the Tudor Royal family and through them the Welsh princely family through his descent from Jasper Tudor through his younger daughter, Joan Tudor, as shown in the Genealogy of the Tudors."

There is no reliable source to support this statement. (Some historical novels make the claim - maybe this is an example of historical fiction creeping into history).

The reference that is given in the article currently points to a French wiki family tree of the Tudors. This does not have any independent sources, but the entry for Oliver Cromwell on that tree points to the French wiki article on Oliver Cromwell (at https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell) which states : "Il [Oliver Cromwell] compte dans sa lignée une certaine Catherine Cromwell (née vers 1482), sœur aînée de Thomas Cromwell. Cette même Catherine était mariée à Morgan ap Williams, lui-même fils de William ap Yevan de Galles, marié à Joan Tudor. Or, on disait d'elle qu'elle aurait pour arrière-grand-père Owen Tudor, ce qui ferait de Cromwell un lointain descendant des Tudors, en même temps qu'un cousin, fort éloigné, de ses ennemis les Stuarts." The French article is also illustrated by the coat of arms of Owen Tudor, Jasper Tudor's father, with the comment : "Armoiries d'Owen Tudor, un ancêtre possible d'Oliver Cromwell." The words 'ancetre possible' are linked back to - the French wiki genealogy of the Tudors.

This is all circular. There is no independent reference to support the claim.

I have already (for the wikipedia entry on Jasper Tudor) researched the question of Jasper Tudor's supposed illegitimate daughter Joan who was supposedly the ancestor of Oilver Cromwell. There is no reliable source for this supposed illegitimate daughter. I have amended the wiki article on [Jasper Tudor] (section headed 'Illegitimate Issue') to show the reliably sourced position - there are some possibly reliable sources for an illegitimate daughter, Helen (who was NOT the mother of Stephen Gardiner, Bp of Winchester). There is NO reliable source for an illegitimate daughter Joan.

I am now going to delete from this article the unsourced claim that Oliver Cromwell descended from Jasper Tudor.

This particular error has had a large knock-on effect into wikitree genealogy and from there into other genealogies online. It has been corrected in the Jasper Tudor entry in wikitree but who knows how many other places it crops up.

MORAL - it is very easy for error to proliferate by repeating unsourced statements.

Gwedi elwch (talk) 14:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I should have added that the reference at the end of the second sentence does not support the statement in the first sentence. I repeat the deleted text here :

"Cromwell was also a distant relation of the Tudor Royal family and through them the Welsh princely family through his descent from Jasper Tudor through his younger daughter, Joan Tudor, as shown in the Genealogy of the Tudors. Jasper was the uncle of Henry VII and great uncle of Henry VIII."

Gwedi elwch (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Mural

A recent edit added a Protestant mural in Belfast celebrating Cromwell. I'm not convinced this is appropriate. It seems to me to have more to do with modern sectarianism in Northern Ireland than Cromwell per se; that Cromwell is celebrated because he was a Protestant, not because he was Cromwell. The accompanying text discusses the views of historians, not sectarians in Belfast, so it's only distantly related to the text. I suggest it be removed. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The mural itself has been removed by Shankill residents for being 'contentious and sectarian'. Seems someone thinks it's fine to dump it into Wikipedia. https://lesleycherry.wordpress.com/community-public-artworks/the-3-rs-sculpture/ RashersTierney (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the image since there was no objection. Pinkbeast (talk) 12:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

"Political reputation"

Should be 'literary review' as there are more historians and books than actual content. That quality of content is quite poor. Are we listing writers & books or describing views? References have their place. Shame. This section is totally unreadable (long sentences introducing etc..) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.178.227.185 (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Slanted Entry

This entry for Oliver Cromwell is completely slanted! He was a genocidal maniac who decimated Ireland, used Catholic churches to stable his horses, starved people to death and is the reason there is still unrest there today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.220.68 (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your self-therapeutic rant, but the article is quite balanced and reliably cited.50.111.19.178 (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A common enough reaction, though, for articles about people who have come to be demonised in popular mythology. Until quite recently there was a significant school of thought which saw Cromwell as a hero of nonconformist English liberty (that was, for example, basically the slant of the Ladybird book about him which I read when I was 8 - Ireland rated a single page, and a para on the final page, which as a proportion of his whole career is not unreasonable). It's faded away now, along with the old Tory hagiography of Charles the Martyr before it.Paulturtle (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Kidney stone

Without a verifying citation, the article described the condition as: ""stone", a common term for urinary and kidney infections." Having recently read large tracts of the diaries of Samuel Pepys, a celebrated "stone" sufferer of the 17th century, I know that "stone" in that era was quite specifically the formation of calculi in the urinary system, as correctly indicated by the wikilink to Kidney stone disease. Without doubt, the condition was then more common because of the regular consumption of beer and wines in place of water which was feared to be contaminated. So I've amended the description of "stone". However, lacking more evidence of Cromwell's actual condition, I can't challenge the generality of "The most likely cause [of Cromwell's death] was septicaemia following his urinary infection." Bjenks (talk) 03:36, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

"I will not build Jericho again"

Final paragraph of The Protectorate: 1653–58. The article current says this comment was a reference to the sin of Achan, which was connected with an earlier incident in Cromwell's life (as referenced). However, the wording of 'I will not build Jericho again' suggests that this comment is a reference to the curse Joshua pronounced on anyone who rebuilt Jericho (Joshua 6:26, fulfilled in 1 Kings 16:34) rather than being another reference to the sin of Achan; ie. Cromwell is saying that the office of king was abolished, and he does not want to suffer the curse of recreating that office. I don't have access to the source cited as a reference for this, but can anyone confirm or refute my inference? The sin of Achan does not seem to make sense of this comment by Cromwell. Roonwit (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

but the two characters are basically unlike, in temperament, as well as in Suit, in orientation, in purpose, in ideology; Oliver the 1st, saw no purpose to creating an Office of the Usurer, because it was anti-ethetical to the purposes of his humanism; Oliver the 2nd, who's orientation and ideology was sharply contrasted with that of Oliver the 1st, saw things differently; and the seat of Usurer, and many related, were valued, empowered, received considerable public taxes; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:CC01:FA0:7D1D:DE54:FEBA:813 (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

it is an interesting sort of relation, that we can find substantiated in the public records, in Arts&Entertainment content, dating back to this mythic age of history, which curiously, coincides with the real identity politics of such times; it was the ancient Claudio, who assumed the title of Caesar, and became the 2nd Oliver; while the 1st, likely disappeared, and later re-surfaced, a popular child-actor, entertainer; but the statuses and titles attributed to them differ considerably; in that, Oliver 2nd went on to become a famous King of England, and ultimately, likely, the President of the USA; it would seem these familial relations are perhaps, trivial, or the significance of them, is "heart-warming", a fuzzy story in the histories sown with blood; but the preceding historical works, are those belonging to the domain of OEDIPUS REX, and therefore the relations of Claudio and his compatriots, to others, insightful readers are RIGHT TO QUESTION — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:CC01:FA0:7D1D:DE54:FEBA:813 (talk) 19:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Puritan Moses?

"He was an intensely religious man, a self-styled Puritan Moses"

Is that from a quote? If so, where is the citation? If not, what is the justification for the phrase? Subsequent mentions of Moses in the article appear to have nothing to do with Cromwell's view of himself. Harfarhs (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Status of American colonies

What was the position or status of the American Colonies under Cromwell and Parliament, i.e. ruled without the Crown ? Did anything change ? Is this worth mentioning in the article ? Did Cromwell have any influence over colonial thoughts of independence from England ? I had inquired in 2013 on this matter, but no response. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

It appears the British-American colonies took part in the wars under Cromwell and the Roundheads verses colonies that supported the Crown. English overseas possessions in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms Cmguy777 (talk) 03:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

New England Puritans returned to England in 1642 and fought for Col. Thomas Rainborower under Cromwell's Puritan Army. Adrian Tinniswood (2013) The Rainborowes One Family's Quest to Build a New England Cmguy777 (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Robert Blake (mention under Death and Posthumous Execution)

As no action has been taken since I highlighted in 2013 (now in Archive 5) the uncited inclusion of Robert Blake the Admiral in the list of those with whom Cromwell was posthumously executed, I have taken the step to delete his name. Blake was not one of the Regicides and he was merely reburied in a communal pit at St Margaret's Westminster.Cloptonson (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Cromwell and slavery

I notice in the article on the treatment of statues in Britain since the George Floyd killings that statues of Cromwell are among those up for consideration of, in extreme, removal in view of their subjects' perceived links with slavery. It would be interesting for anyone who has such information to give indications in this article as to how black slavery proceeded under his rule (it was during the Protectorate that Britain annexed Jamaica) and what his known attitudes were, and if it was subject to any legislation during his period of rule.Cloptonson (talk) 09:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Cromwell pre-Civil War military experience

There is an uncited statement that Cromwell prior to the formation of the Parliamentary army had previous experiemce 'in the trained bands, the local county militia' (in Cambridgeshire or Huntingdonshire}. Is there any evidence of militia service? There is no mention of it in the military career section of Appointments Held in his biography in the History of Parliament (volume for 1604-1629). (The latter rules out identifying him with a Captain Cromwell who led a unit of English soldiers in the Netherlands in the 1620s.)Cloptonson (talk) 19:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Transition to Charles II

There was no explanation in the lead as to why the Republic suddenly was replaced by Kings, so have summarized that process of transition. Have deliberately not given it the POV name of restoration, since that denies de facto, de jure existence of the Republic whose overthrow was far from inevitable.Straw Cat (talk) 22:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Dead link

The primary source Abbott is now a dead link¡ J S Ayer (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. This is because Questia "ceased operations" on 21 December 2020, after being purchased by Gale, which is part of Cengage. This must be a major issue across the entre encyclopaedia and must be being discussed centrally somewhere. But I don't know where. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are some snippet views, available via Google Books, online e.g. this one. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Source for "worst atrocities"?

The article says in the main body (and now also in the lead section): "...although the worst atrocities took place after he had returned to England." The "reference" used to support this claim is this: "Lenihan 2000, p. 1O22; "After Cromwell returned to England in 1650, the conflict degenerated into a grindingly slow counter-insurgency campaign punctuated by some quite protracted sieges...the famine of 1651 onwards was a man-made response to stubborn guerrilla warfare. Collective reprisals against the civilian population included forcing them out of designated 'no man's lands' and the systematic destruction of foodstuffs". I don't see the phrase "worst atrocities", or even the single word "atrocities", used there. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Good spot. The current wording is not supported by the reference and should be changed. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning Leon Trotsky in the lede

The opening paragraphs of the article mention that Cromwell was evaluated as "a class revolutionary by Leon Trotsky." This is true, but given that this is mentioned alongside the evaluations of English poet John Milton, English statesman Winston Churchill, English historian David Sharp, etc., wouldn't it make more sense to replace Trotsky with Christopher Hill, an English Marxist historian who wrote an entire biography of Cromwell regarding him likewise as a class revolutionary? --Ismail (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:LEAD, the lead should be a summary of the main text and at the moment there is only one passing reference to Hill and that was on the subject of Cromwell's brutality rather than his politics. Dormskirk (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Dictator

Shouldn't be added he was, by all means and purposes, a dictator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.216.254 (talk) 06:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Military service part in infobox

In the military service part in the infobox, it says Cromwell'ss years of service is 1643–1651, immediately below it lists his ranks and commands, but they only list up until 1646. Is there a reason why his rank and command in second and third English Civil Wars is not listed? --Kate1138 (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Archived sources

Re the removal of "almost 9k of useless links", I thought that adding archive links was meant to be a preventative measure to avoid possible future linkrot? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

An error to correct

It was something of an achievement to become an MP on 30th February 1640. What is the correct date? Smlark (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Appendices

After the body of the article is the appendices.

• Further reading section: This section currently has five subsections with 57 entries. MOS:FURTHER states, An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject. While a "reasonable number" could be subjective I highly doubt that a reasonable person would argue against 57 as being far too many.
• Citation styles: Publications listed in further reading are formatted in the same citation style used by the rest of the article
• Links: Any links to external websites included under "Further reading" are subject to the guidelines described at Wikipedia:External links.
• External links: Sometimes things tend to grow and sometimes they can grow too much. There are nineteen entries in the "External links". Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.

The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.

• ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
• LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
• ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
• ELCITE (if applicable): ...access dates are not appropriate in the external links section. Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section. +
• WP:ELBURDEN: Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.

The second paragraph of the External links lead states, Some acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Normally I would just trim some (or many) and let a discussion and consensus follow. This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. Any that can be used as a reference should be incorporated into the article. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Terrible Sources Used vis a vis Ireland

Can someone explain to me why this article (which, by the way, I am not able to directly edit) cites this undergraduate thesis for anything? The author is so unfamiliar with Ireland that he thinks that the "Ó" in Micheál Ó Siochrú's name is a middle initial (see page 5) and refers to an English Invasion of Ireland in 1117.

Dregne, the undergraduate who wrote the thesis, seems to have largely drawn his argument from Tom Reilly, an obsessive non-academic "historian" from Drogheda who worships Cromwell and whose theories are dismissed by real academics. This article doesn't seem to cite Reilly directly however, which is a step up from the "Historical Debate" section of the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland which gives that amateur pride of place. DuxEgregius (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC) DuxEgregius (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023

<ref>Lauder-Frost, Gregory, F.S.A.Scot., "East Anglian Stewarts" in The Scottish Genealogist, Dec.2004, vol.LI, no.4., pp. 158–9. ISSN 0330-337X</ref> The ISSN is actually 0300-337X, as evidenced by the fact that 0330-337X has an invalid checksum (the last digit would have to be a 3, which is already taken by a title in Tunisia). 2603:8001:4542:28FB:C42A:86EF:90BA:97A3 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC) 2603:8001:4542:28FB:C42A:86EF:90BA:97A3 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting this. GarethAd (talk) 08:51, 24 August 202390.250.142.122 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC) (UTC)

Please edit "Episcopalean" to "episcopalean".

Please edit "Episcopalian" to "episcopalian".

Use of the capital creates ambiguity with the Episcopalian Church - i.e. the Anglican Church in the US - esp for readers from the US.

Current code:- It was designed to check the powers of the executive, to set up regularly elected parliaments, and to restore a non-compulsory Episcopalian settlement.

Proposed code:- It was designed to check the powers of the executive, to set up regularly elected parliaments, and to restore a non-compulsory episcopalian settlement. 193.116.206.35 (talk) 05:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Done now, thanks. Moons of Io (talk) 08:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

"The debate over his historical reputation continues."

Completely reasonable statement, but why does it matter what Churchill thought of him? 142.126.146.180 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

because Churchill is a prominent political figure in 20th century. it may not add some weight academically but its more to assessing personal view of Churchill towards Cromwell Ahendra (talk) 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)