Talk:History of the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

172, that's a massive amount of work you have put in, but I cannot imagine any but the most dedicated reader wading all the way through it. The sections you've added on economic history provide useful information, but are very difficult to read and far too long to be in balance with the rest of this entry. I imagine that someone will come along and chop them out again before too long. It would be much more helpful if you were to (a) condense them by about 50% and work on readability (in particular, removing Marxist jargon, which most people do not understand), and (b} move them to a more appropriate location, such as a seperate article on economic history, which can be summarised on this page, and then linked to for those who want to follow the ideas in more detail. Tannin

Better yet, why not write an entry called something like "Economic history of Europe & North America, from Napoleon to WW2", and then link to that from each of the histories you are filling up with verbiage at present? No point in telling the same story five differebnt times. Tannin

Ah.

I take back what I said months ago to Tannin. I'm coming back to this article and trimming that all down (just not tonight). After around 5 months I have a better idea what kind of content makes for a good article. I think that ny more recent contributions (even very long ones) have since been much more reader friendly.

172

A couple of things you could bear in mind as you go:-

- Wales itself wasn't a kingdom, mainly in that it contained a number of mutually independent principalities. The nearest thing to a Welsh kingdom was in fact Cornwall until the English conquered it not long before the Norman Conquest - it was distinct and under one ruler, and at certain times was counted as a kingdom, e.g. under King Mark of Cornwall. It was even called West Wales. Wales is generally thought of as a principality or (rarely) a province.

- The Corn Laws weren't particularly part of a colonialist/mercantilist economic approach. Rather, they favoured landowners in the home country, and the home country's strategic need for self sufficiency (a need that declined with increasing certainty of sea power and trading security). Effects on Canada etc. were incidental. So, the Corn Laws were mercantilist without being colonialist.

I hope that helps. PML.

I did not add the sections pertaining to the Corn Laws, but I will make the necessary adjustments to those sections when I revamp this article. Thanks for the suggestions.

172

172, that's a massive amount of work you have put in, but I cannot imagine any but the most dedicated reader wading all the way through it. The sections you've added on economic history provide useful information, but are very difficult to read and far too long to be in balance with the rest of this entry. I imagine that someone will come along and chop them out again before too long. It would be much more helpful if you were to (a) condense them by about 50% and work on readability (in particular, removing Marxist jargon, which most people do not understand), and (b} move them to a more appropriate location, such as a seperate article on economic history, which can be summarised on this page, and then linked to for those who want to follow the ideas in more detail. Tannin

Agreed this is a lot of work I've put the economic bits in a seperate article called the Economic History of Great Britain. Wouldn't it be a nice idea to remove the text that's covered there and link to the Economic History of Great Britain from the History of the United Kingdom? I'm a newbie so I don't want to do this myself.

To put a pedantic point here, surely the history of the United Kingdom is the history of the constitutional arrangements - Acts of Union and suchlike - and the social, economic and cultural history is best covered in the history of the constituent nations.

New User (Not 172)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Split it up

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


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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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

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)

Here are some headlines im doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kobe Eames (talk • contribs) 02:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not a chronicle or blog

Can we possibly get some consensus on the adding of current events, so as to avoid this article with history in the title from being used as a blog or chronicle?

France won the war of Austrian succession (1740-1748)

"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)

Intro

User:Sabrebd and anon editors have disagreed upon the wording of the last paragraph—discuss here. Chernyi (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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)
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)

Ghmyrtle, are you claiming that no sources exist for devolution and/or independence movements within the UK? Obviously you have read the news in the last month or so regarding Scotland (that in itself represents significant history). I understand this is a history article, and history is a fairly conservative field for the most part, but I can't help but observe it is this kind of attitude and inability to engage that is fuelling the SNP's electoral success. Chernyi (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

The lede

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)

Biased writing in Appeasement section

Appeasement section areas believed to require changes: 1:....(a weak nation), the Adolf Hitler... (should be then) 2:....The League of Nations proved a failure in....(was unable to) 3:...and finally Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stood firm....(Use of finally) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunderfire70 (talk • contribs) 03:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive fixed the 'the' to 'then' which is hardly a POV problem, just bad grammar. I also changed the POV template as its only this section where neutrality is disputed, not the whole article. Bleaney (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
there is no bias--a bias is favoring one RS interpretation over other RS interpretations the statements reflect the consensus of the RS -- they all agree that Italy was weak and the League failed to handle major disputes and that Chamberlain finally stood firm and rejected appeasement. Rjensen (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
I find this section rather trite and poorly referenced. David Faber is an interesting writer (especially on his cousins the Amerys) but is not a professional historian. The only other source relied on in the paragraph is Donald Cameron Watt's How War Came: Immediate Origins of the Second World War, 1938-39, which is more mainstream but is cited without any page numbers.
  • "Vivid memories of the horrors and deaths of the World War made Britain and its leaders strongly inclined to pacifism in the interwar era." That's terribly simplistic, as there were other causative factors, and I don't think "pacifism" is quite the right word.
  • "The challenge came from dictators, first Benito Mussolini of Italy (a weak nation), then Adolf Hitler of a much more powerful Nazi Germany." This overlooks another dictator, Stalin, who was much more feared in the West (especially by British Conservatives) than Mussolini and Hitler.
  • "Italy (a weak nation)..." Very well, Italy was weaker than Britain, France, and Germany, but it was still a force to be reckoned with, and in any event "weak nation" is terribly vague.
  • "The League of Nations proved a failure in resolving the threats posed by the dictators. British policy was to "appease" them in the hopes they would be satiated." Again, "in the hopes they would be satiated" is too simplistic. Other major factors included the fear of Communism and the Great Depression.
  • "By 1938 it was clear that war was looming, and that Germany had the world's most powerful military." I assume this refers to land forces? It could do with sharpening up. The Royal Navy was still the world's strongest.
  • "The final act of appeasement came when Britain and France sacrificed Czechoslovakia to Hitler's demands at the Munich Agreement of 1938." This is again very simplistic. The actual sacrifice of Czechoslovakia came rather later: at Munich Germany was given the German-majority Sudetenland, but the boundaries of what was left of Czechoslovakia were actually guaranteed; in the event, the guarantees were dishonoured. The French were hardly equal partners in the sacrifice of Czechoslovakia - they were very reluctant at all stages, but Chamberlain marginalized them.
  • "...and finally Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain stood firm." He stood so firm that in the end the other cabinet members had to insist on a declaration of war. After that, the rest of his premiership was marked by the inaction of the Phoney War.
  • "Hitler however cut a deal with Joseph Stalin to divide Eastern Europe..." This is really too sweeping.
  • "when Germany did invade Poland in September 1939, Britain and France declared war; the British Commonwealth followed London's lead." This is rather trite and misleading, as most of what is now understood by "the British Commonwealth" was still the Empire and did not take its own decision. Australia and New Zealand followed Britain's lead at once. South Africa took three days to do so, Canada a week. Moonraker (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed creation of a new sub article and change in structure of this article

Current sub articles:

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

To be honest, I have always seen this article as redundant. Content that has to do with the 1801-1922 period should be in United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, historic content of the post 1922 period in the main United Kingdom article where the History section currently covers events which have nothing to do with this 20th century entity. The Roman conquest and the Norman invasion in a modern state article? Dimadick (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

List of tributaries of Imperial China

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Terms that are too technical for most readers to understand

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)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

History of the United Kingdom

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_the_United_Kingdom/Archive_1&oldid=1212910531"