From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Undefeated
Surely it should mention here that he was undefeated throughout his military career. Centy – reply• contribs – 22:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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)
[edit] 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 borough[1][2].
- 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)
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)
FA
