Talk:Glorious Revolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject History (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Who, what, when, where, WHY, and HOW![edit]

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![edit]

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.[edit]

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)

63.79.163.162 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have to disagree. Past tense just makes sense. You're arguing a grammatical point that contravenes convention. The event is over, it's not happening now. It happened. If someone asks, "What does 'Glorious Revolution' mean?", then you can define it with 'is' ("'The Glorious Revolution' is the name given to the overthrow..."), but this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. We're not 'defining' things, we're 'explaining' them.

A point to consider: if "was" were not expected for historical events, why would there need to be a specific policy to use "is" in biographies of deceased individuals?

Having this as editorial policy opens a huge can of worms (and will require massive edits throughout Wikipedia). Just look at War of 1812, Fall of Saigon, or September 11th attacks, the first three examples that came to mind. All use "was."

I'm going to change the article to conform to what I see as consistent Wikipedia style. If other editors change it back, well, I don't feel so strongly about it as to start any sort of edit war, just strongly enough to make the edit and explain my reasoning.

Dubious[edit]

I've tagged this
"the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or to marry a Catholic, a prohibition that continued until October 28, 2011 when this latter requirement was rescinded in a meeting of the 16 countries who still retain the British Monarch as the Head of State"
from the introduction, as dubious.
For a start, I don’t know that that much detail belongs in the introduction of this article, which is primarily about events 300 years ago. A link to the Act of Settlement 1701 page should suffice.
Also, I’m not so sure its true: Neither the Act of Settlement page, nor the 2011 proposals page say that it’s a done deal at all, they say that there’s a working party on producing the legislation. They also say the change would only come into effect if the Cambridge’s have a daughter before a son.
So the statement here seems a bit OR-ish. If there are no objections I would propose taking it out. Moonraker12 (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about any rescind, but I know that there at least "was" a provision that said that the monarch could not be Catholic. Thats how William and Mary attained the thrown. --JOJ Hutton 18:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm...just to clarify, it's the bit in italics I'm suggesting we delete; the statement about, and link to, the Act of Settlement should certainly stay. Moonraker12 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm with the "this has not been rescinded" view. I'm tempted to boldly delete it, in fact. The evidence I'll submit is [1] which says the only thing remaining to be changed is an explanation in s.3 (which this is not), and that the recited bit " That all and every Person and Persons that then were or afterwards should be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or should professe the Popish Religion or marry a Papist should be excluded and are by that Act made for ever incapable to inherit possess or enjoy the Crown and Government of this Realm and Ireland and the Dominions thereunto belonging" is the line in question. Straightontillmorning (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the rescinded text - it wasn't changed. See [2] - "A Roman Catholic is specifically excluded from succession to the throne; nor may the Sovereign marry a Roman Catholic." Gladstone 15:58 GMT, 12 Sept 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 16:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

ISBN ????[edit]

A number of the books listed at the end of the article bear this designation: ISBN ????. I don't know how to enter citations or bibliographies on WP, so have not had to enter an ISBN. Does this designation mean that some books lack a number? Thanks for the information. Yours, Wordreader (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fathered a son - birth or conception?[edit]

The last edit replaced 'fathered a son' with 'had a son' by assuming that 'to father' implies conception rather than birth. I disagree - he was not a father until the child was born. I understand this is politically sensitive, so a third option would be better. (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/father#Verb is unclear)

Also, he himself did not 'have' a son (physically), his mother, Mary of Modena, 'had' him.

Would appreciate clarification, Grebsky (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing politically sensitive about this. The original text was
Matters came to a head in June 1688, when the King fathered a son, James
I changed it do
...when the King fathered a son James
with edit summary not to put too fine a point on it, but the fathering presumably was carried out nine months earlier
"To father" is fairly broad in terms of what specific phase of the process is meant (anywhere, in general, from conception through -- possibly -- some form of participation in the birth through raising the child to adulthood). But when one says "he fathered a child" at a specific point in time... well, one's mind naturally turns to the process in which the male takes a more, um, active role than the event in which he, at most, assists. Maybe it's just me.
Meanwhile, "to have a son" certainly isn't restricted to giving birth physically, and certainly denotes, more clearly than does "fathered", the birth of a person's child.
Anyway, I don't feel strongly about this, but possibilities to consider are:
  • when the King had a son
  • when the King became father to a son
  • when a male heir was born
  • when the King's son, James, was born
etc. EEng (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)