Talk:Glorious Revolution

citation template

I think that the citations in this article would benefit from the usage of the {{citation}} template because there are a lot of citations and the template has two distinct advantages:

• It allows citations to appear in a consistent format within the references section.
• using the templates {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} within the standard ref tag pair the short citation is just a click away from the long citation.

I have altered the the itinerary citation added yesterday to demonstrate how citation can be used to tie the short citation to the long citation.

The use of the {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} template depends on whether the short citation needs additional information held within the short citation if it does not then use {{sfn}} as it automatically takes care of repeat citations without the named ref tag as in <ref name=Itinerary> that I replaced in the above example, but if additional information is needed within the short citation (like a quote) then harvnb is better. It will become obvious when altering the short citations which is the better to use in any particular case.

There are two ways to do this. Either short and matching long citation. This has the advantage of when the task is finished any entries in references section not converted should be moved out to further reading (or deleted). However it does mean that the whole article had to be edited. If instead all the reference section is converted first to use the citation template and then each separate section is converted to use the sfn or harvnb templates, then providing they are working on different sections several editors can continue to work on the same article without an edit clash.

Usually the information that the {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}} contain is {{sfn|author|year published|p=num}}.

If one of the other templates related to {{citation}}, such as {[tl|cite book}}, is used in the references section then an additional field has to be added to the related template to make if function with sfn or harvnb. It is "|ref=harv".

To see an article which was altered from the old method to the new please compare English Civil War (old) with the current version of the English Civil War.

Does anyone have any objections to me converting the references section to use the citation templates and the short citations to use sfn or harvnb? -- PBS (talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I've now altered all the citations to use {{sfn}} and {{harvnb}}. I have separated out nots and cations and I moved all the books that were in the References section but not cited into a "Further reading" section. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Further reading and External links

I have been through the "Further reading" and "External links" sections adding citation templates. As the article has a large reference section -- with the exception of the Prince of Orange's deceleration (a primary source)-- I don't see any point keeping the books and articles in those two section in the article. Unless anyone wants to suggest other books or links currently in those two section to be kept in the article, I propose to move them into a collapsed box here on the talk page. -- PBS (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, providing the main literature written about a subject is a very important function of an encyclopaedic article! Why do the reader a disservice by removing that crucial information from a place where it can be easily found to a place where it will probably not found at all?--MWAK (talk) 04:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My intention of placing it on the talk page is for editors not readers. The list in both the section Further reading and External links seems to be a fairly random collection. Which of the bullet points do you think is "crucial information"? -- PBS (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The lists for further research are very valuable for students considering writing a paper on this major topic. Their biggest handicap is often not knowing where to start, and Wiki can be a great help in this regard. On-line library catalogs will have hundreds of titles without telling which are most useful, and not many undergraduates are able to find the good journal articles on their own. Rjensen (talk) 13:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We have 36 alphabetically sorted entries in the References section which seems to me to be a reasonably good bibliography for anyone who wants one. If the entries in the External links and Further reading are so useful then why are they not cited? If you were going to recommend just six additional items over and above the 36 in the references section, from those contained in the Fr and El sections which six would it be? -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Another way to do this is to list bibliographies made up by well known universities. No only will that produce an expert list for anyone who wants more information but it also allows them to check if the references we are using are representative of those used in undergraduate courses. For example a quick Google search of [Glorious Revolution bibliography site:ac.uk] throws up The preliminary examination in history: History of the British Isles IV (2006) section 9, p. 4, at Oxford University. It recommends five books of which three are already in the references section. I would have thought that this would make a better entry in further reading than any that are currently there.

On the first page returned by the same search is Glorious Revolution of 1688 by Intute.ac.uk which recommends http://www.thegloriousrevolution.org/ (an entry currently in the Wikipedia article's External links section).

The same search returns other potentially useful bibliographies as does [Glorious Revolution bibliography site:edu] -- PBS (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

There are many good bibliographies --most of them too long--and it's the editors job to go through and come up with a short list. That is exactly what editors do with facts: they look at the 100,000 or more facts presented in the many thousands of pages of the books we reference and select a reasonable number to include in the main text. The problem with the "References" is that they are a mixed bag: they tell where specific facts come from but they have many technical items students should avoid at the start. The "References" section is NOT designed to help users move to the next step. (See for example the cites to Troost and foreign language sources.) The "further reading" should be there to help "further" the user along, and I think should duplicate some of the key books already given in the reference list. Rjensen (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't have to list the books in the biographies just a couple of biographies. We should not list books in further reading that are used as references (until I sorted them out there was only a references section), it is generally not considered a good idea see WP:LAYOUT. If you were going to recommend just six additional (which is about a third of them), from those currently in the Fr and El sections which six would it be? -- PBS (talk) 06:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would include these 9 in further reading. Only the very largest academic libraries will have all nine, most will only have a few for the student to read:

1. Ashley, Maurice (1966). The Glorious Revolution of 1688. Hodder & Stoughton. Also published by Panther History (1968).
2. Cruickshanks, Eveline (2000). The Glorious Revolution (British History in Perspective). Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0312230095. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0312230095.
3. DeKrey, Gary S. (2007). Restoration and Revolution in Britain: A Political History of the Era of Charles II and the Glorious Revolution. A scholarly history of the era.
4. Jones, J. R. (1988). The Revolution of 1688 in England. Weidenfeld and Nicolson. ISBN ????.
5. Miller, John (1997). The Glorious Revolution (2 ed.). ISBN 0582292220. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0582292220.
6. Pincus, Steve (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution.
7. Schwoerer, L.G. (2004). The Revolution of 1688–89: Changing Perspectives. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521526140.
8. Speck, W. A. (1989). Reluctant Revolutionaries. Englishmen and the Revolution of 1688. Oxford University Press.
9. Vallance, Edward (2006). The Glorious Revolution: 1688 — Britain's Fight for Liberty. Brown Little. ISBN 1933648244. Rjensen (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of those are already in the references section. Are there no others in the further reading or external links that you think worth keeping? For example one of the bibliographies I listed suggested that http://www.thegloriousrevolution.org/ was a useful site.-- PBS (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

many historians

The article has recently been change to read "This fact has led many historians to suggest that, in England at least, the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution"

"many historians" are weasel words. -- PBS (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Who, what, when, where, WHY, and HOW!

It is sad that the why and the how of history are not considered to be encyclopedic, and are not even considered for inclusion in articles67.206.183.76 (talk) 18:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC). Admins here should worry more about weasels than "weasel words".

The shift in mind - the revolution!

The article is an interesting reading.

However it is amazing that the legacy part is not hooking up to the main article. After 50 years of domestic fighting it all is settled in peace. The main shift is in view, the business of Amsterdam invaded London. London a much safer location (than Holland) in threat of the past (risk of being invaded) by them with the view of the struggle of battle for the cake, instead of making it (business) grow. It is a revolution because the Brish sociaty ever since has it as it fundament. It looks to have been a very good deal with William, for the nation.

The artichle is also missing the main point of all the protestant states became protestant due to the problem that Catholics so far has had problems with two master. Even Jesus claimed one can not have two masters. So it is not a matter of faith, only about politics.

To everyone outside Britain Ireland was an occupoied country and theat William had to reoccupy it is no surprise, later history has proven it very clear, ask the irish? Most likly still most non-Britains still call the Kingdom Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 (talk) 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Huggle, etc.

For a time, the lead read, "The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, is the overthrow of King James II of England..."

I changed "is" to "was." My first attempt was accidentally reverted by an editor using Huggle, and I redid it. I was wondering if there was a reason to use the present tense rather than the past. I think it sounds better now, but I can change it back if I was mistaken.

Thanks! DCItalk 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, in the first sentence of a lead section more or less a definition should be given of a certain term or phenomenon. Therefore it is preferable to use the present tense even if said phenomenon has ended in a historical point of view, because that definition as such is not a historical event. It is true that the Glorious Revolution was the overthrow of James II, but it still is and always will be — unless the meaning of the concept changes. So, as regards the first sentence, we should consider things in a more abstract way — and resist the natural but slightly misguided impulse to apply the past tense just because the event happened in the past. Likewise it is, as a first indication of the meaning of a term, better to say "the Cretaceous is a geological period" or "Tyrannosaurus is a dinosaur" even though the Cretaceous is now 65 million years ago (time flies ;o) and Tyrannosaurus is long extinct. This makes it also possible to distinguish past definitions from present concepts: "Tyrannosaurus was a carnosaur, but today it is considered a coelurosaur".--MWAK (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense now, but I do have two questions pertaining to this idea.

• In an article like 1689 Boston revolt, should the lead say "was", like it does now, or "is?"
• And, for example, in the American Revolution article, should the title continue to say "was", or should it too say "is?" The Boston revolt was important, but a far quicker and less impacting event than either of the two revolutions. So, does this mean that it should use the word "was?"

(hopefully I'm not too bothersome!)

DCItalk 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all: these are very relevant questions! For the cases you mentioned, I would say that "is" too should be preferred. However, it is not an official Wiki policy to always use the present tense. The use should be judged in each case depending on the context. In biographies it is official policy to use the past tense when a person is deceased. You correctly felt there is a difference between the "American Revolution" and the "1689 Boston Revolt". "American Revolution" has become such a common designation of the event that it functions as a name. In such a case the definitional aspect is predominant, so "is" should be much preferred. "1689 Boston revolt" however, is more of a description than a real name, so using the past tense is quite acceptable.--MWAK (talk) 08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. I now agree with you, and will check out the American Revolution article for phrases that potentially could be changed. DCItalk 21:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)