Talk:Wars of the Roses
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wars of the Roses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Wars of the Roses was a Warfare good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 22, 2005, May 22, 2006, and May 22, 2007. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The name.
The article still doesn’t say what this war (these battles) were called just prior to being called The Wars of the Roses.
Were they still called The Civil War, until the "Great Rebellion" became The Civil War?
In 1814 (Walter Scott)?
After 1911? English Civil War#Terminology
Any validity for "Cousin's War"?
MBG02 (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- To (kind of) answer my own question…
- Archives says Cousins’ War probably arose with the novels of Philipa Gregory.
- The first use by Philippa Gregory (that I can see), is in The White Queen (2009). Google says Kevin P Phillips published The Cousins' Wars (1999).
- The same post has a link which fails (for me), but Google can get it: http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/posts/the-myth-of-the-cousins-war-a-guest-post-by-leanda-de-lisle/ .
- That blog says the term Wars of the Roses can be dated to David Hume (I guess c1762). The blog, and this article, mention Shakespeare's roses (implying the name could be older).
- MBG02 (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Leadership in the Wars of the Roses requires attention
Draft:Leadership in the Wars of the Roses exists for a long time. At AfC review it was suggested that before splitting it should be discussed here. Though the main author lost interest in the article (I think so, maybe I'm wrong), the article looks well-sourced. Would be great if somebody would look / accept / comment on it. Artem.G (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
note re article revisions
I made a few revisions. just two or three. or maybe more. hope everyone finds them helpful. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Lead image
The current lead image (a 20th century painting of a Shakespeare play), whilst nice, is probably more fitting for Henry VI, Part 1 than it is for a series of very real wars that took place in the 15th century. We could go for a depiction of any of the battles instead, or the collage of images that I have put forward, which are pictures of the four kings most involved in the fighting. Thoughts? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Tim. Did there end up being a discussion on this? While I don't have a problem with the new image (which is consistent with many other lead images on medieval/early modern warfare articles), I do think that the original worked very well as a symbolic representation of the conflict - capturing the essence of the conflict as a contest between two families and instantly evoking (and explaining) the name of the war itself (in spite of the fact that the actual scene is fictional of course). I'd prefer the original, but I'm all for further discussion. Otters B. Bothers (talk) 06:28, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Otters, apologies for the late response, but I haven't been monitoring this talk page all that often. No, there didn't end up being a discussion; I'd waited about 19 days and there hadn't been any input, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and make the change myself. In regards to the original picture: I didn't think a 20th century painting of a fictional scene was best suited for the lead image, and whilst a good artistic representation, not a very accurate or realistic one, and not a good thing to have in a fact-based encyclopaedia. On the whole, I'm not too picky about its replacement; we could choose a painting of a battle, or a picture of just one of the kings, or just the two rose symbols; I'm not bothered. But what I would say is that we definitely should remove, or at least move down the previous image. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Just seen this - we certainly need something better. Multiple images should be avoided wherever possible, and especially crushed into infoboxes. A near-contemporary battle pic would would be better there are a few of these. In fact there should be more in the article generally. The 3 from the Commons Category:Histoire de la rentrée victorieuse du roi Edouard IV (1471) - UGent HS236 seem to date from 1471. The illustrationsd throughout the article don't seem to have been looked at for years. Johnbod (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Tim O'Doherty:, @Johnbod: I'm going to have to agree with you both here. A contemporary or near-contemporary depiction of one of the battles does sound like the best option. Otters B. Bothers (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Putting forward some potential candidates here:
-
Battle of Bosworth Field (non contemporary)
Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. Out of the ones you have suggested, I am supportive of either the image of the Battle of Tewkesbury or of the Battle of Bosworth Field. The former is very bright and clear, with little clutter, very fitting for a lead image and of course is of one of the most significant battles of the war. The latter, while non contemporary, is one of the most iconic depictions of the war and is of arguably its most famous and significant battle. Otters B. Bothers (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Otters B. Bothers: Just temporarily changed the lead image until we get further input on this; what do you think? I think the current one actually isn't too bad. Looks pleasant enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Some war articles, such as the Hundred Years' War and Thirty Years' War, use one file that is a collage of other images, could the same be done here with the four monarchs or battle scenes? If using a single image then one from the Ghent manuscript seems the best option - and as Tewkesbury is already used elsewhere in the article my preference would be for Barnet. EdwardUK (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is where we came it, with a 5-monarch collage. Personally I loathe collages, especially in infoboxes, where they are too small; it seems others agree. This article is generally under-illustrated, so the common excuse of lack of space doesn't apply. I don't much like the roses either - they are better below, with explanations as to which is which. I think a battle scene from the Ghent manuscript is best - we should just use the best one, & then use the other lower down. I have a mild preference for Tewkesbury. There are also rather better later images than the ones we are now using, which could be spread around. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Ok, done. Tewkesbury it is. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- This is where we came it, with a 5-monarch collage. Personally I loathe collages, especially in infoboxes, where they are too small; it seems others agree. This article is generally under-illustrated, so the common excuse of lack of space doesn't apply. I don't much like the roses either - they are better below, with explanations as to which is which. I think a battle scene from the Ghent manuscript is best - we should just use the best one, & then use the other lower down. I have a mild preference for Tewkesbury. There are also rather better later images than the ones we are now using, which could be spread around. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Some war articles, such as the Hundred Years' War and Thirty Years' War, use one file that is a collage of other images, could the same be done here with the four monarchs or battle scenes? If using a single image then one from the Ghent manuscript seems the best option - and as Tewkesbury is already used elsewhere in the article my preference would be for Barnet. EdwardUK (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Otters B. Bothers: Just temporarily changed the lead image until we get further input on this; what do you think? I think the current one actually isn't too bad. Looks pleasant enough. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Former good article nominees
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class British military history articles
- British military history task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class Medieval warfare articles
- Medieval warfare task force articles
- C-Class Middle Ages articles
- High-importance Middle Ages articles
- C-Class history articles
- All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
- C-Class Lancashire and Cumbria articles
- High-importance Lancashire and Cumbria articles
- C-Class Yorkshire articles
- High-importance Yorkshire articles
- WikiProject Yorkshire articles
- C-Class England-related articles
- High-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- C-Class Medieval Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Medieval Scotland articles
- C-Class Scotland articles
- Mid-importance Scotland articles
- All WikiProject Scotland pages
- C-Class France articles
- Low-importance France articles
- All WikiProject France pages
- C-Class European history articles
- Mid-importance European history articles
- All WikiProject European history pages