|This is the Conversation Forum for |
100 percent tax >>
To the editors:
I hope you wouldn't mind if I quibbled a bit over some of the changes made to my entry.
The sources section for Parliament is just written underneath the section. I think it'd be better a footnote as (IIRC) it originally was, or it should at least be italicised or something. And secondly, the title. The reason I called it "English Civil War, Causes of" was that with that title it would bring it up as one of the first and most obvious results in a search for "english civil war". Titled like this, it's less obvious.
And one more thing, which was an error of mine: footnote two reads 'no King' when it should, on reflection, be 'no Monarch'.
...Other than that, it's been very well edited.
I'm sorry to be negative about a text which obviously took up a lot of time to produce but I found it very disjointed, repetitive and so not at all clear.
Having seen your comment about the editing I now wonder if it is the fault of that?
Could you please define what you mean by 'civil war' because the impression given is that this historical happening was no more than a rebellion against the King.
Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A523450 'The English Civil War'; while it was a rebellion against the King, it was much more in that, it was was a war between the two arms of government that the King ultimately lost. When after the Commonwealth the Monarchy was restored it was with the tools of prerogative government removed.
I've made some of the changes, but we have left the title as is. The reason is that we like to keep titles readable and if we were to make all entry titles alphabetically higher up in the results, there would be no advantage.
Thanks for a good read.
It was mostly the work of Alex Watson & he drserves any gratitude thats going around
<< Could you please define what you mean by 'civil war' because the impression given is that this historical happening was no more than a rebellion against the King. >>
This article is not to explain the civil war, but to show the causes that lead up to it. The entry on the Englsih Civil War would give you a clearer guide as to what actually happened.
Thanks Ashley, although footnote 6 (about the references) is referenced to the wrong place - it should be attached to the header "Parliament"
I appreaciate your comments about titles, even if I don't agree with them (I don't think starting titles with 'The' is a good idea, at the least). However, it doesn't really matter that much.
Tanks once again.
I would still ask you what you define as 'civil war' because the article does give the impression that it was a rebellion against the king.
A civil war is "a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country"
A rebellion is "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government"
The English Civil War was not a rebellion as it was a war between two different branches of government.
Thanks for your contribution, but the question was not addressed to you. I know well what a civil war is -it's really quite easy to look up in a dictionary. What I am trying to establish is Alex's definition.
His article giving the causes places responsibility on the king, so implying that the effort to have change was directed at him. England was then a functioning kingdom so 'The causes of the civil war' should show why it should not be termed a rebellion.
I don't personally believe that an article regarding the causes of a civil war should need to defin the terms. Certainly, Charles does bear at least some responsibility for the war. But it should be clear that the war was between two opposing sides (termed in this article as Court and County, later known as the Royalists and Parliamentarians, respectively), and not simply a rebellion against the king.
Oh, and my definition of civil war is pretty much the same as a dictionary's. I don't think defining terms is going to help the fact that you didn't like the article. In my defence, the 'repetitive' nature of the article is largely due to the fact that I have listed the causes under headings. Since time marches onward, and events do not group themselves chronologically under headings, any attempt to categorise causes will be inherently repetitive. However, I believe it preferable to simply listing events, which would, in my opinion, be even worse.
I think this conversation is being portrayed as an exchange between an insenitive reader and an oversensitive author. The result is going to be of no benefit to any other contributor. Let's just call a halt
and say 'you are right'.
hmm, so what what happened to debate ..?
“England was then a functioning kingdom”
England even back then was a 'constitutional monarchy' with a primitive democratic system. One of the problems that led to the civil war was Charles's efforts to bypass this primitive democratic system (parliament) & rule using prerogative powers.
& I don't think Alex is being oversensitive.
As I said "so what what happened to debate"
There isn't a debate. I'm sorry but I really want to unsubscribe from this conversation. No hard feelings, I hope.
Why are you refering to this as the English Civil war. It is at least the second civil war with the War of the Roses being a far more significant civil war in cost/deaths and time. The war re the Magna Carta and the power of the Barons limiting the power of the king with regard to raising taxes is also very similair to this Civil War in reason.
Just my little rant