Talk:Battle of Otterburn

Homildon Hill

The second Earl of Douglas had no legitimate heir. It was his cousin, Archibald, the fourth earl, who led the Scots forces at Homildon-or Humbelton-Hill in 1402. Rcpaterson 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Unencylopedia-like

great article, I really enjoyed reading it, but it dosen't really read like an encylopedia, and isn't that the point of Wikipedia?. I won't tell if you don't!

Date of battle

For those interested and engaging in some WP:OR, NASA produces tables of the full moons right back to the year dot. See here [1] where the full moon is given as the 18 August 1388. So the 19 August is almost certainly the correct date. - Bill Reid | ^Talk 16:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems

This article has been evaluated as part of an ongoing contributor copyright investigation. While it seems to be clear of issues prior to this edit, I'm sorry to say that at that point text was introduced which had been previously published in My Wound is Deep: History of the Anglo-Scottish Wars, 1380-1560.

For a couple of examples, the article contains the following:

This was risky: he was not equipped to carry out a siege; Newcastle was one of the main muster points for English troops in the north, so it was likely there would be more soldiers inside the town defending than outside attacking. With the Earl of Northumberland at Alnwick, the English forces were commanded by his son Harry Hotspur. But the absence of the Earl was also a danger for the Scots, as there was always a danger that their retreat would be cut off if he returned. But the very audacity of Douglas' move had the effect of convincing the English that his force was only the vanguard of a much larger army close by. Frequent skirmishes took place at the outer defences of the western wall. In the account of Jean Froissart, Douglas is said to have captured Hotspur's own pennon, though this story reads as if it has been added to provide some romantic colour, a technique in which the chronicler excels.

The book says, p. 13:

This was a risky move: he was not equipped to carry out a siege; Newcastle was one of the main muster points for English troops in the north; it is likely there were more soldiers inside defending than there were outside attacking; and with Northumberland at Ainwick there was always a danger that his retreat would be cut off. But the very audacity of Douglas's actions had the effect of convincing the English that his force was indeed only the vanguard of a much larger army close by. Frequent skirmishes took place at the outer defences of the western wall. In Froissart's account, Douglas is said to have captured Harry Hotspur's own pennon, although this story reads as if it has been added to provide some romantic colour, a technique in which the chronicler excels.

It contains the following:

When news of the defeat reached London, the search for scapegoats began immediately. The obvious candidate was the Bishop of Durham, who was criticised by the Royal Council for arriving too late to help Hotspur. Curiously, no official blame was attached to the commander himself for his military incompetence. He was generally perceived as a rather heroic figure, with King Richard and Parliament both contributing towards the cost of his ransom.

The book says, p. 17:

When news of the defeat at Otterburn finally arrived the search for scapegoats began immediately. The obvious candidate was the Bishop of Durham, who was criticised by the Royal Council for arriving too late to help Harry Hotspur. Curiously, no official blame seems to have been attached to the commander himself for his military incompetence. He was generally perceived as a rather heroic figure, with both king and Parliament contributing towards his ransom.

I find matches from other passages, too.

Unfortunately, Patersen's publisher has not approved the use of this text.

We have the option of reverting the article to this version, which seems clean, following which content contributed by other users can be restored if it does not interact with text from this contributor in such a way as to create an unauthorized derivative work (since the copyright problem versions will probably be deleted, it's important to attribute in edit summary, such as "content contributed by [[User:Example]]"). The article can also be completely rewritten. The article is being blanked and listed at the copyright problems board to give contributors an opportunity to determine how best to proceed. It will be revisited by an administrator after about a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article has been reverted to the last clean version prior to the introduction of copyvio text. The current list of references, external links and categories has been readded along with infobox and "see also" notes. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Raymond Campbell Paterson/User:RcPaterson

Has it not occured to any admins that the user User:Rcpaterson is actually the author of "My wound runs deep", Raymond Campbell Paterson. Therefore he is the owner of his own intellectual material, and if he so chose to publish freely on Wikipedia, then that is his own lookout.

I feel that it is wrong to suspend this article in this case, as the copywrite holder was the contributor. Furthermore looking at is userpage, it suggests that he has left Wikipedia, and he has not contributed since 2006. Brendandh (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it has occurred to us. We have been in communication with Mr. Patersen, but I'm afraid that doesn't resolve the issue of his publisher's rights to the content. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Statbox

Folks, the text mentions the Percys having a 3:1 advantage, but the statbox shows about 3.2k English vs. 2.9k Scots. Is this an error in the article or just Froissart at work? 62.196.17.197 (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Sir John, Sir John! Can only go with comptemporaneous s'pose. Any others? Brendandh (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Otterburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030320174044/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=FroChro.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=4&division=div1 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=FroChro.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=4&division=div1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Battle of Otterburn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070625183426/http://www.otterburntower.com/ to http://www.otterburntower.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

First paragraph of lead uninformative

I am not much versed in historical battle article protocol in Wikipedia, but I would have thought that the first paragraph of the lead might be expected to

give at least the headline details of

the date it was fought (partial tick for that - done but overdone) and

who was fighting who (tick for that one),

in which war or unrest (tick for that one)

perhaps, the main reason for this specific battle,

perhaps, including a word or short phrase describing the military form of the action, and

who is generally agreed to have won (no tick for that - no information is provided on this until much later in the article),

but

not to enter into discussion of difficulties in reaching precision of historical info (cross for this one).

I don't really feel that I want to get involved too much in this a present so I will just suggest here an alternative first paragraph and let other editors use it as they think fit to, perhaps, improve the article.

'The Battle of Otterburn, 1388, considered something of a rout of the English during continuing border skirmishes with Scotland between .... and ...., was part of a two-pronged opportunistic revenge attack mounted by the Scots at the time of rotation of English border troops.' Hedles (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)