Talk:Siege of Oxford

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Articles for creation (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article was created via the article wizard and reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow unregistered users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Note icon
This article was accepted on 11 August 2007 by reviewer Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs).

Close paraphrasing[edit]

  • Varley, Frederick John (1932), The Siege of Oxford: An Account of Oxford during the Civil War, 1642–1646, Oxford University Press  The three chapters on the sieges on pages 121—149 provide reference for each of the three siege sections.

I am concerned that this article may paraphrase Varley too closely and hence be a copyright infringement. I was looking for a source for the quote "except upon parley or treaty regarding the surrender of some garrison of fort ..." and used Google Books to look for

"except upon parley or treaty" regarding the surrender of some garrison of fort

What was returned was:[1]

On April 30th it issued orders that no person was to be allowed out of Oxford on pass or otherwise, 'except upon parley or treaty regarding the surrender of some garrison or fort, or otherwise advantageous for the reduction of the

using the last phrase to search again returns:p. 134 and p 135

So an extract from page 134 of Varley is:

There seems to have been a general impression that the King might make for London, and the House was evidently in a ferment. On April 30th it issued orders that no person was to be allowed out of Oxford on pass or otherwise, 'except upon parley or treaty regarding the surrender of some garrison or fort, or otherwise advantageous for the reduction of the garrison at Oxford'.

meanwhile Fairfax ...(p. 134)

On May 1st he appeared before Oxford and at once commenced preparations for the siege.(p. 135)

While the Wikipedia article states:

On 30 April the House of Commons, having heard of the King's flight the previous day, issued orders that no person was to be allowed out of Oxford, on pass or otherwise, "except upon parley or treaty regarding the surrender of some garrison of fort, or otherwise advantageous for the reduction of the garrison at Oxford". On 1 May Fairfax returned to Oxford and at once commenced preparations for the siege.

This is one sample and if it is evident in the rest of the text I think that the paraphrasing would unfortunately have to be see as a copyright violation. What do others think? --PBS (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

a 1932 British publication, copyright would apply?
'single quotation marks' in Varley are "double quotation marks" in the article-- (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes a 1932 copyright would almost certainly apply in the US and this is published under US copyright law. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I have Varley dead in 1937 +70 (same in both) = 2007-- (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia MOS uses double quotes in place of UK single quotes see WP:QUOTE -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Indeed which is why the article uses doubles instead of singles, like I already said. Go back and look at that piece you thought I was paraphrasing too closely, in the original does not Varley use single and does not the exact same words appear in the article using doubles?-- (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As I wrote on [User talk:] citations is another issue and can be discussed in another section. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
From my talk page:[2]
I know this article very well, I was the one who sat there and copied from the leafy pages those 'quotes' and loosely paraphrased the majority of the text (when tens of irrelevant pages weren't being skipped), maybe sometimes too closely, and I was inspired by your comments about how close to have another go through and reduce further the fatter than necessary wording, even though copyright isn't an issue. At the time of writing it, from two single sources, inline citations weren't my thing and certainly didn't appear necessary. I could say "make your mind up" either I'm paraphrasing too closely or it needs further citing from the source but both cannot be true at the same time, no? If your asking me to go fetch Varley's book back out the stacks and go through and find page numbers, ask nicer.-- (talk) 13:53, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I am going to raise this at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because I do not know if this book is in copyright under US copyright law (but I think it probably is), and it may also be copyright under UK copyright law it depends when the authors died + 70 years. I do not know when Varley died but it must have been after 1939 and it may have been after 1948 (which places the book under copyright in the UK).
If is not under copyright then it can be copied verbatim providing adiquate attribution is given (see WP:PLAGARISM) if not like any other work it must be summarised in such a way that it does not breach copyright. -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
As it is only you who have challenged (albeit in the name of those who might also do so) by requesting cites and also say at the same time that the wording maybe copyvio, consider exactly how many of the page numbers you feel are needed, all the ones current pissing through the article, the quotes of the people and the documents and the listings, the quotes only? Will there be no end to the task the poor schmuck has in going and fetching for one person who has so far asked (for the sake of policy)?-- (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
If it is not under copyright then is it not possible to loosely paraphrase the majority, closely paraphrase when ambiguous or lead into quotes so we can miss out the utterly irrelevant chapters and pages and have a coherent article which doesn't need an adequate attribution as it is a fair summary of subject as would otherwise be demanded?-- (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── My concerns over copyright have not gone away, indeed this conversation has strengthen them. I have placed a request at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2013 November 10 for others to take a look. One possibility for us to consider is that we revert the text to the version immediately before (15:39, 12 August 2007) the large expansion, and as you are using IP addresses and do not have a sandbox that you develop a new copyright free version in Talk:Siege of Oxford/Temp. -- PBS (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Until a decision has been, I will continue with what I think will fix the article, with the even more limited time than I imagined, over the next few weeks, despite having searched the shelves and not found the book in place and needing to ask the librarian. That is how sure I am that a) copyright isn't an issue. If my edits are lost because I am wrong, then so be it.-- (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi. I do not have access to the book and am not in position to assess the degree of copying or close paraphrasing; however, we must assume that the book is under copyright. Wikipedia is governed by US copyright law, and under US copyright law works by British authors published between 1923 and 1977 are protected for 95 years from publication unless they were public domain in the UK by January 1996 or were also published in the U.S. (See Since the book was published in 1932 and we have Varley dead in 1937, the book would not have been public domain in the US on January 1996 and will not be public domain in the U.S. until 2028 (the start of the year after copyright expires). We must treat it as fully copyright protected unless we can verify that is public domain in the US because it was also published here and copyright has officially lapsed in the U.S. If there is any remaining content closely paraphrased from that source, it should be revised in accordance with Wikipedia:Close paraphrase. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you Moonriddengirl, 95 from publication (in that period) is news to me, thought it was 70 after death, as did PBS. The fixes I suggested to this article included a further sharpening up of text anyway, as well as (at least) paragraph/section citations, and some additional footnotes as to where Varley sources his otherwise unattributed quotes (those that are worth keeping), so when I have hold of the copy I will attend to that, though it will likely not be until near the end of next week (25th onwards).-- (talk) 03:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Challenged: 32 citations from 28 pages[edit]

You [PBS] are asking for 32 citations from 28 pages of the original book. Do you really not think this is a bit of overkill? Do you really think I deviated away from the text that much, whilst committing potential copyvio?-- (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

All quotes have to have citations this is part of Wikipedia policy (see WP:V, and all 32 citation requests placed into the article by me are either next to a quote or at the end of a sentence that includes a quote. As such that is very the smallest number of inlinecitations this article has to have. Sometimes I think that inline citations can be overdone see here for example, but this article has a long long way to go until it is at that level. -- PBS (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No, search that policy for "quote" and we find "When there is dispute about whether a piece of text is fully supported by a given source, direct quotes and other relevant details from the source should be provided to other editors as a courtesy. Do not violate the source's copyright when doing so." and a section on Quoting non-English sources, you have been asked what you actually dispute, no answer, you have the details already, we in a cyclic argument now. As I say, you take it forward then, I;m done.--21:25, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
A search on "quote" will not find the relevant section (because the word used is "quotations". The sentence is in WP:V# Burden of evidence and says "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". and then goes on to say "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)".-- PBS (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
That is what I have been saying. Put in inline cite, yes indeed. 32 individually page references exactly at the points specified? No, lets look at that again. Page, section, and division. No policy for specifying page per cite, use what is appropriate - I think 1-2 and 2-3 page groupings likely and sufficient in what I was imagining in putting in section/para/some specific point cites. Could technically be satisfied with citing same 28 pages at every point, wouldn't be good, I said that already, let's look at that again. I suggested round-up cites in sections and paragraphs alongside a re-write, as well as where you see guideline meeting policy, as you insisted each and every one of those 32 demanded inline cite, I demonstrate one instance of one word problem because I chose to preserve Varley's quotes which woudn't make a jot of difference to the article if not in quotes, which would make four less cites "demanded by policy". I also think no extra cite is needed if a paragraph cite is given where an inline attribution is already given (a dated letter from the King to a named individual for example). Lets get appropriate eh, you are an admin, I am an ex-admin, we can wiki-layer each other around in circles all day, lets just get on and put the energy into the freakin article already by agreeing the currently marked areas for attention should receive it but not by having inline cite-wonkery where there really is no need.-- (talk) 00:23, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The "specifying page,...." is of the source not the divisions in Wikipedia article the "section, or such divisions as may be appropriate" are for sources where pages are not appropriate. For example online sources my be split by section headers, or chapter headers (see for example biographies on History of Parliament web site, or in the case of a book on Kindle as a %age of the book read ete. But for old-fashioned books pages are required and every quote must have one to comply with Wikipedia policy. "I also think no extra cite is needed if a paragraph cite is given where an inline attribution is already given (a dated letter from the King to a named individual for example)." inline attribution attributes who said what but that is not enough there has to be a citation as well (so that the reader can find the primary source in the secondary source from whence it came). -- PBS (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Matter of opinion not fixed by policy.
Long and short of is, that you expect me to not only look up each and every page number for each and every problem you perceive, not accepting than some aren't problems ("block up"->blockade) but check each and every one of Varley's sources and diligently enter their details in. As I said before, if that's the deal you gotta ask nicer.-- (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Citing sources#How to place an inline citation using ref tags the guideline you pointed me too says (with my added emphasis for those hard of reading): "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text. If an infobox or table contains text that needs citing, but the box or table cannot incorporate an inline citation, the citation should appear in a caption or other text that discusses the material."
the words and phrases are not contentious, at all, let alone particularly.
my last edit left the sources crystal clear which source supported which part of the text, although not inline.
I've already said that by today's standards, inline citations for Grose and Varley need to be made for this article and I've said let's not be wonks about it (I'm more inclined to want to note where Varley sources his historically nice and precious quotes) and get on with it.
an inline citation next to the King example would tell us what? The same as as the one at the end of the paragraph, the sources there being clearly marked as to which part of the text it supports. If there is to be a cite next to things like the King example then someone should have checked Varley's sources or found it independently (which for an inline dated attributed object isn't that impossible).-- (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── See the third opinion expressed by RUcrule in the next section. I suggest that if you do not accept GRUcrules's view (which AFAICT is in line with policy and my POV) that you continue this discussion below GRUcrules's comment. -- PBS (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


WP:PROVIT Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.

Removing requests for inline citations is not an option, On quotes they are mandated. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

why just after I added a supplementary source to first extra source (you requested), did you re-add the source that you state is dubious as it is self published? I was in the process of going through and seeing what other supplementary sources there are out there to the two single sources that are used throughout the city, the siege (and the treaty) section which were clearly noted as one being notes, the other being references, if you want to take this article on board and take it forward though, be my guest, I'm rapidly losing the fun aspect of using my down time...-- (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
For this specific case see the next section. I have nothing against better sources the the source has to be cited inline with enough information to be able to locate the page (see WP:CITEHOW) -- PBS (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Well some other schmuck can go grab page numbers for that hoop then. I'm out.-- (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
CITEHOW appears to lead a content guideline. I must supply you with the page number under which policy? The entire three sieges and the treaty is from 28 pages, as noted in the reference, which enumerates which 28 consecutive pages of the book are relevant.-- (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
You are not supply me with page numbers, if you choose to add them you are adding them for the readers of the article, so that they can easily validate that the information in the Wikipedia article reflects usage in reliable sources. This goes back to the internal debates in 2005-2006 on how to improve Wikipedia's image when at the time it was a journalistic sport to write articles with examples of how inaccurate and therefore untrustworthy Wikipedia was.
CITEHOW explains how to add citations so that they comply with the policy page WP:V which says in the section called Burden of evidence "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate). The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article". -- PBS (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
By adding the cite marks placed as they are, you are the one challenging that data, and you asked for page numbers, whilst reporting back to me that which I have already said: policy does not demand inline citation of page number as when challenged "page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate" are to be given as a courtesy - those 28 pages in that one book backs up all those citation required requests. I am happy to compromise by agreeing that, for the long term interest of improving the article, a 28 page division is not appropriate for all three (and one sub-)section(s) but cannot accept that you actually challenge the factual accuracy of the text in relation to the source that we need 32 inline citations in the article. Again: the guideline shows how to demonstrate verifiability in the article in support of policy by best practices - the policy does not demand inline citations to state page numbers, only that a verifiable source, specifying where in the source, the data can be checked - the data can be checked in those 28 pages, the pages on the sieges, anyone could have easily pasted the same cite for the 28 pages at every point you've raised and make the article policy compliant that way. I hope you will agree that is obviously not in the best interests of the article.
I had loosely formed the idea, that after finding the source I read some five years ago that mentioned that colleges' cooking utensils (copper/brass etc) were melted for weaponry, iirc, at 'New Inn Hall' and adding that in to the notes, then I would retrieve the book and make 1-2, and 2-3 page number references for sections and paragraphs as I see appropriate and any specific points in the article where you feel guideline meeting policy pretty much demands it. I had then in mind to read through and where the language is not ambiguous, overall improve and reduce any overly formal or unnecessarily fat sentences. Then I was going to look at the further reading for usefulness in the article, but I will not touch the article again until we have agreed that 32 cites are way too many points for one source of 28 pages and come to some compromise as to using better/common sense on the cites' distribution through the article.
Agreeing to this would mean that over the next four-five weeks, my down time, as I had loosely planned, would see this article moved away from copvio, if it is found to still be under copyright, more tightly worded, further reading possibly expanding it, or at least integrated into cites/notes where possible, and reasonable attribution to the sources made throughout. This, after the article had been sat some four-five years before you becoming the first person to challenge the verifiability in such a manner and question if copyvio over a year ago and no-one else appearing to give a <insert expletive here> until I came back to the article and saw your notes and started working on it straight away - that was when?, only yesterday. Over to you, compromise offered.-- (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Also note that instances like "block...", where you have four tags relating to Varley's use of quotes, are not damaged if unquoted and exchanged for the word blockade. Two sentences in that instance would need recasting, neither of the quotes are so historically precious that the article would lose anything by their being reported rather than quoted. There's four less cites...-- (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
Looking at the article and seeing the MAJOR lack of citations throughout the article, I don't think this item is worth spending much more time on. Instead, the article would be much improved if there were citations throughout the text. It reads well, save for the high number of 'citations needed'...which is a bigger problem. The more detailed a source's info can be, the better - including page numbers gives a source additional credibility. As it is, I'm inclined to slap the "This article is poorly sourced" tag on the article as it stands right now. As I am responding to a third opinion request, I will not do so at this time, but I recommend this article be populated with credible sources as soon as possible. GRUcrule (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding GRUcrule, I have two questions, if you would: is it, in your opinion, required by policy, that cites are required at each and every point in the article as it stood when they were inserted, or are you content that when something previously quoted has been recast into being reported as per these changes, specific cites, on top of the planned paragraph cites are needed (in the "The first siege" section you will note we are four citations required less)?. Secondly, are you content with the current level of sourcing in the "The city during the civil war"?-- (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for my delay in responding, I was away from a computer for a few days attending a funeral. I'm taking a look now and will post my thoughts shortly. GRUcrule (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Both of these questions are good ones. To the first, I don't think a source is necessary every other sentence. If you have one or two strong sources for a paragraph that talks about the same subject (for instance, a couple of paragraphs under the same sub-heading such as "The Treaty"), then the same source applies to it all, so having it at the end of the paragraph(s) works just fine. For example, the third paragraph in the section of The Treaty doesn't need two places with citations - just one at the end of it.
I do think when a document or person is directly quoted, that it needs to be sourced. Perhaps this article could use a bit less direct quotation (as I've seen is the direction of a few of your edits, which I think helped) so it doesn't require as much sourcing throughout? Just a thought. As for the second question, yes, I think the section "The City During the Civil War" is in solid condition with those changes and reads more credibly than it did. Thanks for those edits! GRUcrule (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and trouble GRUcrule, although I've snuck the odd quote back in, more have been going, as you rightly noted. I'll continue as I have been doing and when I've announced that 'I've I've done what I can for the article' if PBS (or others) still has concerns over cite placings, we can take it forwards from there.-- (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


the problem with this footnote Oriel hosted the Privy Council of the King's Oxford Parliament, which would seem to disagree with Grose's summary of the work by Varley and perhaps is a typo/misprint for "Ordinance was cast...". is that it is OR unless a reliable source can be found that states "perhaps is a typo/misprint" -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It's a note pointing out obvious discrepancies, but if having a helpful note where sources disagree outside the text of the article is so egregious ffs take it out.-- (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Which is why I put back the previous citation. there is nothing wrong with noting a difference between the sources but you have to leave the reader to draw the conclusion themselves with an explicit conclusion drawn for them unless it is in a secondary source. -- PBS (talk) 14:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
I really can't agree that putting back the citation you doubt (as it is self published) is better than just taking out the words after the first comma then. You and I both appear bright enough to know that ordnance would hardly be cast in the place that housed the Privy Council, but there's a very high chance that ordinance would be.-- (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
While I know that cannons are not going to be made in the same place the cabinet meets, Wikipedia editors can not speculate as to why. For example you have hypothesised that it is perhaps is a typo/misprint for "Ordinance was cast...", but another possibility is that what Manganiello (2004) describes as a "cannon foundry" in "Frewin Hall could be the source of the confusion, because according to the article to which Frewin Hall --redirects-->St Mary's College, Oxford" which say in its lead "It is not to be confused with the two other colleges also named "St. Mary's", more commonly known as Oriel College and New College" ... . The point is that either or both or neither of these explanation may explain the differences in the sources. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to do such original research indeed synthesising and publishing explanations like this are explicitly disallowed under WP:SYN. What we can do is report the facts about differences in sources an allow the reader to make up their own minds. Only if we can find a source that speculates why there is a difference can that explanation be published. -- PBS (talk) 16:51, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I don't disagree with NOR, and for the third time, with that (obviously) disagreeing source we should just take out the words after the first comma.-- (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
In the notes you have "stated used for Oriel differs from Grose's summary of the work by Varley which stated Oriel was used for the manufacturing of ordinance" - that's not right (and I think you meant "manufacturing of ordnance") and would be better as "Grose's summary of the work by Varley states "St Mary's College" was where ordnance was cast: The British Civil Wars Project states Oriel (also known as St Mary's College) hosted the Privy Council of the King's Oxford Parliament, while Mangiani also records that, he states that Frewin Hall (the rebuilt buildings of the St Mary's College in New Inn Hall Street), was converted to a cannon factory" - "cast ordnance" is ambiguous and could just possibly mean planning the supplies, resources, and troops movements etc., so stating it was manufacturing ammunition is not unambiguously supported by Grose/Varley, I think we are forced to keep the words "cast ordnance" with Grose/Varley. The nearby later sentence about New Inn Hall meltings/casting/coinings would be better brought up next, rephrased, and use Mangiani 405 as second supp ref for the colleges giving over gold and silver plate for the mint there.-- (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
I am not too fussed about the precise wording so long as there is no OR in it -- You are after all the one with access to both sources so you summary will most likely be more accurate than mine. However I do not see how you could come to the conclusion of "cast ordnance" could also "mean planning the supplies, resources, and troops movements etc.,". Casting is a specific, and at that time the major, part of the manufacturing of ordnance. The problem with cannon factory is that most people today will not realise that such places also cast mortars. Artillery is an alternative word that could be used but I don't think it has common usage in modern secondary sources about the Civil War. -- PBS (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Nice picture, thank you. I believe that Grose meant St Mary's College, New Inn Hall Street were fabricating munitions, the link under St Mary's College went to Oriel College and that was a mistake, with the Mangiani cite, and the above construction, readers can now eliminate the possibility that Grose's St Mary's College could be anything other than the one in New Inn Hall. How could I come to the conclusion of planning: is it not true that the executive of the Privy Council met at St Mary's College (Oriel) and statutes, policies, orders and requisitions (ordinances) regarding supplies, resources, and troop movements (ordnance) would have been discussed and 'moulded into shape', 'fashioned', and 'cast into stone'? Isn't that also a possible reading of "Ordnance was cast at St Mary's College" and "Ordinance was cast at St Mary's College" isn't an unlikely typo/error, you've made the same mistake (in reverse) in the current version of the article, twice over. Regarding "cannon factory", Mangiani states "cannon foundry" so we just change it to that, as it is in the note where you have put "ordinance factory" in the article (which should be "ordnance factory") that's descriptive enough and linking it would provide same for those who didn't know, so I don't think we have to worry, so that would give us:
"Grose's summary of the work by Varley states "St Mary's College" was where ordnance was cast: The British Civil Wars Project states Oriel (also known as St Mary's College) hosted the Privy Council of the King's Oxford Parliament, while Mangiani also records that, he states that Frewin Hall (the rebuilt buildings of the St Mary's College in New Inn Hall Street), was converted to a "cannon foundry"." -- (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Sorry for the spelling mistake (that is a small one by my standards!).

  • I think you are pushing the envelope with you interpretation of "cast ordnance" as nothing suggests that the the secondary sources intend it to mean anything but its most obvious meaning.
  • Ordnance factory/foundry is better because it is more precise than "cannon foundry" (don't forget mortars) and, just as important when summaries something in Wikiepdia, it uses words other than those used in the source (therefore reducing copyright concerns).
  • Manganiello also records where the Privy Council met. The reason I replaced David Plant as a source with Manganiello is because Manganiello makes similar points to Plant, but is considered to be a reliable source while Plant's web site is not a reliable source because it is self published (see WP:SELFPUBLISH), so as there is an alternative reliable source it is better not to include Plant. -- PBS (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Where am I now suggesting we put in my interpretation? I am not. YOU said "I do not see how you could come to the conclusion" I merely explained, but now I'm pushing the envelope, you make me angry again.
I am suggesting using "cannon foundry" in the footnote as you already have "the magazine and an ordnance factory;[1][a" in the article, and in that note we are reporting what the sources said. But e might as well just delete the note entirely if no one could possibly mistake Grose out of context and think his St Mary's College to be in doubt, you changed the text in the article anyway, removing his wording of St Mary altogether.
Yes he does, you did bother to read the note I spent some three hours pecking at to get best out of it? Do I not suggest that Mangiani states same.
If you're not actually reading the communication, what is the point of my bothering?
Your spelling mistake is the exact confusion you say it's impossible to make, in reverse, but again, I'm pushing the envelope by thinking anyone could possibly have made that mistake. Grrrrr
And why the fuck are you now wittering about how bad Plant as a reference to me for, I didn't put it in, you did, losing the TBCW source in the process, I took it out and it stayed out of my revisions the only person putting in back was you. I'm happy to see it gone, again.-- (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The url which your are refer to as the "TBCW source" is on David Plant's website and is written by him (see the the bottom of that url). -- PBS (talk) 23:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
ah right, so you were swopping Plant for Plant, I see now. Right, it didn't click with me, I got only as far down that page as his sources to check... I will remember to look for something even better when we've agreed some way forward.-- (talk) 23:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Old DNB entry for Hyde, Edward, FIRST EARL OF CLARENDON (1609–1674) "In the autumn of 1643 the king created a secret committee, or ‘junto,’ who were consulted on all important matters before they were discussed in the privy council. It consisted of Hyde and five others, and met every Friday at Oriel College (Life, iii. 37, 58; Clarendon State Papers, ii. 286, 290)" A secret cabal eh?, the plot thickens...-- (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

I am replying here to a couple of comments posted on the talk page because I an not sure the IP talk page to reply to. The level of inline citation is now far far better than it was 2 months ago, the notes are helpful and using so many more sources will allow readers to see that this is a balanced and well researched article. The rewrite is in precise clear English. Thank you for your hard word. Most of the article is factual and I suspect easily verified. I have a concern over three sentences that while I know them to be true, I think need a source to verify them because they are analysis of facts which is something Wikipedia editors can not do.

This had advantages and disadvantages for both parties; although the majority of citizens supported the Roundheads, supplying the Royalist court and garrison gave them financial opportunities. The location of Oxford gave the King the strategic advantage in controlling the Midland counties but the disadvantages of the city became increasingly manifest. Despite this, any proposals to retreat to the southwest were silenced, particularly by those enjoying the comforts of university accommodation.

--PBS (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that when you consider that you have finished updating the text we should put it forward for a WP:GOOD ARTICLE review. --PBS (talk)

Two other things that could be mentioned in the prelude and the aftermath that shows that Oxford remained a Cavalier city. That it was a detachment of Parliamentary horse (cavalry) pursuing of a convoy containing Oxford silver plate destined for King Charles I that led directly to the Battle of Powick Bridge at the start of the Civil War (Willis-Bund (1905) pages 34-43) and that in 1658 the students of Oxford were opposed to the Protectorate -- and presumably supported the Restoration -- (see Richard Chiverton). -- PBS (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Charles Fort and Colonel Weldon[edit]

The article has the line "On 1 June Fairfax was prepared to take the city by storm if necessary, and one of the outworks, called "Charles Fort", was surrendered to Colonel Weldon." It's sourced to Whitelocke's Memorials of the English Affairs but a mistake has occurred. The book lists events which happened on 1 June, including the sending of terms to the governor of Oxford that day. "The General sent honourable Conditions to the Governor of Oxford, who desired a day or two to consider of them, the General had all things ready for a Storm." This may refer to Fairfax's opening proposal of 11 May, in which case the date is wrong. Differences between the Old Style and New Style dates (Whitelocke was using the old style) may account for some of this, as may some confusion with the sending of various revisions of the treaty backwards and forwards. But the following entry for 1 June ("Charles Fort was surrendered to Colonel Weldon for the Parliament, upon Articles") has been conflated with the entry above for Oxford, making the latter seem to be about Oxford events. In reality Charles Fort was in the West Country, where the regiment raised and commanded by Colonel Ralph Weldon was then active. Weldon's entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography records "His [Weldon's] regiment saw further action in 1646 at the siege of Exeter and captured Charles Fort and Inchmere House for parliament." I'll remove this for now. (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)