Talk:History of the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject British Empire
British Empire red.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire 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.
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Flag of the United Kingdom.svg
United Kingdom portal
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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject History (Rated B-Class, Top-importance)
Md apr2004 4.jpg
History portal
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.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.



Archives
Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents

[edit] lost text help!

sorry, i've just deleted the text box with the links to other British history pages and am not sure how to get it back so if anyone finds it please restore it! thanks --Cap 21:43, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

  • Fixed - SimonP 21:45, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Areas needing more work

pre 1800

  • more on the conquest of Ireland from the 17th century on (attempts to bring it under English control)
  • Republican Rule - more on Cromwells conquests in Scotland and Ireland and his attempt to unify the British Isles under one rule

UK

  • perhaps a section on Parliament and government/ and maybe more on the devolution/EU issues
  • perhaps a section on the individual nations making up the UK (and the possible conflict between the identities of constituent nations with the UK(eg. English/British, Welsh/British). (ie actually how united is it?!)
  • A section on Ireland after it becomes part of the UK.(which i've now created as a separate title) especially the 'home rule' issue of the 19th century and calls for independence leading up to the creation of the Irish Free State.
  • maybe a section on Northern Ireland - the loyalist/republican issue
  • much more needed on recent issues
  • much more history on britan, instead of ireland, the corn law, and the liberal ideas of the 1800's and pre WW1 1900's should probably be more than a foot note to this page of irish history.

I've now copied passages from the History of Ireland and History of Northern Ireland pages but they probably need a bit more editing to make them fit better into a history of the UK as a whole.

The entire article is limited to about 32k according to wiki rules.. why not edit down those sections you copied into a few sentences, then add a line under the header See main article History of Ireland .. otherwise the article will reach max size before everything can be added. This page should mostly be an outline of the history pointing to the full articles in more detail. Stbalbach 09:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page should be renamed Political history of the United Kingdom or merged into History of the British constitution, as other than some tiny sections it only dicusses the political evolution of the UK. It doesn't even mention the Second World War, for instance. - SimonP 04:57, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I would like to get some information about the political development after WWII, e.g. the British role in the EC/EU and the UN, Thatcherism, New Labour, the Wars in Korea, the Falkland Islands and Iraq, etc. 213.23.133.97 14:37, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status

I have created Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status, which has some notes about what needs to be done to make this article featured. Please add other suggestions and see what you can to help. Tuf-Kat

I don't have specific interest or knowledge of the subject but I have just done some minor editing, including some extensive editing of one paragraph in the article; it was amateurishly written and hard to read. Hopefully those more interested in this topic than I will approve and it will help, if only a little, in this article reaching your intended target of being featured :) --Cory 17:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History of the United Kingdom series

There are a bunch of articles listed randomly at History of Britain that point to elements and periods of UK/British/English history but nothing chronological or really even serial. It would seem really fitting to have a more comprehensive series on the history of the UK focused on the United Kingdom as a unit, but none presently exists.

And, with due respect, this article collapses the history of the UK into the relationship of the UK with Scotland and Ireland, rather than the UK as the UK. There is virtually no discussion of the UK's external relations - France is mentioned only once, Germany is never mentioned, even though this history ostensibly covers the World Wars. Was that the intent? If so, where does such a discussion go? Adam Faanes 01:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent history

I've put something in because it could not go on without it for a long time; needs to be shortened. Everybody is welcome. --Cethegus 16:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split it up

This is an excessively long page. It may be good for it to be split up. ThisDude415 2006-03-10


[edit] Need link for Thatcherism

The article Thatcherism contains the line: "This personal approach also became identified with a certain toughness at times such as the Falklands War, the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference and the Miner's Strike." -- I'm making links, but I'm unable to find a Wikipedia article corresponding to "the IRA bomb at the Conservative conference." Can anybody find this and make the correct link in Thatcherism? - Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 20:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "History of the United Kingdom#Recent history"

What on earth is this very specific account of very, very recent events doing in a generalist article such as History of the United Kingdom? I mean, WWII is only mentioned as a ref point and I think WWI is skipped completely, and even the IRA bombings (much more extensive, many more dead over the years, included assassination of politicians) are dealt with much more compactly than this. I propose losing the entire "terror plots" § and leaving at the one-liner in the "Tony Blair" § commenting on decrease of IRA activity vs increase in Islamic extremist activity. The Blair § could also do with work - this is supposed to be UK history, not specific Blair history. JackyR | Talk 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree with JackyR and I've removed the most inappropriate sections, added tags to other sections deemed inappropriate. I hope someone with better summerising skills and an good knowledge of contemporary British history can fill in the blanks. Terrorism has NOT defined our history in the past decade. --JDnCoke 11:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest removing the section in its current form altogether. Maybe a line or two about Blairism and post-9/11 foreign policy could be included in the previous section, "second half of the twentieth century". Thoughts? -- Mrf-rouk 17:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I find that this section detracts from the rest of the page. It restates opinion and the factual content is more suited to a separate article on TB. Zzzp 22:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

What aspect of the article is disputed in terms of it's neutrality? OK it's a bad article needing work, but I see no disputs on this page. If there are none, the header should be removed. Jhamez84 22:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This could easily be renamed as Critisims of the United Kingdom. It doesn't make even a nod towards being ballanced.Dejvid 09:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UK-history-stub

Please make UK-history-stub synonymous with the UK-hist-stub. "hist" is not intuitive. Other history stubs accept "something-history-stubs". I don't think they use "-hist-stub", but I don't know, because "-history-stub" has always worked. I tried all kinds of combinations of UK, England, and British with "history-stub" and nothing worked. So I was left with just "history-stub" which created work for other people who know about the "UK-hist-stub" magic. Whatever possessed someone to make such an obscure stub template and not also make the synonym? Hu 01:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient history

Aldux I re-added it, with the proper understanding from where the text is originally from they were from inscriptions. --Vonones 06:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template message

I'm wondering if it's completely appropriate to state in a template that an article is "too short for something so important," so to speak. Is this a misuse of the template? The Last Melon (talk) 05:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History of the Jews in Wales

If anyone can help, still needed is an article about the History of the Jews in Wales to complete the History of the Jews in Europe. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ambiguous Abbreviation

The meaning of the abbreviation "MP" as used in this article is not immediately obvious to readers outside the UK. I had to look up the meaning after dismissing the possibility that it meant "Military Police." I'd like to see someone with more subject knowledge than I remedy the situation. 72.215.57.194 (talk) 21:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tony Blair?

What's the Tony Blair section all about? It just has some whining about the Iraq war and ID cards, not to mention it's all unreferenced. In terms of the History of the UK both pretty un-notable, we've had plenty of wars that aren't mentioned, and as for ID cards, we actually have to wait for Orwellian Dystopian future to happen before we can write about it. If anything it should be about the Scottish parliment forming and maybe the Northern Ireland peace process. I'm gonna remove it unless someone can think why I shouldn't. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

100% agree, it's total POV cherry picking to include these. The Iraq War is very notable as far as Blair himself goes and maybe UK/US relations, but certainly not a major turning point in the History of the United Kingdom. Likewise ID cards have major implication privacy-wise etc. but not in UK history. Mark83 (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've tried to reorganise...but

I've tried to reorganise and remove duplication but I wonder if maybe a more radical approach is required. How about we remove all pre-1707 stuff and have links to History of Scotland/ History of England instead? Then we can truly focus on history of the United Kingdom as a country in its own right. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've done it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.45.242 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Jacobite risings

I tried to add a small bit to lead but it was reverted - 'more Scottish than UK history' - I don't agree as the Jacobite Risings were about who should be king of the whole country (not just Scotland). Considering that the very national anthem ('God save the Queen') was written as a response to the Jacobite risings, I do think it was a very important part of our history!

I'll revert the revert once only and if it is changed again so be it. 86.157.162.157 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to disagree. Looking at other encyclopedias and short guides, the Jacobite Risings/Rebellions are not mentioned. They had little effect on the pace of change for the UK as a whole - pretty much nothing for southern England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I agree they need a mention, but not in the intro. --Jza84 |  Talk  21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - I thought as the first serious challenge facing the new united kingdom it was worth a brief mention in the intro as well, but so be it. 86.157.162.157 (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some reorganisation

I've read this article over several times this evening because it didn't seem right and I wasn't sure why - I now think I know. It appears to me that the 'partition of Ireland' section should stop after partition leaving the rest of the material for a later section on the troubles. Later, the section 1945-97 seems poor - I think that title should go and 'the troubles' should go in there.

I'll make the changes and anyone can revert if it seems too radical. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Partition of Ireland"

Is "partition" the right way to refer to the process by which the Irish Free State left the UK? Wouldn't "secession of the Irish Free State" be more accurate and NPOV? Irvine22 (talk) 00:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the latter is certainly the correct historical record. The Irish Free State seceded from the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, then Northern Ireland seceded from the Irish Free State a day later, to rejoin the United Kindom. (The Government of Ireland Act, 1920 first partitioned Ireland, but both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland were to be home rule [devolved] jurisdictions that remained part of the UK. Southern Ireland never practically existed (being boycotted) except for one day when, to keep Britain happy, it convened for less than an hour to accept the Free State, then dissolved itself. Loads of this at Partition of Ireland, Anglo-Irish Treaty and Irish Free State. --Red King (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not so sure, partition is the more normal word in the books I had read. However, as ever these things are value loaded so I have restored pending proper discussion --Snowded TALK 05:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
What books would those be Snowded? Red King's precis of the historical record above is accurate. Irvine22 (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd have to be at home to take them off the library shelf and I am in India until tomorrow. For the moment the point you are missing is WP:BRD, another editor reverted after your bold edit so it shoud be discussed. Personally I don't much mind which but you need to learn to follow due process. --Snowded TALK 05:34, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, we are discussing, aren't we? I note that you don't mind which term is used. I have a clear preference for "secession" as it more accurately describes the historical events by which the Free State came into being. BTW are you aware of the process by which West Virginia became a state of the US? In brief, Virginia seceded from the U.S. at the time of the Civil War, and a collection of pro-Union counties seceded from the secession. Does anyone ever talk about the "partiton" of Virginia? Irvine22 (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes you are now, but I should not have had to revert to get you there. As I say I am not taking a position on this one, I think there is a case for both. --Snowded TALK 05:46, 31 October 2009(UTC)
In fact I was discussing before you reverted. Try to keep up. Irvine22 (talk) 06:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
You broke {{WP:BRD]], you made an edit, another editor, probably on a different time zone reverted. You should not have reinstated until discussion had take place, and only then if your view gained support. Asserting your opinion, not waiting for a response, then editing again does not for any normal person constitute "discussion", and given your history of disruptive editing, use of IPs and socks and the odd block is not advisable. I'm trying to help you here. --Snowded TALK 06:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, reviewing the discussion to date, I see two people who favor the new section title, and one who is fine with either. Right?Irvine22 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Partition of Ireland is the term used by historians, hence the Wikipedia article of that name. Please provide one reputable source that refers to it as "secession of Ireland." ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Not the secession of Ireland, old boy. The secession of the Irish Free State, which is not the same thing.Irvine22 (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here's a highly reputable source: http://books.google.com/books?id=QmgRDV-cKFIC&pg=PA1174&lpg=PA1174&dq=%22secession+of+the+Irish+Free+State%22&source=bl&ots=dXC8IDzANR&sig=iyKPnJYufbD7N_Pbp2ddUa6k-6M&hl=en&ei=NSn2SvmNJ4HQsQOex6QT&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22secession%20of%20the%20Irish%20Free%20State%22&f=falseIrvine22 (talk) 02:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

And another:--Snowded TALK 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=-IjHbPvp1W0C&pg=PA187&lpg=PA187&dq=%22secession+of+the+Irish+Free+State%22&source=bl&ots=SZrdrM3frZ&sig=FAntUjqDaC3EBIYNHIqrp0N9x3U&hl=en&ei=FCv2SsrLKo2yswOX7-gV&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=%22secession%20of%20the%20Irish%20Free%20State%22&f=false

And another:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZhAXt8bPF8MC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=%22secession+of+the+Irish+Free+State%22&source=bl&ots=lc5jCbQNjB&sig=zS2IaMxZWufSfP75TXNTUa-NoZo&hl=en&ei=cyv2Sp3FFYXasgOPvJm1CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10&ved=0CCAQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22secession%20of%20the%20Irish%20Free%20State%22&f=false —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irvine22 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so the sources above seem to have quieted RepublicanJacobite's objections. I intend to go ahead and change the section title to "Secession of the Irish Free State", after allowing suitable time for further comment.Irvine22 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've got a concensus for that. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree, I am going to revert to the prior position. Irvine, please work with other editors and don;t assume agreement. --Snowded TALK 21:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
This is not an issue with one single correct answer. There are multiple references to partition as there are to other phrases. The issue is what is the most appropriate. I haven't seen any argument made above as to why we should change. --Snowded TALK 02:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
There may be multiple references to partition, but you haven't supplied us with any. You're back from India, now, surely? Irvine22 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Just under 50,000 on a google scholar search on "Irish Partition" --Snowded TALK 10:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there anything published by the UN and focused on international law that refers to "partition"? Because the UN-published source above says "secession". Pretty good source. Irvine22 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Date when the name of the UK changed from 'and Ireland' to 'and Northern Ireland'

The article cites the CIA factbook, but there is a challenge to this and dispute at Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act 1927#Parliamentary title, which says The 1927 Act did not change the title of the United Kingdom explicitly. Rather, it did this by changing the title of the British Parliament. Section 2 of the Act changed Parliament's title from the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland to the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Historians generally retrospectively date the coming into being of the modern United Kingdom to December 1922, when the Irish Free State seceded, even though the formal change of title did not occur for another five years. Despite the change of name, the Act provided that there would be no change in the numbering of Parliaments. Thus the legislature then in session continued to be the Thirty-fourth Parliament, and its successors have been numbered accordingly. headed by

 The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed.
The dispute is about Whether the 1927 Act changed the name of the United Kingdom.
Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page before making changes.(February 2009)

People who know about these things might want to sort it out. --Red King (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I can figure, the Irish say 1922, but the British say 1927. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I think that in this case it is only UK law and constitutional conventions that need be taken into account. --Red King (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I hope Irish editors will agree with that. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_the_United_Kingdom"