Talk:Glorious Revolution

message: There are a number of issues here;
(a) The Lede summarises the article; if you want to insert this claim, then you first need to do so in the body of the article, not the Lede: there's a whole section on Historiography which you're welcome to update;   
(b) The Lede should exclude statements open to debate (Wikipedia suggests ideally it should not require Sources) and present the generally accepted view;
(c) Each of the Sources provided say something different; Black calls it "an invasion of England" (debatable, since most suggest the 1745 Rising), the Independent calls it a "coup" and I can't quite figure out what History Extra is claiming. None of them agree with each other or say "It was the last successful invasion of the British Isles to date".
I've taken the opportunity to simplify the Lede and I've included the point in the first paragraph - but I think its reasonable to ask editors to read the whole article, then make edits in the body. Above all, the Sources should support the statement being made. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, WP:Lead nowhere states that debatable content should be excluded. Content should be accurate according to reliable sources and relevant. Those sources might contradict each other and these contradictions should then be represented in a balanced way, according to NPOV. And we may then debate whether this is the case :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the most important point to make here, is that, while you might edit this article more regularly or often than others, you do not own it. As noted by others, content of the lead should be reliable and sourced, which the claim that the crossing of Williams forces constitutes or might be regarded as the last successful invasion of England certainly is. To quote the author: "What was to become known as the Glorious Revolution was both the last successful invasion of England (and one that was largely bloodless) and a coup in which the monarch was replaced by his nephew and son-in-law (...)". The fact that you feel that Professor Jeremy Black, hardly an amateur historian, is wrong ... is immaterial. If you think this, you should provide independent publications containing evidence to the contrary. You have not done this beyond your own opinion. I once again ask you to leave this sourced bit of information alone, or provide sources that either dispute its claims or claim an opposite position. Vlaemink (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit by Vlaemink 

message: Re my edit here and its reversion by Robinvp11 here. The only relevant wikipedia style guidance is MOS:DATE, which stipulates (for countries using dmy formats) dates in the form "9 June 1689" or "9 June", and bars the use of "9th June" or "the 9th of June". However, it doesn't cover the point at issue here, which is how to refer to a day by day-number only, when month and year can be  inferred from their mention at an earlier point in the same sentence or same paragraph. Constructions such as "a secret session held on 29th", "William began his advance on 21st" or "on 23rd James agreed" are just jarringly wrong and illiterate, in British English and in every other variety of English I'm aware of. I therefore inserted "the" in each case; an alternative expedient would be to add the month. GrindtXX (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We have different views. You think "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29th ..." is grammatically correct English; I think it is blatantly wrong and looks as if it was written by a non-native English speaker. Acceptable versions would be either "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on the 29th ..." or "French troops entered the Rhineland on 27 September and in a secret session held on 29 September ...". I came to this article as a reader, with no intention of editing, but was brought up short by these six repeated examples of what appear to me as highly uncolloquial English. I "know" this as an educated and widely read Brit: I have literally never come across this usage; and if it isn't covered by style guides that's probably simply because it's so rare and obviously erratic that the authorities have never felt the need to comment on it. If one was arranging an appointment, one might say, "let's make it the 19th"; no-one would ever say "let's make it 19th". If you genuinely found it "hard to get particularly exercised" by this point, you would have allowed my minor tweak to pass. I think the present wording just looks crass – and grammatical sloppiness tends to raise red flags about whether the factual content of the article can be trusted. However, I'm not going to argue further, because life's too short and because you clearly regard yourself as the lord and master of this article (a point rather confirmed by your comment about "every article I've written"). Third party views welcome, of course. GrindtXX (talk) 12:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I saw that you re-added the uncited information that I removed from the article with this edit. Can you provide a citation(s) to verify this material? Some of the information has been uncited for over four years. Z1720 (talk) 14:08, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources have now been provided. In general it is unwise to remove information when it is unclear whether the content was challenged. Although in this case it produced a better sourced article :o).--MWAK (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The unsourced information was preventing the article from appearing on OTD and was in the article for several years, which is why I removed it. I think there might be lots of enthusiasm on this page to improve the article, and hopefully editors will continue this momentum. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: "Ango-Dutch alliance" info