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.
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.
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.
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.
Whitewashed article never mentions that black African slaves, stolen gold, etc
The article purposefully excludes the fact that KIng James II, etc were involved in genocide against Africans and their enslavement. Further, the article does not mention the theft of African gold, ivory, etc. This is like having an article about the Nazis but not mentioning the genocide and racism of Hitler. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:A141:679D:EC7E:E074 (talk) 08:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The reason that these subjects are purposefully excluded is that they are of little relevance to the subject, the Glorious Revolution. The scope of the article is not the society of Stuart England. For these aspects to be mentioned there must be some particular link with the 1688 events, e.g. a source claiming that the Dutch invaded England to take over the West African trade. There is one clear "black" connection: William used two hundred slaves from Surinam to make his entourage more exotic. This is mentioned in the article.--MWAK (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 I studied English history in the 1960s, this event was called "The Great and Glorious Revolution". OK, that's a bit of a mouthful, but I see it is also what Dickens called it in his "Child's History of England", though without the capitals. I'm not sure I want to expand the opening paragraph any more, just put down a marker, as it were.Thomas Peardew (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree it's better not to put this in the lead.--MWAK (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The invasion and complete takeover of england by the Dutch including the replacement of the King with a Dutch King involving treason and treachery has been dressed up by the english as anything but what actually happened. There should be a section on how this has been twisted into the delusion the english perpetrate to this very day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:2161:7280:806F:5235:9989:97AB (talk) 00:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
These aspects are already dealt with in the "Revolution or invasion?" chapter. Additional sources can be abstracted and cited there.--MWAK (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)