The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Gascon campaign of 1345 was the first successful land campaign of the Hundred Years' War, eight years after it started?
Current status: Featured article
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Hi Aforst1. Many thanks for all of your edits on the Hundred Years' War articles. However, can I suggest that you be cautious about making substantive changes in featured articles. Case in point: whirlwind campaign. Personally I agree with you, which is why I used the word "whirlwind" when I wrote the article. This was commented upon at FAC by FunkMonk and so I changed it. Changing it back simply because you think it "sounded better" is liable to be seen as going against consensus. It would be better if you wish to make changes to FAs to flag them up on the talk page, pinging potentially interested editors and seek agreement. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What do the sources call it? That should determine it, otherwise we are just making our own original interpretations, which is iffy. FunkMonk (talk) 06:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains the following, "Before the war commenced well over 1,000 ships a year departed Gascony. Among their cargoes were over 200,000,000 imperial pints (110,000,000 litres; 240,000,000 US pints) of wine. (refs: Rodger 2004 pp=xix–xx, 79; Curry 2002 p=40)", which has been copy/pasted into a number of articles. I have edited it because it is wrong in several ways; it is OR, relies on a synthesis of the sources, and gives the wrong amount anyway. This was discussed at length a couple of years ago, but the wrong information is still here, so I have fixed it, here and elsewhere. I don’t expect everyone to be happy about this, but unless there is a reliable source that supports the previous assertion, I do expect the changes to stand. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
French Bias?
So, last month I tried to rephrase a couple sentences that could be read as suggesting Gascony was a French territory under English occupation. As the article points out, Gascony had been an English fiefdom for centuries and the armies holding it were mostly Gascon, not English. The other part of Gascony had only recently been captured by the French, but is referred to neutrally as being "held" by them while the more pejorative term "occupied" was reserved for English territory. This seemed like a simple imbalance to correct, but I was immediately reverted with a request to cite sources (for simple rephrasing?), had a couple vague guidelines quoted at me (that I'm not sure apply) and was told to "feel free" to discuss. It seems like a lot of effort for a small edit, but sure, let's discuss it. Duxbag (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, I removed the "-occupied" part of "English-occupied Gascony" to bring it in line with the "English Gascony" phrasing used elsewhere in the article. I also removed the rather condescending qualifier that Gascons "claimed to have" their own language. Is that really the phrasing found in Sumption 1990? Duxbag (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The occupied in "the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory" is referencing the "front line" between French-ruled and those parts of Gascony controlled by the English at any given time. Just 'English' loses that nuance, and is liable to other misunderstandings - such as anyone at the time denying that Gascony was a part of France. If you feel that "occupied" is pejorative - and I can see your point, even if I don't necessarily agree - how would you feel about 'the border region between English-held parts of Gascony and French-ruled territory'?
If you find any of the guidelines vague, feel free to boldly tighten up their language.
Changing the bit on language seems reasonable given the half dozen sources I have just looked at. (Hampered a little by Internet Archive being down.) And who wants to get into the swamp of the distinctiveness of Basque, Occitan, French and Gascon. Much less just when and if Gascon was replaced and/or subsumed by French. Can I propose a summary of the consensus of the HQ RSs as 'The independent-minded Gascons had their own customs and used a separate Gascon language alongside French ...' We would source this to Harris page 191 [1] which gives a reasonable amount of detail without drowning us in nuance. The key bit of Harris is "Throughout the [Valois] period French, Gascon, and, very much in third place, Latin are still to be found side by side."
"English-held" is better and I support it over "occupied", but the article refers to "English Gascony" elsewhere without the extra word and I don't find it particularly confusing in those contexts. It just means those parts not taken (back) by the French. Giving the English credit/blame for "holding" the region isn't quite right anyway as they largely left the Gascons to fend for themselves. In general, the article perhaps places a little too much weight on the "Frenchness" of Gascony in this era. The French had feudal history on their side and obviously Gascony is very French now, but the point of that section was that the "English" Gascons had a distinct culture and would have seen the French as foreign invaders. The "claimed to have" qualifier was casting undue skepticism on that point of view and suggested there must have been something vaguely foolish or disreputable about their motivations. I was wondering if modern political controversies over regionalism and minority languages have introduced a degree of anachronism and if there's anything to be done about it. I'm content with your proposed changes for now though. Duxbag (talk) 08:35, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
