Undefeated
Surely it should mention here that he was undefeated throughout his military career. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Dates
Dates of events that happened in Britain before 1652 are usually recorded in the Julian calendar (with adjustments for the start of the year), not Gregorian. While dates in continental western Europe are recorded in Gregorian calendar and the continental battles should have Gregorian dates, using the Gregorian calendar for things like Churchill's date of birth is not what is normally done. For example the Britannica: "born May 26, 1650, Ashe, Devon, Eng. died June 16, 1722, Windsor, near London" as does the Educational Services at Blenheim Palace "John Churchill was born on 26th May 1650".
I think Wikipedia should keep to normal practice. Wikipedia should not be innovative, it should not start to develop its own dating standards in this area because it borders on a form of Original research. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- You of course meant 1752. I tend to agree that Marlborough's dates should be O.S and therefore have made the change as suggested. What's normal practice for dating in this period however, varies from source to source. Many modern publications often convert events in the British Isles to N.S. Example Barnett, see sources. Raymond Palmer 14:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- Personally, I'd prefer to give both, as we generally do for Russian dates before 1918. But if we give only one, it should probably be O.S. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography also used old style dates. john k 14:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- It was a typo I did mean 1752. Thanks for the edit Raymond, I was not looking forward to working out which date as maladjusted, and hoped that someone more knowledgeable would take in on. As I think you have pointed out in the past John, the use of Gregorian dates for events in continental Western Europe like the Battle of Blenheim is the norm. So I think they should remain as Gregorian dates. (and of course the Battle of the Boyne is the exception that breaks the rule). The Pilgrims article is double dated and not being used to seeing them, I find the dates become obtrusive. I think I would rather have this article as Raymond has laid it out, with a footnote to explain what is happening as two different dating schemes are in use in this article. But I would not like to see an English Civil war article double dated as all the dates there are Julian with a start of year adjustment. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Parliamentary career
I move this to talk, as the invisible comment ("Possibly this was not the Duke, but the John Churchill that later, as Sir John, became MP of Bristol for a short time in 1685?") says that this was possibly another John Churchill. It can be moved back once this is ascertained. Or, if the doubt is unreasonable, the invisible comment should be removed. I also fixed in the version below the bibliographical notes. Str1977 (talk) 08:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- For six months (February–August) of 1679, Churchill was one of the two elected MPs for Newton in the Isle of Wight, a rotten borough12.
- Hi .. saw this after responded to the article change .. next time do the Talk first? :-) I don't understand your comment about 'invisible comments' -- that is what comment markup is for, to be invisible.? It seems extremely unlikely it is not 'the' JC, but worth recording, surely -- why remove it? Thanks -- quota 18:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
- Well, I did immediately bring it to talk. I think it strange to include something and at the same time issue a declaration of doubt. But since the link says that it was this Churchill, I will accept this and ignore the "invisible comment" (that term was just a description, not a complaint) except for adding that it is not probable that he is someone else.
- I am not totally statisfied with placing this at the top. I will try out another position.
- I am also not glad that you did just restore the former version, without the improvement in reference.
- Also I will remove the "rotten borough" designation until this is referenced. Just because a consticuency was rotten in 1830 doesn't mean that it was so 1679. Str1977 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I notice that peerage.com was used in these latest edits . I've just read peerage.com's brief biography of Marlborough and I can assure you that it's worthless. I can point to several FACTUAL errors in the article and numerous misleading ststements, including - "He fought in the Battle of Walcourt in 1689, where his Dutch force defeated the French under Marshal d'Humerières" - Nonsense! Raymond Palmer 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- And some of the recent changes are gramatically dubious. 17:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Rank
What was his rank in the British army? There were no field marshals in Britain before 1736... --Ghirla-трёп- 14:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
- The article never mentions the rank Field Marshal. It does, however, mention that Marlborough was Captain-General at least five times. Including in the lead Raymond Palmer 17:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Please correct or clarify "prevaricate"
Does anybody have access to the book by Chandler which is cited for this sentence in the "Revolution" section: "Churchill himself had openly encouraged defection to the Orangist cause, but James continued to prevaricate." It seems unlikely that "prevaricate" is the correct word here -- could somebody either change it to what was actually happening, or clarify what James was lying about, to whom, and why? Thanks, Thirdbeach (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
- Prevaricate, as used here, means to pussyfoot, hesitate. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm, both dictionaries I check define "prevaricate" as an active avoidance of truth rather than the passive indecisiveness implied by "hesitate" and "pussyfoot". Oxford Online says "avoid giving a direct answer when asked a question". American Heritage has definition "to stray from or evade the truth; equivocate" and synonym "lie". That's why I'm asking about the Chandler source cited next to this word. If Chandler uses "prevaricate" then I suspect there's illuminating information about what truth James was trying to evade, but I suspect that Chandler uses some other word that conveys what was going on less ambiguously. As it is, the effect for U.S. readers is that there's this rather inflammatory accusation against James -- he lied -- that demands an explanation that isn't provided. It distracts us and makes us lose the train of thought of this otherwise excellent article. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think this may be a BrE and AmE thing. My Oxford thesaurus certainly suggests that, along with 'Lie', 'Fib', - 'Pussyfoot' is also a synonym for Prevaricate. It is this latter definition of the word that Chandler (an English historian) has used to describe James' response. However, to Americans, - as you state - it seems that to Prevaricate predominantly means to lie. There is a discussion here. Also here. Note the last comment. I think the best to do is simply change the word eg: dither Rebel Redcoat (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, usage appears to be different in BrE and AmE -- in AmE "prevaricate" always has the connotation of an intent to dodge the truth. "Dither" and "pussyfoot", to us, imply indecisiveness due to incompetence or fearfulness, and they're somewhat emotionally fraught (though less so than "prevaricate"). Would they raise NPOV concerns in the UK? I think they would in US. From a US point of view I think something like "continued to hesitate" or "remained indecisive" sound more impartial. However, if Chandler actually uses "pussyfoot" or "prevaricate" or "dither" I'd use exactly his/her word in quotes, and if "prevaricate" consider adding a brief clarification in the article for us darn Yanks. :-)Thirdbeach (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've changed the ambiguous word to 'hesitate'. Thank you. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you. Appreciate the excellent resource that this article is. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
|
