Talk:Oliver Cromwell

1. REDIRECT Template:Archives

1960 vs. 1690

Apparently this is how you report a mistake. In the second paragraph of the introduction, it says Cromwell's head was displayed at Tyburn for 30 years from 1660 until 1960. I imagine it's supposed to be 1690, but I don't have a Wikipedia account to fix it. 2001:BB6:40B2:C000:B8B3:3DFD:751B:BFF4 (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

File:X mark.svg Not done No, it says: "Template:Tq" Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

@MartinEvans123 - As of today, the lead section says "His head was placed on a spike outside the Tower of London, where it remained for 300 years." No inline citation is given. Seems to me that conflicts with the Death and Posthumous Execution section, which says "His head was cut off and displayed on a pole outside Westminster Hall until 1685." Not 300 years. And apparently Westminster Hall is part of the Palace of Westminster, not The Tower. Then we have the separate Oliver Cromwell's Head Wiki article which says the head was displayed on the roof of Westminster Hall and remained there until at least 1684. That paragraph also has citations. My solution is to conform the lead to the other two sections. Thus always to tyrants! Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree, Westminster Hall is certainly not part of the Tower of London.The Oliver Cromwell's head article says: "Template:Tq" So 300 years seems a bit wrong. But, although it mentions January 1661, it gives no actual date for the posthumous execution at Tyburn. It looks like it might have been about 23 years, not 300. I guess he'd lost his fetching tache and goatee by then. 1685 seems uncertain. The one which was probably a fake, was buried at Sidney Sussex College, on 25 March 1960 (but in a secret location). Did you want to propose a fix here, or do you just want to go ahead and fix it? Charles II wasn't a complete tyrant, was he? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

How about I fix and publish it? Feel free to edit it if you see fit. As for Charles II, in my view he was not a complete tyrant. Nor was Cromwell. This reminds me of this 1982 film, which had a character named King Cromwell: The Sword and the Sorcerer. Worth watching if you can find it. Happy New Year, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Main image

The photo of the 1762 bust by Wilton is certainly striking, but the 1656 portrait by Cooper is contemporaneous? I fear that the oddly angled close-up of the bust makes him look like a grumpy undertaker looming over a open coffin. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. We should stick with the portrait by Cooper. Dormskirk (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there any information as to what Wilton used to model the bust, as it looks very different to the death mask also shown here. Perhaps he used the Cooper portrait and/or others? I am also intrigued as to the context for this work. Did someone commission it specially, over a 100 years after Cromwell's death, and if so why? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Military Assessment section: Credit for formation of New Model Army

Greetings Wikipedians! Before I made my edits today, the first sentence in the Military Assessment section said that Cromwell has been credited for the formation of the New Model Army. But was that credit justified? I am far from an expert on this, but the Encyclopedia Britannia article on the New Model Army gives us a more nuanced position, giving some credit to Fairfax. I have endeavored to capture this position in the edits I made today. Cordially, BuzzWeiser196 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2025

Oliver Cromwell was a stick in the mud. Wirrel (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This is the talk page. Not a forum for opinions about him. Ultraodan (talk) 14:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2025

This article is considered offensive in Scotland and Ireland, no mention of the genocides carried out there under his orders. In Scotland and Ireland he is considered a war criminal.

In the siege of Dundee for instance, his troops undertook almost a fortnight of murder, rape and looting, culminating in the execution of over 2000 civilians of the city’s population of 12000.

This article ultimately appears heavily biased, insensitive to the war crimes his troops carried out, and and implies he is an important and outstanding heroic figure. He remains to this day the focus of great hatred and resentment in Ireland and Scotland, and this should not simply be outrightly glorified.

Rosskoc (talk) 01:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Under the section "Battle of Worcester", the text currently says: "In the final stages of the Scottish campaign, Cromwell's men under George Monck sacked Dundee, killing up to 1,000 men and 140 women and children". The Gazetteer for Scotland says "Some sources suggest this was as many as 2,000" but does not say what the source for the higher number is. Please can you give a verbatim proposal for how would change the current wording and what your source is. If we are going to give a figure that is different to Williams & Forrest it needs to be authoritative. Please also bear in mind WP:NPOV. Thank you. Dormskirk (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)