Talk:History of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  lost text help! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Areas needing more work 

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Status]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of the United Kingdom series 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recent history 

message: 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)
thread_title: Need link for [[Thatcherism]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "[[History of the United Kingdom#Recent history]]" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Neutrality? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  UK-history-stub 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ancient history 

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)
thread_title:  Template message 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of the Jews in Wales 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ambiguous Abbreviation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tony Blair? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've done it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.45.242 (talk) 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've tried to reorganise...but 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Some reorganisation 

message: 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 
People who know about these things might want to sort it out. --Red King (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can figure, the Irish say 1922, but the British say 1927. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I hope Irish editors will agree with that. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date when the name of the UK changed from 'and Ireland' to 'and Northern Ireland' 

message: "Britain fought and won two major wars against France and its allies, the War of the Austrian Succession (1740-1748), and the Seven Years War (1756-1763)."
That is wrong !!
Britain did certainly not win the War of the Austrian succession. France and its prussian allie did. The famous and decisive Battles of Fontenoy (1745) Maastricht (1747) and many more saw French armies vainquish anglo/netherland/austrian strenghs. The war ended by the treaty of Aix la Chapelle in 1748, with Louis XV, clear winner of the war (militarily speaking), as he conquered many lands in austrian netherlands. He surpisingly decided to show goodness and retrocede those lands back to Austria without any counterpart. French people and armies did not understand nor appreciate that decision as Voltaire said the famous line  : "working for the king of Prussia" meaning : "work for nothing, not be paid for our efforts" as France won the war but couldn't take the most of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Townsley (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  France won the war of Austrian succession (1740-1748) 

message: User:Sabrebd and anon editors have disagreed upon the wording of the last paragraph—discuss here. Chernyi (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Evidently, you disagree too, since you reverted my edit. If you want to change the introduction, please give your reasons. Reverting and then coming here was not very helpful if you wish, as seems to be the case, to be neutral.--SabreBD (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction should summarise the article, which in turn should summarise existing sources.  Sorry to be so basic, but as the article does not (and should not) make hypotheses about what might happen in the future, nor should the introduction.  However, a brief mention of devolution within the UK might be appropriate for the introduction, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

text: What I am claiming is that you have provided no sources, and you have not sought to change the body of the main text to reflect those sources.  I suggest that you do that, and see what the community thinks about those changes to the article text, before we consider whether or how to change the introduction.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: The role of the lede is to summarize the article, not present minute details based on OR.  I trimmed a lot of it down. Rjensen (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: The lede

message: Current sub articles:
*Kingdom of Great Britain (1707–1801)
*United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1801–1922)
Could History of the United Kingdom (1922–Present) be created, then move all information on this page to the relevant sub article and have 3 sections on this article summarising each sub article? Just a suggestion as the two current sub articles appear to be summaries of each period, with this article covering each period in much more detail. Surely sub articles should cover each period in more detail then an overview article? Regards, Rob (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, this is quite an absurd proposal. This article is very well done and I would almost be more inclined to remove much of content from Kingdom of Great Britain and United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and have them refer strictly to the political structure of the period, with a summary of its history, and a link to the appropriate section here. Regards, Rob (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see where the thought came from. There were very great differences between the three successive states, or perhaps we could say the three phases of the Union: one which did not include Ireland (but had effective control of it all the same), one which included the whole of Ireland and was convulsed by Irish nationalism, as emancipation quickly gave us a majority of Irish members of parliament who wanted Home Rule, and finally one without most of Ireland. Strictly speaking, the history of the United Kingdom begins in 1801 and includes only the last two of those phases, so moving the first one across to Kingdom of Great Britain (where it is covered, but less well) would make sense to me. A split at 1922 strikes me as less useful for now, but I suspect that as this page grows in size and complexity such a split is more-or-less inevitable at some point in the future. Moonraker (talk) 05:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't a 1922 split will be useful. I think United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland should be deleted, as all the content is covered here and at History of Ireland (1801–1923). I also agree that the content regarding the Kingdom of Great Britain should be covered at that article, and not here however I also think History of the British Isles should be moved to 'History of Great Britain', and should cover the entire history of Great Britain (the island), and its empire (including Ireland while under British rule) with main article links. This article could be split in future, however simply disambiguating this page, with links to sub pages such as History of the United Kingdom (1800–1900) would be most appropriate, rather then splitting the article based on the succession of less then 10% of the population of the state. Rob (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

text: Also, Early modern Britain covers from 1500 to 1800, so having this article only cover the period from 1801 onwards definitely seems more ideal. Rob (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

text: I have started a discussion at Talk:History of the British Isles#Move proposal to propose moving History of the British Isles to History of Britain so that it becomes the main overview article on British History since the start of time to present. Rob (talk) 17:11, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed creation of a new sub article and change in structure of this article  

message: List_of_tributaries_of_Imperial_China#Qing: Great Britain (1793, no tribute presented in 1795, 1805, and 1816) Erieadieu (talk) 08:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: List of tributaries of Imperial China

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110426064850/http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/4961897/Gordon-Brown-should-say-sorry-over-economy-minister-says.html to http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/4961897/Gordon-Brown-should-say-sorry-over-economy-minister-says.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The second paragraph in the intro has:
:The first decades were marked by Jacobite risings which ended with defeat for the Stuart cause at Culloden in 1746 [...]
In the article body there is:
:Jacobite factions seeking a Stuart restoration remained strong; they instigated a revolt in 1715–1716. The son of James II planned to invade England
What do the words "Jacobite" and "Stuart" mean? Who is James II? These words are not explained in the article and they are incomprehensible for readers unfamiliar with British history.--HD86 (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terms that are too technical for most readers to understand 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080103073154/http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/offices.html to http://www.law.umn.edu/irishlaw/offices.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100526163947/http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55 to http://www.musee-marine.fr/cartel2.php?id=55
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120301213043/http://www.abi.org.uk/Media/Releases/2011/08/UK__Insurance_Industry_welcomes_Prime_Ministers_Compensation_Scheme_announcement_and_pledges_help_to_make_the_scheme_work_.aspx to http://www.abi.org.uk/Media/Releases/2011/08/UK__Insurance_Industry_welcomes_Prime_Ministers_Compensation_Scheme_announcement_and_pledges_help_to_make_the_scheme_work_.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040816002945/http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/ireland/1801act.htm to http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/town/terrace/adw03/peel/ireland/1801act.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090124002035/http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/05_ratification.html to http://www.parliament.uk/actofunion/05_ratification.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524062506/http://www.holyrood.com/articles/2011/10/17/mcleish-reiterates-support-for-devo-max/ to http://www.holyrood.com/articles/2011/10/17/mcleish-reiterates-support-for-devo-max/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170312195459/http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/237785 to http://www.dli.ernet.in/handle/2015/237785
*Added  tag to http://exlibris.colgate.edu/help/findingprimarybritish.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100201134618/http://www.bl.uk/timeline to http://www.bl.uk/timeline/
*Added  tag to http://www.infobritain.co.uk/Index.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Please study this subject before writing outright garbage. Our children need truths.
Nate Greene  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:406:4C02:DAA:19C5:B39F:6A4D:C481 (talk) 11:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the United Kingdom