Wikipedia

Talk:Military history of Britain/Archive 2

< Talk:Military history of Britain
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Fences and windows in topic Alternative proposal
Archive 1Archive 2

Options

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments14 people in discussion

There appears to be a number of different solutions proposed for this article. I'd like to poll editors to establish whether a consensus might already exist. First thing to do is to establish the options, and afterward conduct a poll. Please add options below --HighKing (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 - Military history of the British Isles
Option 2 - British military history
Option 3 - Military history of Britain and Ireland
Option 4 - Create two articles. Military history of Britain + Military history of Ireland
For me, the issue involves to parts of the title: "Military history of (a)the peoples of the (b)British Islands".
(a) The problem with (a) is what does it mean? Does it mean that we are not talking about the military history of states? Are we talking about he military history of ethnicities? Are we talking about the military history of the rise and fall in tribes and groupings? Is the guerrilla military history? What does it mean?
(b) The problem with (b) is what does it mean? Does it mean the military history of those areas legally defined as the British Islands today? Or all places that have been defined in law as being part of the British Islands at some time in their history? Does it mean the military history of how some parts came to be a part of the British Islands and how some part are no long a part of that entity? Does it mean military conflicts that invovled entities that were at the time of the conflict a part of the British Islands? Do we included military history before the legal term British Islands was coined? Or are we talking about the legal term at all? Do we mean something else? If so what? And why not call it by that name?
I think the only solution for (a) is to loose it. I think the solution for (b) can be arrived at my simply stating what this article is about. Is it about the military history of Britain? England? The United Kingdom? British Isles/Britain and Ireland (let's leave the naming until after we decide whether it is about this, or not)? Is it about British military history? Once we decide what the article is about, the name will naturally follow.
We do have a good starting point. We know this article is about military history. We even know that the contents of the article are. We just need to decide that it is the military history of who or what. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 15:32, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The article Military history of the United Kingdom already exists. The article History of Ireland already exists. An article named Military history of Ireland could be created, and if you want to do that please go ahead. It is possible (just possible, mind) that not everyone would be in 100% agreement as to what should be included in it. The only realistic option is to delete this article and leave it at that. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Nicely put, rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid. My opinion is that (a) should go, and that the article should be about the military history of the islands, as opposed to the states. Re the options above: 1) is fine, and my preference; 2) is already mostly covered by Military history of the United Kingdom ; 3) is fine as it goes, but British Isles is - worldwide - the common term; 4) will lead to unneccessary duplication. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 16:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Bastun. I support option 1, it makes sense to have an article on the British Isles (a term known and used by many despite certain peoples claims), it should cover all periods of history within the British Isles, if we make this to sovereign states then it complicates matters.
Option two is unacceptable, a better article already exists as mentioned by Bastun, and thats currently where British Military history redirects to.
(3) would be a reasonable compromise that id accept (its certainly alot better than the current inaccurate title).
On 4 i would support articles at those locations, but whats the content going to be? Currently this is just a list of different articles, an article at Military history of Britain and Military history of Ireland would be a good idea but it should talk through all the stages in history like Military history of Europe does otherwise a large part will simply be two identical lists. This should just remain a list of all the conflicts of the British Isles (or Britain and Ireland) and the introduction could link to separate articles on Britain / Ireland if someone wanted to make them. Also another problem is at some stage someone may want to create a Military history of Ireland about the actual country.
Anyway i support option one, but id accept option 3 if it led to consensus. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
The article (or list, more like) is already hopelessly confused about whether it is listing the history of peoples, political entities or geographical locations. It covers some, but not all, British overseas involvements. It lists fortifications physically in the geographical area, but not British fortifications abroad. I can see no justification for its existence. It should be deleted. Cyclopaedic (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Ah. You're making the mistake of appealing to common sense. You've stepped into the "British/Irish" stupidity here, along with all the entrenched editor positions that go along with that. Nobody really cares about the contents of the articles. There's a number of the editors here that stupidly argue over names, but never actually contribute to any articles. For them, this is more like a hobby to vent spleen. They'd argue black is white, and white is black, depending on their humour. Most of the sensible editors eventually leave this editing area. In the long term, it's very unproductive. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Everyone is pissed off with it, but there's no alternative. --HighKing (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Options 2 - 4 limit the scope of this article to the last few hundred years. The options remove an article that can show and discuss how the different people, tribes, kingdoms and nations over the course of the last several thousand years have interacted with one another.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

This part of the process is inclusive - please list options to *include* rather than argument on options to exlude. Hopefully, the next step is to select the options that you prefer. --HighKing (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, prehaps some options similar to Option 1 but presenting alternative names that could be used but still look at the whole picture and not the last few hundred years; although i cant actually think of an alternative at the precise moment.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Sure - and if you think of an option, just add it on to the end of the list. For example, what about Military history of Great Britain or Military history of the British people ?? --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks CW, but this isn't the time to register a !vote. This part of the process is to determine options, not to !vote or debate. If there are no more options by the end of today, we'll open a poll. --HighKing (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm still not clear whether this article is to cover battles and locations within the geographical area, or the history of military forces originating in the area, or the history of forces belonging to peoples who live wholly or partly in the area. If we don't know what the content is to be, how do we know we need an article? If there is already a Military history of the United Kingdom, why do we need another article - unless to cover the Military history of Ireland, in which case we should have an article on that. We shouldn't have multiple articles covering the same subject-matter. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It is also important to note that apart from a military history of the United Kingdom we also have have military history of England, military history of Scotland, A military history of Ireland would make this article redundant, unless it is a Wikipedia:Set index article under a better name. --PBS (talk) 16:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

  • I think this comment by Cyclopaedic hits the nail on the head: "I'm still not clear whether this article is to cover battles and locations within the geographical area, or the history of military forces originating in the area, or the history of forces belonging to peoples who live wholly or partly in the area." I favour this article being about all wars and military action known to have occured within the British Isles, i.e. geographically. The page would exclude wars fought overseas by any English, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish or British armies, and would be regardless of the particular political entities in existence at the time. The title Military history of the British Isles fits best with my suggestion. Fences and windows (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggestions for entirely new and different articles is also a completely different matter than trying to get an answer for what to call *this* article. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that it is a hand in hand matter; what this article will cover will reflect what to call it. I have so based my opinions on the fact the article currently contains information stretching back to the classical era. Based off the three alternative options above that i commented on before, they would not be suitable for the current context. IF the article is renamed to something new is the contents going to be restructured to match the title and in that case will we loose out on information?
That is an excellent point. We definitely don't want to lose any information, and it should be presented clearly. As pointed out by PBS above, since we already have military history of England, military history of Scotland, and military history of the United Kingdom, and several categories including Battles involving Ireland and Battles involving Wales it seems to me that it would be simplest to create military history of Ireland and we wouldn't lost anything, and we'd avoid an awful lot of duplication. --HighKing (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I support creating Military history of Ireland, but I also see nothing wrong with having an article giving the details of the military actions that have happened on the land of the British Isles - some readers will want to know this, but without such a page it will be scattered across several pages. What's so terrible about having complementary pages? Fences and windows (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
For me, the main objection is that, in the context of an article about "Military history", the term "British Isles" would refer to the time in history when the islands were united by the British monarch. The term was coined and used in a political sense, and it's only in relative recent times that the term is said to be used solely as a geographic term. --HighKing (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
For me, the main objection is that this is a useless article with inconsistent content that duplicates other articles. It is little more than a list, and there is no logic to the composition of the list. All the possible content is adequately covered in other articles, with the possible exception of military history of Ireland. If the article is suppposed to be about events in the geographical area, most of the content needs to be deleted, as most of it is about foreign wars in which England or the UK has participated, from the loss of Normandy to the Sierra Leone civil war. And why on earth is the Third Crusade in there if not the 1st, 2nd, 4th or 5th? We are trying to build an encyclopadia covering all subjects adequately, not to create articles on all possible headings. Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Cyclopaedic, i accept the current layout of all the articles is confusing and this ones current title certainly doesnt help matters. This is what i think the articles need to cover and their names..
We have British military history which redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom - That article should cover just military matters since 1707 when England and Scotland united. We have Military history of England and Military history of Scotland, out of the two the Scotland one is clearly the better article and i think the England one should be laid out in the same way. At some stage i think there needs to be a Military history of Ireland dealing with todays sovereign state.
That would then leave this article to cover the history of these islands through out time (not just after England was formed or after the UK was formed). This would be a good location for a full list of all the military conflicts involved with these islands. For that sort of article we either need to this to be called Military history of Britain and Ireland or what makes more sense Military history of the British Isles a location known to many and accepted by many international organisations. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
HighKing, that is simply your opinion and it is not supported by the sources which define British Isles. We are not using British Isles in a political sense, it is a location just like Europe. Its certainly not only been the British Isles since the islands were united under a British Isles. If you look at it this way then the suggestion about renaming it to Britain and Ireland or having an article on the history of Britain or Ireland couldnt go back to before they were known as Britain / Ireland. What is not the continent of Europe has not always been called "Europe", yet there is an article on the [[Military history of Europe}]. This is the reason we have a problem, certain editors most if not all with Irish connections oppose the use of British Isles because they dont like the term. That is not justification for blocking all articles on the British Isles or attempting to remove the term from wikipedia as the ongoing campaign seeks to do. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Comment: I note from the above user's User Page that he is also a British loyalist from Northern Ireland. And who says inserting "British Isles" is not politically motivated? Given this British nationalist political agenda, this will be "further debated" over and over and over again. 86.44.44.218 (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

"... he is also a British loyalist from Northern Ireland..." Which is not relevant to this - or any - discussion. Please don't argue ad hominem. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
Who cares about the motivations of individual editors? Fences and windows (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I think people should be more concerned about IPs who refuse to register to contribute to wikipedia and whos loyalties we have no idea about. Surely its safer when everyones "loyalties" are declared on their user page rather than when they have no userpage at all? Also i think you will find people are not trying to have British Isles "inserted", this articles title had British isles in it for many months when it was removed for poltiical reasons to an article title that almost everyone accepts is stupid or incorrect. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

One thing is for sure nobody is saying they support the current stupid article title which was changed with no consensus at all. When the AFD process is rejected the admins should move this article back to the last stable title whilst the debate goes on. Especially as we dont even seem to be voting on where we want the article just what options we want. This could take weeks to resolve, the article shouldnt continue to be placed at an incorrect title because one editor jumped in and changed it. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There's an interesting dialogue at User talk:Aervanath#Military history of the peoples of the British Islands about the issue. Basically Aervanath, and admin, has put forward the case that the page should be moved back to "Military history of the peoples of the British Isles". I think it's about time this was done. No other discussions will get anywhere, it would seem. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, considering in this debate there is no support for the current title it seems sensible to change it back to its previous title. I would prefer Military history of the British Isles but changing it back to the "peoples of the British Isles" seems like a reasonable solution for the time being whilst the debate is ongoing here.. All these matters usually take weeks, we shouldnt continue with such a crazy title. 18:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)BritishWatcher (talk)

(outdent)Sometimes I wonder if you guys even bother to read anything.... This is not the !voting or polling part - this is the collection of options part. I'll now create the polling part - please register your choices below. Thank you.

Poll on Article Name

Latest comment: 15 years ago100 comments26 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was split to Military history of Britain and Military history of Ireland. To that end, this article will be moved to Military history of Britain, and the Irish content can be split out from there. Rationale: Of the options given at the poll, only Option 1 (move to Military history of the British Isles) and Option 2 (a split to Military history of Britain and Military history of Ireland) had majority support. There is zero support for Military history of the peoples of the British Islands, the current title, which means a move must be made. However, any move would incite controversy, and controversy blocks consensus, so I tried to parse the arguments looking for which option would be least controversial, and most likely to lead to a long-lasting consensus. After reading and re-reading (and re-reading again...sigh) the arguments for and against Options 1 and 4, I think Option 4 is the choice likely to incite the least controversy. Notice I didn't say "no" controversy; I realize that some people here are going to be unhappy with this decision, but I encourage everyone to continue engaging each other in a civil manner, and working towards broader consensus. Aervanath (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a poll on what is to be the article name for this article. Please register your choices underneath with a support or oppose. --HighKing (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Option 1 - Military history of the British Isles

Oppose:Sepetate nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwasfrozen (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose Take a look at how this article looked and read when I originally asked for the pointy title to be reverted. This is the Talk page] and [this is the article]. Note how the article was solely about Britain. This attempt to turn this article into something that it was never intended to be is the type of politically motivated behaviour that good Wikipedians have a duty to stamp out for the good of the project. --HighKing (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - There is an article on Military history of Europe so i do not see why an article on the Military history of the British Isles is so unacceptable, the term is recognized by many sources including international organisations.. its just some people who dislike the term that seek its removal from wikipedia. We need an article that covers all the conflicts of these islands (before there were sovereign states) so this seems like the sensible solution. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support MidnightBlue (Talk)
  • Support - As i have already stated, the content in this article currently extends beyond the modern states of Ireland and the United Kingdom and polatics. The article currently lists information going back at least 2,000 years, which renders the below options not relevent; i feel this is the approbirate title to cover several thousand years of warfare on the islands that are off the NW coast of Europe.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Comment: In fact, it does not. All of the military history articles on the modern European states are named after the name of their respective modern states. They all, contrary to your assertion, also cover history going back thousands of years under the title of the modern state. Furthermore, I trust your "British Isles" history will not deal with anything before 1577 as there is no record of that term in the English language prior to that year. Again: The "British Isles" never existed in the English language before 1577. Mentioning it before then is an ahistorical construct. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Re What other articles do is no defense to what should be done with this article; there is a poilcy around that states something simlar to this i.e. just because it has been done does not mean its correct. At any rate by your own admission all the other articles are ahistorical and incorrect as well as denying the history of the tribes and states that preceeded the countries in question! As for the British Isles not existing before 1577, Ireland in its present form did no exist prior to 1920ish. As others have said countrless times, the British Isles is a pretty common phrase describing the islands off the northwest coast of Europe regardless of what some Irish nationalists would say.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
But the standard wikipedia convention is correct, and it is infinitely more sensible. To carry your logic to its end, then you will only be allowed to have an article on the "British Isles" as far back as 1577 as the term never existed before then. In fact, because "Britain and Ireland" was the commonly used term by English politicians and writers such as Francis Bacon at least well into the seventeenth century you will have difficultly even using "British Isles" as far back as 1577. Then, what will you call it before 1577? And before it was named? And.... In short, you see, the current wikipedia set-up of writing military history covering thousands of years but within the framework of the existing state's name makes impeccable sense, and much more sense than the "British Isles" alternative. Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
So we have a name that has been in use for around 450 years, prior to even the establishment of Great Britain, describing these sets of islands and you dont think a suitable enough name to extend for the entire period of military history because there is an article on, for example, the modern state of German detailing stuff that happened when it wasnt actually Germany. That only serves to further enhance the support for this option, the area that article covers has had a simlar name dating back to the Roman era i.e. Germania and the Germanic tribes like the way the Romans called the British isles Britannia. While there may be articles detailing the military history of states and the preceeding nations/tibes that existed before them there is no harm having a joint article showing how interlinked the history of the people on these islands have been i.e. the different tribal movements and invasions around the islands, the English activities in Ireland and the use of Irish troops in England, Scotland etc The War of the Three Kingdoms is an extremly good example of how combind our history is. Additional it seems quite a few people dont mind using the British Isles for periods before the term was coined; the UN for example, who mention the British Isles in the 2nd Century and also use it in a modern sense--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: This proposed title is an aberration on the standard wikipedia convention for military history articles, which are, for example, Military history of France, Military history of Spain, Military history of the Netherlands etc. All of these articles deal with military history which predates the modern French, Spanish, Dutch etc states by thousands of years. This title, at best, will be duplication of the Military history of the United Kingdom article with a few token remarks about Ireland to try and hide why the article really exists. Under this title there will be minimal Irish involvement for the obvious reasons. There is no justification for this article except that some people want to propagate some irredentist notion of a "British Isles", claim ownership over Ireland, deny the Irish their own history, and force some nationalistically inspired "British" history upon Ireland. We've seen it all before. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but the above is utter rubbish! Who here, or on the deletion talk page, have stated we should rub Irelands history or culture and asert ownership? The line you are chatting is a movement the Irish government played from founding until the 60s/70s since when they acknowledge that there is a joint history of both countries.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    Comment: The Irish government never once said the name of that "joint history" (to put it oh so euphemistically) comes under something nationalistically-minded British people like to term the "British Isles". "Joint history" indeed. In fact, and this is repeating what everybody here knows by now, the Irish government is specifically on record as rejecting the term "British Isles" (see British Isles) and - this will kill you - the British government has accepted that "British Isles" is not a valid term in its international agreements with Ireland, most particularly in the establishment of the Council of the Isles, which is most definitely not called the Council of the British Isles. PS: It is, to use your rather intemperate language, "utter rubbish" to try and claim that calling Ireland one of the "British Isles" is not political given the rather germane matter of centuries of colonial subjugation (to put it, once again, rather euphemistically) of the Irish people, a subjugation which was done in the name of Britain and the British people. There is nothing more political, a fact which explains why most of Ireland is free from British rule. Nobody can wake up in the morning and recreate the meaning of 'British' after that history, as much as it might suit the offender to rewrite the past in innocuous terms. Human beings do not act like that in any society. PPS: As for robbing Ireland's culture etc, see the poster below who calls for the "British Isles" title as a means to express the, and I quote, "cultural reality". Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
    The Irish government when established wanted to rub out anything British and construct a link back to their pre-British/English past (although there had been numerous English and Scottish waves of settlers throughout centeries tieing out states together) until it was pointed out it was not their decission to take to start blowing up buildings so people would not know the real history. Since the 60s/70s the old colonial buildings have been refurbished and reused to keep a link between the 2 states and retain historial evidence of Irelands English/British past.
  • Support. The British Isles have a geographic and cultural reality, and we have plenty of articles discussing them already. An article on the history of the wars and battles fought on their soil is useful, and not redundant. Dunlavin Green's point about the history of the name is a total red herring - I guess according to that reasoning we can't have articles on the Americas that discuss anything pre-16th century. Fences and windows (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Er, my preferred name is the Military history of the United Kingdom, as I've made very clear. I was making a parody of those people who defy logic and claim that the the UK article could not suffice because the UK didn't exist before 1800. By their own logic, a "British Isles" article can therefore only go back to 1577. As for your rather meaningless remark that the "British Isles" is a geographical and cultural reality: isn't everything (unless you're from a certain French school of philosophy) at the end of the day a "geographical and cultural reality"? And, I may be outdated but I was sure the "British Isles" advocates here are very keen to assert that the name is merely "geographical" and has no cultural or political connotations, that it is a harmless apolitical phrase with no shades of centuries of British cultural colonialism in Ireland. Is the cat out of the bag now? Irish instincts are very good on this issue, I can assure you. We know the hegemonic thought process of the average Briton better than he or she knows it. Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
You have no idea of my political motivations or my ancestry, but I can assure you that your assumptions are totally incorrect; stop trying to turn this into a nationalistic battle. Focus on content, not editors. Fences and windows (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 2 - British military history

Comment Are you suggesting that the term "British" is only relevant in the context of the "United Kingdom"? --HighKing (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
British military history is about the British Armed Forces so ofcourse its only relevant to the United Kingdom. The term British Isles doesnt mean everyone within it is "British", just as the Irish sea is not Irelands and the Sea of Japan is not Japans. You may think that British Isles "claims ownership" but it is simply a georgraphical term used by many reliable sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I note with interest that you didn't actually answer my question. Odd how the definition of "British" seems to change to suit your argument. I expect you'll be rushing over to History of British Kings next to fix up that article? --HighKing (talk) 00:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

oppse. As an Irish person I find the term insulting —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonsnow27 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 3 - Military history of Britain and Ireland

  • Support but oppose: Better than "British Isles" but the context is just as skewed; it is still trying to contextualise Ireland within a British nationalist framework and is akin to the Spanish doing a military history article entitled 'Military history of Spain and the Low Countries/Netherlands' by virtue of the "shared history" etc. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my previous comments on this page. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose a political rather than geographic title that would seem to suggest an article about the military history between Britain and Ireland, rather than on the various British Isles. Such an article would no doubt be interesting, referencing the complicated relationship between the two islands from prehistory to the present day, but it is not the topic of this particular article. (and by the way, such an article would not be solely an account of conflict between the two: thousands if not millions of Irishmen have fought with and alongside British forces over the last millennia both in the British Army and as seperate allied forces - indeed there are still a significant number of Irishmen from south of the border in the British Army today).--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Support: Reading the lists in the article - that it what is is. I'm inclined to question the purpose of the article. Why not have [[Military history of France and Britain ]] as well? ClemMcGann (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This makes better sense and is the more logical title. It recognises the reality of two distinct jurisdictions Ireland and Britain. It should also avoid unneccessary Edits by people who find the term "British Isles" or "British Islands" offensive.

Ireland was under British occupation which was resisted by the Irish for hundreds of years. But that is no reason to refer to it as "British History" or the "British Isles". Lets put it this way:- Nazi Germany occupied the Netherlands during WWII. Now nobody would dream of referring to Dutch history during WWII as "German History" would they?

Option 4 - Create two articles. Military history of Britain + Military history of Ireland

  • Support Avoids context problems whereby the meaning of "British" in "BI" (based on location and on past sovereignty) is different from the meaning of "British" in "army" or "military". --HighKing (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Whilst i think it would be useful to have one article on history of Britain and one on Ireland, we should not ignore the fact that many of the conflicts we will be listing are shared between the two islands so wed be repeating ourselves. We shouldnt forget that many people when they look for military history of Britain would be thinking about the United Kingdom (which is where i think Military history of Britain should redirect to, not the island although a note linking to this article at the top would be useful there). We also need to think long term, at some stage someone may want an article on the military history of Ireland (the current country). As many here strongly oppose the idea of the country being at the Republic of Ireland id hope they take that into account where they would want an article on the republic of irelands military history. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose MidnightBlue (Talk)
  • Oppose See my post for Option 1--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support : This is the most reasonable one in terms of the Irish dimension. However, the British dimension should be treated within the UK article just as all the French, German, Spanish etc states that preceded the modern states of those countries are dealt with within the context of the military history of the modern states. Anything else is mere duplication. This is, therefore, the best option after Military history of the United Kingdom (the latter being best because it is the standard military history template on wikipedia). Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-- Less problematic. Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-per my comments already given on this talk page.MITH 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support-Much fairer term for the article. Either that or "UK" and "Ireland".--FF3000 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my previous comments on this page. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose as a solution for this article's title, but support in general. Those two articles can comfortably support this article if it is at the title Military history of the British Isles. The seperate UK and Ireland articles can deal with the history of those countries armed forces wherever in the world they may have been engaged, while the British Isles can deal with military history within the islands as a whole. One question that is raised by this proposal however concerns the Military history of Ireland article: would this be the military history of the island of Ireland throughout history, or of the independent Republic of Ireland (prseumably since 1922)?--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
This is something i think many people are forgetting. With the ongoing Ireland naming dispute its likely at some stage Ireland (country) is going to be moved from its current position (Republic of Ireland). At some point in the future people will want an article on the Republic of Irelands military history, and im sure they would want it at Military history of Ireland so its inline with other countries articles. Im happy about that and think its a good idea, it there for makes alot of sense to have this article cover the whole British Isles, so we dont need a Military history of Britain (people probably want the UK military not the island) and a military history of Ireland (the island). BritishWatcher (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The most encyclopedic correct approach is to have separate articles for the various countries. Military History of Ireland is in the pipeline anyway. Tfz 16:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Most sensible option. --Navnite (talk) 11:39*, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • SupportColmDawson (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support More meaningfull references from the point of view of military history, although Britain would have to be understood in it's flexible sense i.e. run from Roman Britian -> the Anglo Saxons -> Norman invasion of England -> Tudor dynasty (inc. Ireland) -> 16th century wars (inc. three kingdoms) -> Kingdom of GB (with reference to Ireland) -> UKGBI -> UKGBNI (picking up and dropping off the British Empire along the way). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This is fair and does not insult anyoneJonsnow27 (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 5 - Military history of the United Kingdom

  • Support The argument against this title revolves around the claim that the United Kingdom is a recent creation. It fails to take into account that there were previous United Kingdoms (UK of GB, UK of GB & I, UK of GB & NI), so which one does the current article at Military history of the United Kingdom aspire to be about? All three. The fact is, the UK article is a content fork, and we would be better served if we adopted consistency a do what other "Military history of X" articles do - use current political country definitions (e.g. Italy, Germany, etc) regardless of how the actual area waxed and waned over time. --HighKing (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose There is already a better article on British military history at Military history of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose MidnightBlue (Talk)
  • Oppose See my post for Option 1--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Support This wording is the standard template across wikipedia. Furthermore, all of the articles with that wording - e.g. Military history of Germany - do not begin with, to take the German example, the formation of the modern German state in 1871. That German article goes back over 1000 years before 1871. Thus, the justification for not having this standard Wikipedia title on the grounds that the UK has only existed since 1800/1921 and therefore couldn't deal with military history prior to that date is a non sequitur. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Dunlavin the problem you and others seem to be ignoring is that an article with that title ALREADY exists. How can anyone vote to rename this article to something that already exists? We certainly shouldnt simply be deleting that other article which is a better one. Your comparison to Germany is nonsense, Military history of the United Kingdom already deals with the sovereign state and thats where British military history redirects to. This is about the British Isles (a location) just like there is a location Military history of Europe. We went through a process to have this article deleted, but a majority opposed that deletion. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you look closely though, you'll note that the History of the United Kingdom is actually a content fork of this article. Shhhhh. Keep it a secret though. We wouldn't want people trying to change that article to make it seem like it can stand on it's own and not just be a big content form now. Would we ;-0 --HighKing (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
If you mean Military history of the United Kingdom i see a good list of conflicts since the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. This article covers all periods of history long before the formation of the UK. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Bastun, your other comment on the page below sounds like you are against this article being renamed Military history of the United Kingdom, Is this the option you are supporting? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
No, it's not, but clicking on 'Edit' give you one huge page of text with no separation between the options. I'd changed my vote and made the options into proper subheadings but got an edit conflict. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

This way these questions have been phrased is similar to "Do you still beat you wife". There are to other options that have not been mentioned are delete this article or if it goes back to its original name of British military history turn it into a Wikipedia:Set index page (a type of disambiguation page), and there are probably more. -- PBS (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the option of delete, while it is still open, is pretty much settled with 2-1 in favour of keeping the article in some form.
In regards to your alternative option posted below: expanding the article to encorporate English-Irish-French-Germanic-Spanish-Scottish-Welsh relations in regards to military history; what name would you propose for this? Would we keep this article inplace, renamed and expanded or scratch this one and everything in it and start again?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, look - canvassing. Quelle surprise... BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say this completely invalidates the vote above. The main contributor to the thread on the bulletin board is almost certainly a contributor to discussion here. LevenBoy (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Completly agreed! Although i find his comments extremly funny when he starts talking about the "collaborators" - i think he fails to realise how many English and Scottish desendant Irish families supported the rebellion in the previous century and how many Irish families from old English routs supported the Irish-Irish in regards to the reformation, new waves of settlers and final civil war etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I think it'll be fairly easy to spot the new accounts trying to !vote. Most contributers have already registered their opinion already. From what I can see, there's none of the canvassed !votes here in any case? Or we could just close the poll now? --HighKing (talk) 12:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
One has just appeared. I suggest closing the vote now. There's no consensus. LevenBoy (talk) 12:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow 90 replies to that forum post in just 24 hours????, clearly this attempt to stack the vote will have a huge influence on the outcome. If the vote is closed now there is no clear option which has enough support to get consensus so i dont know how we are going to decide where the article belongs. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
As long as there's no sockery involved, things are cool. Jumpin' Junipers, very few are in agreement with me on my splitting solution. GoodDay (talk) 13:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, thus far, the summary of votes total:

Option 1

9 Support, 7 Oppose (Excluding 1 Support, 1 Oppose, redlinked voters, no participation here till after the canvassing)

Option 2

2 Support, 7 Oppose (Excluding 1 Support, 1 Oppose, redlinked voters, no participation here till after the canvassing)

Option 3

3 Support, 5 Oppose (Excluding 1 Support (redlinked voter, no participation here till after the canvassing) and Dunlavin Green's vote, because I don't know how to count a 'Support but Oppose' vote)

Option 4

8 Support, 6 Oppose (Excluding 3 Supports, redlinked voters, no participation here till after the canvassing)

Option 5

3 Support, 6 Oppose (Excluding 1 Oppose, redlinked voter, no participation here till after the canvassing)

So only options 1 and 4 have more support than opposition. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 13:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Each got a differiation of 2, wowsers that's close. GoodDay (talk) 13:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Alternative proposal

Latest comment: 15 years ago138 comments17 people in discussion

I don't feel that this article can be fairly described as being the military history of anything. It is a list of wars and battles. As such I feel it should appear in the lists of wars article and be moved into Category:Lists of wars by region. I think that list of conflicts in Europe (or list of English wars or list of wars involving England) is the model to go with, not Military history of X. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 11:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I would accept a name change to List of conflicts in the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This could go on indefinitely! Before an alternative proposal is made could we please see the outcome of the poll above. Can I recommend that this suggestion is withdrawn for the moment, or if you must proceed with it, why do you not put is as Option 5, above. Althought really it's a bit late to be doing that. LevenBoy (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, we already have an Option 5 (which doesn't appear in the top list). What a shambles! make it Option 6 if you must. Who put in Option 5 without listing it? LevenBoy (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
THe current option 5 is stupid and invalid, there is already an article at the suggested location so i dont see how we can vote to rename this article the same thing.. it doesnt make sense. :|BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
It's unhelpful to resort to name calling. Especially when there are clear arguments above as to why option 5 is as valid as other options... Sometimes ones comment act as a mirror on the person who made them.... --HighKing (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
who resorted to name calling? i called the option stupid and invalid, not the person who suggested it. Im sorry but there is already an article on Military history of the United Kingdom. A valid suggestion would be to merge this article with Military history of the United Kingdom but i dont understand how we can choose to rename this article to something that already exists, (especially when the other article is a better one) BritishWatcher (talk) 00:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Instead in future you might instead say that you disagree with X because of reason Y. And for the 4th time of saying it, you're talking about an article that is a content fork. --HighKing (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There is already an article on Military history of the United Kingdom, which is the proper place to cover the UK's foreign adventures. This article should be on the common history/conflicts taking place either on or between the islands. That will be mostly pre-20th century, plus Irish War of Independence, Irish Civil War, WWII and the Troubles. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 09:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you bother to check, Military history of the United Kingdom is nothing more than a content fork of this article. Bastun, I'm also interested in your reasons for opposing "British military history", and I'm especially interested in your views on using "British Isles" in an article that is not geographical in nature (as per WP:BISLES recomendations that were being devised), and is a term that in the past was used to signify a political unit that *did* have a military jurisdiction and armed forces. --HighKing (talk) 10:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Because an article on the common military history of these islands would be useful - from prior to there being a political entity of the UK or British Empire, up to the Troubles. Using the common geographical term therefore strikes me as valid. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
What "common military history"? British victory and Irish defeat? Yes, the "commonalities" are screaming alright. And let's not mention how we all shared the rewards of the "common military history" like until the late 18th century Catholics weren't even allowed into the British Army and were fighting for France, Spain and other countries (no "common military history" articles proposed by the "British Isles" brigade there, however) against the British - ever hear of Fontenoy (where the shout 'Cuimhnigh ar Luimneach agus feall na Sasanaigh!' was recorded from the battlefield)?. In fairness, the nice "common military history" people did allow us Irish to own bogland during these halcyon days when we Irish were bathing in laughter with the Penal Laws. The entire mentality underpinning this "British Isles" option is ahistorical British nationalistic rubbish screaming with poilitical motivation. And everybody here knows it. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bastun, first off, we're talking about *this* article, not a wishlist of articles we'd like to see or how to turn existing articles into something different. As you know, I've no problem with using "British Isles" as a geographical term - but only in the right context and in an unambiguous way. I understand why the article might be useful too, but since the UK article is a content fork, and since the term "British Isles" was originally coined to have a different meaning (and that meaning has relevance to this article topic), I believe it's not appropriate. An article entitled "Military history of the British Isles" would suggest an article based on when the "British Isles" was used historically as an imperialistic term for the British Isles territories belonging to the British crown. Searchin through Google Books turns up Sketches of the war between the United States and the British Isles which does just that (there are lots more too). --HighKing (talk) 13:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
When in your opinion did a "common military history" start in "these islands" and why did it end at the start(end?) of the Troubles? Why do you link in Ireland and not France when for many centuries England and Scotland had more of a common military history with France rather than Ireland? --PBS (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm not trying to speak for Bastun here, but in answer to your questions: 1) The earliest clear common military history I am aware of is raids by Irish warbands on the Cornish and Welsh coasts during the sixth and seventh centuries, long before any modern political boundaries were established. 2) The Troubles are the most recent conflict to take place on the British Isles, which is why I think they are being suggested as an end point although in fact such an article could quite happily discuss the composition of the seperate contemporary British and Irish military forces. 3) Why do you keep mentioning France? France isn't in the British Isles, so why should it appear in an article about them? The long and complicated military history between Britain and France is certainly worthy of an article, but it is not appropriate in this one.--Jackyd101 (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Just a wild guess but I'd say France is being mentioned because the English/British have a far longer "shared military history" with the French - ever hear of the Hundred Years War? - than they have with the Irish. Ergo, if you are proposing a "British Isles" history based on a nebulous "shared military history" then when will we see your joint British-French military history article based on the same "shared military history" ? Is the English monarch still claiming to be King/Queen of France in its title? And have you handed Calais back yet? And the Channel Islands?.... 86.44.53.226 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
To answer the sillt questions at the end of your comment; the title of King/Queen of France was dropped iirc after the French revoltuion; although following the Hundred Years war the title was not that serious as the English didnt attempt to retake the throne (Henry V rule and the title being in "English" hands was quite legit). How can the English hand back Calais when it is in France (although if we carry on like some here i should rant about the fact its English and we want it back :p) and the Channel Islands are ours so shush!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Read WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, or in this case doesn't. Just because an article on the Military history of Britain and France doesn't exist, doesn't mean that it shouldn't and likewise with a Military history of the British Isles. In any case you are comparing two different things: the military history of Britain and France would be the combined military history of two political entities, the Military history of the British Isles would be the military history of an easily defined geographic region.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The point is that people like to see patterns, but just because they see patterns does not mean they exist. What is the advantage that a military history of the British Isles have over separate articles on the various states (and statelets/nations/tribes) that have made up the British Isles. For one to exist you need to show that there is something intrinsic in the geographic local that has made the military history of that entity unusual. What is it about the British Isles collectively that justifies an article about their military history rather than say the "military history of the countries surrounding the North Sea"), or the "military history of the Pyrenees" or any other arbitrary geographic entity. --PBS (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
The justification rests fundamentally with the root of their historical association: geography. Taking the British Isles as a whole, their proximity and the consequent cross-cultural links mean that there are significant trends throughout the islands that make them distinct from the rest of Europe. This is rooted in their shared history: to name just a few, think of the Viking raids that plagued both countries, the complex wars of the Bruces in the early 14th century and the English Civil War that spread to Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the Nine Years War in the late 17th century and of course the substantial recruitment of Irishmen into the British Army that began at that time and continues today. The similarities and differences in these shared circumstances seems to me to be an ideal subject for a Wikipedia article. Much of this material substantially pre-dates the modern states and can also provide a useful frame of reference beyond political boundaries, particularly for the early middle ages when both Britain and Ireland were split into numerous warring states.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Can we have a cut-off date for the above poll? Adopt the Option with the most supports & least opposes? I'll accept any of the 5 Options, which are adopted. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's very nearly pointless to support all 5 options - in fact it may even be theoretically impossible to logically support all 5 options. Sometimes sitting on the fence makes you the target because everyone can see you.... --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Whichever 1 of the 5 is adopted, I'll consent to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a cut-off would make sense, but people are still registering their opinions. What date would you suggest? BTW, the purpose of the poll is to find out if a consensus exists for a particular approach based on discussion, etc. For very good reasons, as I'm sure you already know, this is not a voting contest. In the absense of a consensus, I'm sure we'll continue to follow correct processes and I expect someone will want to file another move request. --HighKing (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I was thinking perhaps 1-week. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I think about a week is a good idea too.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(@ PBS) Indeed. As a subject of military history, it's quite a poor reference point.
Two books on Google books contain the phrase, both in citing the same quotation. And there are a whopping 10 hits for the phrase on Google internet search. Says it all.
This is more a case of militant history than military history, me thinks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
And note the meaning of the term British Isles in these specific cases, as a synonym for "Britain" or "British". Great example at the University of Glasgow Architectural Dept. --HighKing (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Its not actually using it as a synonym - if you read through, it talks about battlefields in the British Isles and then focuses on those in Britain: nowhere is Ireland specifically excluded or even mentioned - it seems to be using the term in a geographical context and as examples go its not very convincing.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I see. I believe you're being a little obtuse. I'd say it's obvious to most people and a fairly good example. --HighKing (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm certainly not being obtuse on purpose: I don't think the example you provided there backs up your point. I think, based on your reaction to the page linked to, that you seem to be reading a very different interpretation into its use of the term British Isles than I am. To me it does not appear to be overtly associating the island of Britain with the whole of the British Isles, but merely as one of its component parts. This is the way that I think most people in Britain (where the wesite originates) would uncontroversially use the term: as a geographical reference without making any specific national or political claim for Britain over the whole group of islands. I am also far from convinced that Ghits is really the best way to assess the suitability of a general military history article.
I am curious as to your stand point on this issue: Do you believe that the term "British Isles", whether or not it once had political connotations, is a contemporary geographical term or an overtly political one? Since the main article for the islands in question is at British Isles, do you agree that all articles that refer to the islands in a geographical manner should use this name across Wikipedia as long as it remains there, and if not why not? Finally, are you fundamentally opposed to general military history articles on Wikipedia being organised by region in addition to being organised by political state if authors are willing to create such articles?--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
My standpoint is pretty simple, and has been consistent from day one. The British Isles is a term that is a contemporary geographical term. I have absolutely no problem with statements like "The river Shannon is the longest river in the British Isles", or "The British Isles is a group of islands off the North West coast of France", etc. But. And this is probably where we differ (maybe?) in opinion. It is also a term with imperialistic connotations relating back to it's historical use as a political term to refer to the islands ruled by a British monarch. I don't have much truck with the overly-nationalistic views on it - history is history. But equally, history being history, we have a duty of care to ensure that we make it clear that the term is being used in a geographical sense, unambiguously. In my opinion, this means that using it in certain ways (or in certain article titles) is ambiguous and if it can be avoided, I think it should be avoided. Not from any nationalistic ranting or reasoning, but from an accuracy and quality point of view. For example, I'd have no problem if an article made a statement along the lines of "At one time, there was a sole monarch for all jurisdictions within the British Isles", or "At one time the British Isles was ruled by a single monarch". While not the best examples I suppose, at least in these cases it's clear from the context that we are referring to the contemporary area. Please take a look at WP:BISLES, a workgroup (currently paused until the RoI workgroup finishes) for guidelines and examples. Does that help? --HighKing (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Thankyou, that was an articulate and well argued reply. I can't say I agreed with all of it, but I now understand you stance on this issue far more clearly.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Jackyd101 - HighKing's example is weak - but that is beside the point, we are not discussing the term British Isles. The point is that in all of the internet (or at least all of the internet that Google knows about) and all of the books in the world (or at least all of the books that Google knows about!) there are only 10 webpages and 2 books that contain the phrase "military history of the British Isles".
Whatever, HighKings opinion about "British Isles" as a phrase, it is his opinion about the "military history of the British Isles" that count. Given the absolute dearth of secondary sources that discuss such a thing, what is your opinion of it? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned above, I have a problem with using Ghits as a basis for this article for two reasons: Firstly, for serious military history topics, particularly those beyond living memory (and my usual area of editing is Napoleonic history, so I have some experience in this area), the internet is something of a wasteland: the few sources available are usually chronically unreliable. For example, I recently wrote and article on the Battle of Vizagapatam using six sources that describe the engagement directly. However as far as Google is aware, the engagement doesn't exist [1]. This indicates that serious studies of the topic Military history of the British Isles are likely to be found in academic literature, not online. Secondly, there is the use of phrasing: just because there may not be a website entitled Military history of the British Isles does not mean that the topic is not notable and hasn't been covered in reliable sources: There are a great many books (indeed, I own a great many books) that cover various aspects of warfare in the British Isles, including works on warfare on the island of Britain, the island of Ireland, the smaller islands that feature in the archipeligo and of course the nature of the relationship between them. This various information, when combined and supported with general histories dealing with the topic directly, forms a coherent narrative that could easily work in a article. I spelled out my specific reasons why I considered this a viable topic in a reply to PBS above and I won't repeat them here, but the gist is that I do consider this a valuable and informative topic: if I wasn't already committed to other projects (and hadn't been put off by the general rowing about the term British Isles), I'd consider taking it on myself. My questions to HighKing were chosen not to raise the issue regarding the name British Isles, but to try to understand his view of this matter, of which the status of ther term is a vital component.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Well put. 86.44.53.226 (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

<--Replying to Jackyd101. France is closer than Ireland to England, so I'm not quite sure what you mean by proximity, "think of the Viking raids that plagued both countries" Viking raids plagued many countries, including North France. Indeed it is the military/political relationships, between England, Denmark and Normandy which are far more important to England than the relationship between England and Ireland during the Viking period. We can discount anything to do with the military history of the UK as that is covered in the UK article. What do you mean by modern states was England in the period after the middle ages and before the Act of Union a modern state? If we are looking are the dark ages or before then what connections are there that justify an article on the geographic area? For example is it more likely that the Trinovantes had more contact with the tribes of Gaul or the tribes of Hibernia? --PBS (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense, either grammatically or logically: of course France is close to Britain, I never said it wasn't and neither did I say that it was irrelevant or didn't deserve an article - what I said was that the British Isles do. And no, I see no reason why we should discount anything to do with the UK, provided the article remains focused on the situation in the geographical British Isles. I'm not sure what "What do you mean by modern states was England in the period after the middle ages and before the Act of Union a modern state?" means at all. Are you suggesting that the connections within the British Isles over the last two thousand years (which you haven't denied, so I assume you agree existed) are so inconseqential that they don't deserve an article, and if so, on what grounds exactly?
Perhaps the best way to illustrate what I mean when I talk about an article under the title Military history of the British Isles is to address one of its more controversial aspects, the Irish Rebellion of 1798. The Rebellion will of course be covered in detail in its own article and in sub-articles of that article, but general overviews could also be provided in Military history of Ireland (or whatever name the article ends up at), Military history of the United Kingdom (or perhaps Great Britain as it was then) and of course a mention in French Revolutionary Wars. However, all of these articles will approach the article from a different perspective: The Ireland article will focus on the rebellion's effects on Ireland, the UK article on its effects (profound consistutional effects no less) on the UK, and the FRW will look at the rebellion's context within light of the wider conflict. However none of these articles will look at the effect of the conflict on the British Isles as a whole, in the context of and in comparison to earlier and later wars and assessing the effects on the military relationships and situations caused by the conflict as they relate to the entire archipeligo (for example, I read that the poverty caused by the collapse of the rebellion drove thousands of Irishmen to enlist in the British Army and Royal Navy, where many were still serving at the time of Waterloo). This article, properly prepared, is an opportunity to provide that sort of general military history of the geographic entity that is the British Isles for the last 2,000 years. --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
It doesn't address the fact that the term "British Isles" is a new term, coined by Jack Dee, and since it was used as an imperialistic term in the context of British military history, it therefore has a separate context of military history than what you have described. --HighKing (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
@HighKing, that doesn't matter. The term is today what the term is today. Dee did not coin a new entity that did not exist before then.
Really? Except of course when you're arguing to use "Republic of Ireland" as the name of the state for "Ireland", when "Ireland" is "the term is today what the term is today". But I suppose that's an exception to this rule of yours? Actually, irony aside, I agree with most things you say on various Talk pages. I'd argue that "the term is today what the term is today" is only valid when the context of the discussion is relevent to the contemporary geographical area. My point is that in this case, it is ambiguous at best, and confusing at worst, and most of all, unnecessary --HighKing (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
@Jackyd101, you should at least appreciate that what you are talking about is not this article (which is simply a list of conflicts), you are talking about writing a new one, that Military history of Ireland doesn't yet exist (as neither does Military history of Great Britain!), that Military history of the United Kingdom is in no better state than this article, and that there are bugger all (if any!) secondary sources that deal the topic you are proposing head on. It's all a bit pie in the sky, really isn't it? (Don't get me wrong though, it would be interesting - I just don't think it's realistic.) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
How does one 'coin a new entity' though? I have yet to find evidence of an entity that covered the area some people still like to term the "British Isles". That happened some time after the Treaty of Mellifont (astonishing there's no wikipedia article on it yet!) in 1603, after which the term "British Isles" came into more common usage in the English language as a means to assert British ownership over the newly conquered land of Ireland. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (Also @Jackyd101) "This indicates that serious studies of the topic Military history of the British Isles are likely to be found in academic literature..." - 3 academic articles found using Google Scholar? (Which BTW is a genuinely thorough search of tens of thousands of academic journals going back decades.) There is a more obvious conclusion that such a dearth of instances of the phrase might indicate.
"This various information, when combined and supported with general histories dealing with the topic directly, forms a coherent narrative that could easily work in a article." And who will be doing this "forming"? I hope not any of us. We don't welcome original research around here. Let's stick with what the secondary sources say about the "military history of the British Isles" ... except, there are no secondary sources on this topic.
Given the dearth of instances of the phrase (in books, academic journals, and on the web), why do you think that there is such a thing as a "military history of the British Isles"? Certainly, there is a list of wars and battles, but a coherent "military history" is more than that. Why should we fabricate one when we have articles that are simply lists of wars? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Good spot over on Google Scholar, User:Rannpháirtí anaithnid. On the claim by User:Jackyd101 that this term is used in academia I decided to check the JSTOR database of academic journals through my university. There is a total of one single result for the phrase 'Military history of the British Isles'. A single one. It appears in a review in the English Historical Review in February 1995. JSTOR, according to its Wikipedia article has over 29 million pages of text from 924 journal titles and over 221,000 journal issues. In other words, this proposed "Military history of the British Isles" title is a neologism as well as everything else and, accordingly, firmly breaches Wikipedia:No original research guidelines. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

In reply to all those above, 1) I agree wholeheartedly that the current article is a terrible mess and does not reflect the suggestions I have made above: what I am arguing for is the existence of the article Military history of the British Isles in principle, not in the format in which this page exists now. If people are willing, I could have a rough go at tidying it up and see what you all think? 2) I've explained the problems regarding both Google scholar and searching for the exact term above: Google scholar is limited to a handful of texts and is very far from conclusive, while searching for the exact article title will yield few results (by the way, searching for "Military history" AND "British Isles" on Google gives me 168,000 results [2], and 4,369 on Google books [3] although as I've said, neither of these are conclusive and I'm sure many results are irrelevant). Finally, I have a book here next to me, Brooks, Richard (2005). Battlefields of Britain & Ireland. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. ISBN 0-30436-333-2., which says in its introduction: "The inclusion of Irish and Scottish battles reflects the strategic unity of an area whose islands are as often joined as seperated by the intervening waters." It then lists eight battles in particular that particularly reflect the close military history within the British Isles and comments "English fears of foreign influence in Ireland or Irish intervention in England have inspired too many expeditions beyond the Irish Sea to mention." (He then explains why he avoids use of the term British Isles in the book, although that is a discussion for elsewhere). I think this shows that this is a subject of some scholarly interest.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"I've explained the problems regarding both Google scholar..." You didn't. You said that from the lack of results on Google books an Google web we could expect that the phrase would appear in scholarly publications. It doesn't.
"...Google scholar is limited to a handful of texts and is very far from conclusive..." Very much the opposite. It indexes ten or thousands of journals going back decades.
"...searching for "Military history" AND "British Isles" on Google gives me 168,000 results..." And you'll get a similar result of you search for "military history" AND "mars". --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
1) No, what I said was "that serious studies of the topic Military history of the British Isles are likely to be found in academic literature, not online." 2) "ten or thousands of journals" is only a handful of academic texts when compared to even a modest academic library, and Google scholar is, I'm afraid, not a conclusive indicator of whether a subject is or isn't notable or covered 3) Of course you get those results! Mars was the Roman God of War! In any case, this debate is taking up too much of my time at the moment, and I must withdraw. Good luck sorting it out.--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK then, try "military history" AND "mickey mouse" if that suits more.
"...only a handful of academic texts when compared to even a modest academic library..." Heavens, you've some luxury! Even indexes such as JSTOR only index several hundred - and you have access to a library that has more than tens of thousands of Journals *on site*? Wow. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just reread the above. It sounds a bit ratty. Thanks for you debate. I've left message on your talk. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just my 2 cents but i think you are all focusing too much on the title; just because google hits dont find numerous books on the work doesnt mean it should not be used. Concluding that there are no secondary sources on the title equals there is nothing to support the article is a bit silly. For example there are numerous operations during the Second World War that do not have a book dedicated to them however from one source we may gain the name and from other sources the content of the battle etc likewise for the smaller battles casualty figures can be hard to come by unless you know where to look i.e. using multiple sources etc isnt original research and i would be very much intrested to see the proposed draft mentioned above once it is complete. Prehaps with a better draft of what the article could look like will help people decide on a suitable name?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I largely agree - except that it is actually the title that is being debated (it's a move discussion). One of the arguments is that the phrase "British Isles" is being belligerently inserted into places where it doesn't belong - with little care about the actual topic itself (not only here but on several pages).
If "British Isles" were an appropriate reference for military history then a generic phrase like "military history of the British Isles" could surely be expected to bring up more than 2 books, 10 web sites and 3 academic articles? My reason for performing the search was because others in this section pointed out that the "British Isles" is an improper reference when talking about military history. The dearth of secondary sources that mention the phrase would suggest that they are right. (I began by suggest the article be moved to List of conflicts in the British Isles.)
By the way, it is not that there is no dedicated book to the subject, it is that what could be expected to be a generic phrase is not mentioned *inside* any book, website or journal. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
List of conflicts in the British Isles is a good title and should probably of been included in the options for the vote. Just on one point in your comment about the British isles being inserted in places where it doesnt belong on different articles. This article has been evolving over the past few years, it started as about the UK then became just about Britain but as mentioned in the edit summary which changed this article to peoples of the British Isles over 7 months ago, the article itself was covering not just Britain but Ireland too.
We are only here today in this debate because after 7 months of calm, one editor took it upon themselves to change this articles title to something we all accept is unacceptable and inaccurate without any consensus and despite the move being undone twice (unlike the move to British Isles 7 months ago which was never changed till 2 weeks ago). It is not that people have been inserting British Isles everywhere, its that some people are on a campaign to remove it. Its clear this debate is going to be ongoing for some time, i think its right the article be moved back to the last stable title for the time being whilst a compromise is reached. We have already seen 1 editor try to remove content because the "British Islands" dont cover what the content does. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to counter that point BW. You say that the article has been evolving for the past years - but what article was evolving? Not so long ago, this article had a title that made it clear it was about British military history. Later, the UK article was created as a content fork (for daft reasons I might add) and still replicates the information from this article. The editor that changed the title to include "British Isles" did not do it to improve the article - I see no evidence of any improvements after the change. And when you look at the edit history of that editor, Setanta747, you start to understand that the motives were inspired by his anti-Irish/pro-British sentiment and nothing more, and has since left the project. --HighKing (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
"It is not that people have been inserting British Isles everywhere, its that some people are on a campaign to remove it." I think there's are belligerents on both sides. It was unfair of me to mention only one above. There is also a history specific to this article, as you describe, that I didn't adequately mention above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 09:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually,User talk:BritishWatcher, it is very much a fact that people are on a campaign to insert "British Isles" in as many places as they can. This article, originally entitled 'British Military History' is a case in point. The History of Britain article has also been changed to History of the British Isles, and there are many, many more instances of nationalistically-minded British people "inserting British Isles" in Wikipedia articles. I read yesterday that between 15% and 24% of the British electorate is now likely to vote for the BNP and UKIP (Here: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/). No wonder this pattern of renaming articles to include "British Isles" is increasing. Looking at the massive Union Jack on your own user page (replete with 'God Save the Queen', mind you) I'm sure you'll be happy to hear these poll predictions. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Dunlavin, the fact remains this articles title was changed 7+ months ago to British Isles because the content was not just about Britain but it was about Ireland too, clearly for many centuries these Islands have had alot of conflicts which involve both.
Now i dont deny some people may in the past of been out to put British Isles anywhere and everyone, i have certainly never done that and i dont intend to. Where i have been commenting on these things its after some people have tried to change the current wording or title, like in this case. I was open to a different option and not calling it British Isles and i still am but what i do strongly oppose is this current title which is inaccurate, silly and had no consensus.
As for my userpage, Im British and i am proud of that. I am also a strong supporter of the monarchy. I see no difference between my userpage and other people who put those boxes talking about their interests and who they are. Quite frankly i think its safer for people to know someones loyalties from the start (my name is a bit of a clue too) than editors who have not declared their interests and keep their loyalties secret.
As for the BNP and UKIP i dont know what this has to do with anything at all. In the last general election only 0.7% of voters in the United Kingdom voted for the disgusting BNP, they are not the only ones who take pride in their country. As for UKIP they are not a nationalist party they simply oppose British membership of the European Union, thats not a radical view, its shared by many people (but not me, i support the European Union). We will have to wait and see how the BNP do in the election but i doubt they will make the breakthroughs their supporters claim.
Dunlavin, i totally understand many Irish peoples opposition to the term British Isles, but you need to understand that people in Britain learn this as a geographical term just as we would learn that Europe is a continent. For the vast majority of the people who use the term, it has nothing to do with imposing "British" on Irish people, its not seen as political at all here. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really the place for this discussion. And if BritishWatcher wants to place two union flags on his user page then that's his right. So long as we behave we can all contribute fruititiously from out own perspectives.
On a humourous note about your name, I had first thought that BritishWatcher was someone who "watched the British" (to make sure they didn't slip "British imperialist POV etc." in to WP). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree its not all one sided, there have been many issues over the years. In this case though it seems to me like a reasonable renaming 7+ months ago as the article did contain content on Ireland aswell as Britain and it wasnt changed until a few weeks ago. I just dont think we should forget how we got here, its not like some people are just trying to have British Isles added to the title which doesnt reflect the content. The title was recently changed to something which doesnt match the content with no consensus at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The article contained *no* subject matter which didn't involve the British military, so saying that it contained content on Ireland as well as Britain is a blatently dishonest disclosure, and selective wordsmithing. The article also has mentions of campaigns in India. Perhaps it should be renamed "Military history of the British Empire" based on that logic? --HighKing (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Look lets try and act sensible now and throw the nationalist stuff out the window. As it is the article currently contains information about the Roman province of Britain, Anglo-Saxon England, Daneland, Scotland, Wales; tons of other civil wars between the kingdoms that existed well before the British Empire. We then have the war of the three kingdoms, more civil wars and then move into the realm of the British Empire - which did include Ireland until 1920.
Now considering the list and what it also includes that happened outside of these islands i think PBS is probably right; does this deserve to exist as an article on its own in regards to the kingdoms within the British Isles or should it be expanded to cover France, Spain etc
If the latter what would be the approbirate title? If the former just talking about the kingdoms on these islands and there combind history (including prior to the British Empire) what is the approbirate title?
Finally should this be an article or should it just be turned into a list?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
The only well known "Geographical area" that Britain, France and Spain share is being part of Europe. Which is why there is a List of conflicts in Europe and Military history of Europe so i think its reaasonable for there to be one on the British Isles (rather than having separate ones on Ireland/Britain which is a reasonable alternative). I agree with your point about if this is a list or not, at the moment it clearly is and that should of been included as an option. Perhaps what should of been done after we all accepted that the article wasnt going to be deleted is decide what content we wanted on this article and then go about trying to get consensus for a name.
If it is going to have the title British Isles it should only be about the conflicts within the British Isles throughout history be they civil wars, invasions, occupations, attacks etc i dont see the need for talking about overseas British or Irish military activity. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Why do you think "its reasonable for there to be one on the British Isles"? It is impossible to talk about the military history and the British Isles separate from the military history of Europe. Unlike states, the British Isles did not move as one military for the overwhelming majority of it's history (unlike when we talk about the military history of states). Most of the time we are talking about three different states. Sometimes they fight wars against each other. Sometimes they don't. Their military history is nestled within European military history, not a divisible subset of it. How can we talk about the rise of English naval power without talking about the Anglo-Dutch rivalry? What about the Anglo-French rivalry? What about the 19th European rivalries? The Spanish? What about the Romans???
"i dont see the need for talking about overseas British or Irish military activity" ... What!? You're going to talk about military history. You're going to talk about the British Isles. But you are NOT going to talk about the British Empire? What?? --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
We already have Military history of the United Kingdom which is where all conflicts involving the sovereign state since 1707 is mentioned which covers the British Empire. The reason i support an article covering the British Isles is we should be talking about conflicts within the British Isles from the begining of recorded history (When we didnt have sovereign states) all the way to today. If there had been an option like List of conflicts within the British Isles i would of supported that one instead of Military history of the British Isles as its a better and more clear title. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
You cannot have a military history of the British Isles without there being HUGE overlap between that an the military history of the United Kingdom. This is simply a fact of the subject matter. Otherwise, we are talking solely a list of conflicts in the British Isles. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see an article just on the conflicts within the British Isles rather than one huge list of conflicts that any part of the British Isles has once engaged in anywhere in the world. Ofcourse the same problem arises if we have a Military history of Britain and a Military history of Ireland. A Military history of Britain in my opinion should be talking about the conflicts within the island of Britain so it is not confused with the sovereign states, British military history which is at Military history of the United Kingdom or before the birth of the UK, Military history of England and Military history of Scotland. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Which is what many people have been saying. "Military history of [a state]" but "List of conflicts in [a place]" (in general at least). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that makes sense and its ashame that wasnt added as an option at the start of the vote. Thats one of the reasons i opposed the option of Military history of Britain and one on Ireland because it sounds as though it should be about a states not the islands. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) IMHO, we should 'split' the article in half. In the meantime, change this articles title back, to what it was before Sentana747 changed it (without seeking consensus). GoodDay (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article to Britain and Ireland is a reasonable alternative that i dont strongly oppose. Theres just a few things ive mentioned before which makes me prefer one article covering both, considering many of the internal conflicts are shared between the two islands so wed be repeating ourselves. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Ehh, we're already repeating ourselves with this latest add/subtract British Isles dispute. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
From this statement "internal conflicts are shared between the two islands", do you mean that you only want to cover the period between the time that the Normans land in Irelead with the Norman invasion of Ireland and end with Irish independence in 1921? Would the article include the internal conflicts btween England and France over the English Kings' lands in France? The problem you are running into is that for only a just over a century out of a millennium was the land that makes up Great Britain and Ireland inside one state, to imply othewise is a point of view that carries political implications. The simplest soulution is to have two articles MhoI and MhoB with the "Military history of Britain" as a dab page to MhoE, MhoS, and MhoUK.--PBS (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
While it may have been inside one state at the point of time as you have suggested it was ruled by the same king as England and Scotland was well before then. For example at the time of the War of the Three Kingdoms the Irish king was the same king as the Scottish and English king - Charles I. When the latter was beheaded the Scots and Irish recognised his son as the king. At that point in time it is my understanding that each kingdom dictated their own internal policy however it was the English parliament that dictated foriegn policy indicating Scotland and Ireland were not sovereign states. Prior to the previous mentioned conflict huge numbers of English settelers moved to Ireland and colonised huge chunks - these "Old English", primarilly Catholic, sided with the Gaelic Irish in later rebellions agaisnt the reformation and attempts to reform the Irish church along Protesant lines.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 10:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Scotland and Ireland were separate realms, and before Scottish James VI became James I of England, the two kingdoms did not share a union of crowns. English parliament has never dictated foreign policy, that is a function of the executive.
During the Stuart period the three kingdoms were united under one king that they all generally accepted and as shown following the beheading of the king his heir was accepted by Ireland and Scotland. I never said they were all one state. Foriegn policy during this time was the responcility of London, i will dig a source out later.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Even with that argument you, have not addressed the other periods, for example between 1066 the the loss of Calais under Mary the English Crown had a physical presence in France, and for many centuries that was the focus of English foreign policy (Take Richard I as an example).
You will note i was correcting you when you said that Ireland had only been part of or related to England/Scotland for one century - a position that is clearly in error in light of how the people viewed the king, how religion and colonisation played a role etc - i was not addressing everything else.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Before that during both the Roman period and under Danish kings such as Canute foreign policy was decided by men who were not born and bred in the territory of what is now England, and those same men had not jurisdiction over Ireland or Scotland. --PBS (talk) 11:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Completly irrelevent to the position you stated and my rebuttle - isnt this a strawman?
Ireland has been link to, via religious wars, colonisation and a shared monachy since at least the Stuart era and iirc colonisation took place further back than that and also included the English crown asserting authoristy over Ireland in the mid 1500s if memory serves. So again to state that "for only a just over a century out of a millennium was the land that makes up Great Britain and Ireland inside one state, to imply othewise is a point of view that carries political implications." is misrepresenting the situation that the three kingdoms found themselves in, they have been linked in one way or another for at least 4-500 years.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to pull out sources, I am familiar with the situation during the English Civil War and the Interregnum (123). I did not claim that there was not a personal union, I claimed that the realms were not one state (think Charles V). It is not a straw man. There are three articles that cover this region already (MhoE,MhoS,MhoUK) an article on the Military history of Ireland would cover the major missing link. The argument that England and Ireland have been linked in one way or another for at least 4-500 could equally be made for the relationship between England and France, particularlly as we already have an article that covers the time when the states Great Britain and Ireland were in a political union (Military history of the United Kingdom). It is not a straw man argument, but one based on the fact that like it or not to encompas Ireland within an article called the British Isles is perceived by many in Ireland to be making a political statement. Hence the fuss in the recent peace moves over Northern Ireland to come up with other wording such as IONA. Now if there was a unique relationship that bound the islands together (such as exists for the major Japanese islands), there might be a justification to it, but over the last 2000 years of recorded history the territories that now make up England, particularly those in the south east where the capital of those territories has been for most of the last 2000 years, have tended to look over the seas to the east and south not to the west. Better by far to have distinct articles as it removes the POV problems and makes the articles less anglo-centric.--PBS (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What should be in a "Military history of the British Isles"?

I think we're over complicating things by trying for a catch-all article. I don't think that is it possible to write a genuine (i.e. coherent) military History of the British Isles. (There are times when a coherent military history is possible, but when so it would be better called by a different name e.g. Military history of the United Kingdom).

However, as an academic exercise at least, below is a outline of how I imagine the several several parts that might go into it:

  • Military history of Roman Britain
  • " " of pre-mediaeval Ireland and Scotland
  • " " of Anglo-Saxon England
  • " " of the Vikings in Britain and Ireland
  • " " of the Norman invasion of England
  • " " of Norman England
  • " " of the Norman invasion of Ireland
  • " " of Norman Ireland
  • " " of the Scottish-English wars
  • " " of England and Ireland during the Tudor dynasty
  • " " of 17th century Britain and Ireland
  • " " of English naval power
  • " " of the rise of the British Empire
  • " " of Irish rebellions since the Williamite War to independence
  • " " of Irish terrorism
  • " " of the United Kingdom during the 19th century
  • " " of the British Empire during the 19th century
  • " " of the United Kingdom during the Great War
  • " " of the United Kingdom during World War II
  • " " of the fall of the British Empire
  • '" " of the Emergency in Ireland
  • " " of the Troubles in Northern Ireland
  • " " of the United Kingdom (external affairs) since World War II
  • " " of Ireland since 1921

Given that essentially none of these articles as yet exist (and the enormity of such as an article), I think a list/dab article would be best e.g. small summary sections linking to relevant articles. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 13:04, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

This is basically how i envisioned such an article with this title to look like and why i supported it not to be deleted. I have made one little change - the British Empire in the great war, considering men from all over the isles joined up to fight the common foe. Although i dont think that 'military history of...' would need to start each section off. I think this is a good basis for further discussion, how do others feel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnigmaMcmxc (talk • contribs) 16:43, 3 June 2009
"...the British Empire in the great war, considering men from all over the isles joined up to fight the common foe..." At that time the archipelago was one state so United Kingdom during the Great War covers "men from all over the isles". British Empire during the Great War would include Australians, New Zealanders, Canadians, Indians, etc. who also fought. I hope you don't mind, but I've changed it back. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
We also need to keep on track a little. We still need to decide what should be done with this article. I'm not sure I understand what you are suggesting. --HighKing (talk) 23:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Look at the proposed titles: will it be "Military history of the United Kingdom" or "Military history of the British Isles" or "Military history of Britain and Ireland" or "British military history"? Or two articles: "Military history of Britain" and "Military history of Ireland"? These are quite a diversity of titles. The content of an article that would go under any one of these titles would be very different from the content that would go under another.
This is one of the problems we face. It's not just what to call the article(s) but a more fundamental question: What is the article about and what goes in it? This section is about what would go into the article if we choose one of the proposed titles above ("Military history of the British Isles").
The unfortunate thing, IMHO, is that it seems that we are more hung up on what words we are going to use in the title of an article and less concerned with thinking about the actual content of the article. Beginning with the name and not the content puts the cart before the horse. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 08:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree that content determines article name to some extent, with the proviso that even if this article ended up at a certain name with matching content there still could be other content currently in this article that would go in a differently named article - hopefully that's clear enough. As "military history of the British Isles" I would expect content to focus more on the military actions taking place on or around the Isles, or that had a direct military impact upon the isles - less on the crusades, war of 1812, and the Indian empire and more on the Armada, Viking incursions, battle of the Atlantic. Military history of the UK by comparison would cover 1812, Indian Empire, palmerston forts etc more equally (but still in relation to their importance). GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't disagree with what is being said above, and that is why I based the original move request based on the content of the current list/article. There are enough reasons to move it away from the current title (everyone agrees), and perhaps your suggestion to create a number of smaller articulate articles is the best possible result as opposed to a long list of battles and wars. A number of articles will also be easier to understand and more descriptive, and help draw together the significance of a series of engagements. (And I bet that many of the so-called interested editors that have all lobbed links into the current title after the move request will disappear once work begins on a serious military title). --HighKing (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Just to clairfy, is the suggestion to change the title of this article to "Military history of the British Isles" and then the main body of the text split into sections based on the titles in the first post - a bit of text and a link to the relevent article? Something, for example, akin to they way the Battle for Caen article is laid out?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I think we are starting from the wrong end. We shouldn't be addresseing it as "we have a title (or a choice of titles), now what should we put into it?" We should be starting with whether an article is needed at all, and if so, what it should be called (on the WP principle that the title should be what the non-expert is most likely to search under). In this case I think the commendable list of headings above just illustrates what a rich and interesting article Military history of Ireland would be. If Irish history is merged into British history in a combined article, much of Irish interest would inevitably be swamped, or at least hard to find: as England/UK has been a world power, its global military exploits will inevitably overshadow Irish history. To give Irish military history its proper place it needs a separate article which can go into the necessary detail without upsetting the balance of a combined article, where we will inevitably have POV arguments about how much mention Ireland should get. Cyclopaedic (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
There is certainly a need for an article on military history of Ireland. But should that be about the military history of the island of Ireland (throughout time) or about todays sovereign state, there seems to be justification for an article on bothBritishWatcher (talk) 20:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The answer must be the island. If you were to limit it to the state - what would you have - probably limited to a few UN missions? 86.42.156.238 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


"I think we are starting from the wrong end." So do I, but there appears to be a will to have a topic of this title so I think it is worth discussing how we would do it (if we did).
"...a bit of text and a link to the relevent article?" What I had in mind when I wrote that was something along the following format repeated for each of the headings above:
  • Heading
  • A few summary paragraphs to introduce the subject.
  • Hierarchical list of relevent articles (linking to the war, for example, not every battle in the war)
"...much of Irish interest would inevitably be swamp..." I think if we followed the format above then each subject area could be given equal attention and be suitably blocked off that none would get swamped (indeed the normal Anglo-centricism of military history on these islands would get far less column inches than normal).
"...should [an article on the military history of Ireland] be about the military history of the island of Ireland (throughout time) or about todays sovereign state..." I think we would encounter the same Ireland/Republic of Ireland problem there as we do on Ireland and Republic of Ireland articles. I foresee two articles in time "... of Ireland" and "... of the Republic of Ireland" and all the woes that would come with that. Just one more reason not to start the thing. In any case, if a good shot was made of a "... of the British Isles" then in essense there is no need for a "... history of Ireland" ... I mean, for the best part of the last millennium, Irish military history has only really been concerned with one belligerent :-P --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
"British Isles" is an ambiguous term when used in the context of miltary history, because for a time, it meant the British military. For example, Sketches of the war between the United States and the British Isles or other military-oriented books which use the phrase "British Isles" in this context such as this one. If an all-reaching article is to be written, a better title has to be found. --HighKing (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

'This is one of the problems we face. It's not just what to call the article(s) but a more fundamental question: What is the article about and what goes in it?'. I have to agree with others that by talking about what will be in potential articles before the name of the one potential article is decided is putting the cart before the horse. To me, it needs no discussion (now anyway) what sort of things would be in any of the above named options. 'Military history of Britain, for instance, will clearly be about the military history of Britain. And so forth. All this conversation is also superfluous because only one of the above options will be chosen. I think we are getting away from the main point. Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the chances of there ever being an article entitled '...of Irish terrorism' are none, never mind under an article entitled 'Military history of the British Isles'. What is this, Britipedia? Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

An Irish terrorism article? GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
See, even GoodDay is in shock, and he's from the New World (See above suggested article, GoodDay). Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Where has Sarah gone? I hope she hasn't been bullied into staying away from these "British Isles" articles. She is the Maud Gonne of Irish wikipedians.Dunlavin Green (talk) 22:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Such an article's discussion page, would likely be a political quagmire for editors. As for Sarah? she'll always be around. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
(off topic) What would be wrong with an article on the military history of Irish terrorism? 18th century secret societies, IRB, IRA, the Provisionals ... just because the word is thrown around by some as a pejorative term doesn't mean we can't call it what it was. One man's terrorist may be another man's freedom fighter, but that doesn't mean that freedom fighters can't use terror as a military tactic. We Irish have used it in abundance. Indeed there is an argument to be said that we invented it in it's modern form. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Of course, terrorism was used by the IRA, etc. I'm just pointing out, that such an article would be a powdered-keg. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Unnecessary and a pretty pointy and inflammatory comment which I note with interest (for such an allegedly even-handed NPOV wide-sweeping article on Irish terrorism) omits organizations such as the UVF and even the British army who it has been alleged also engaged in terrorism. I'm a bit surprised - up to now I hadn't flagged either GoodDay or IrishAnonParty as biased one way or the other....hmmmmm --HighKing (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, GoodDay, I meant to direct that at Dunlavin. A military history of Irish terrorism would not be too bad as regards the powdered keg, as it would make no value judgements on whether terrorism is right or wrong only describe the tactics, counter-tactics and development of strategies and technologies over time, which are not generally disputed. I didn't mean that a new article should be created on the subject, only that links to current articles relating to the topic (e.g. Armalite and ballot box strategy) could be put under the heading of "Military history of Irish terrorism" on this page. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not going to happen. Listen to GoodDay's last sentence. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
PS. Just googled "Irish terrorism" = 17,000; "English terrorism" = 43,300; "UK terrorism" = 44,300 results. Yes, so let's have articles on the latter two, shall we? I can assure you I am more than capable of writing PhD standard articles on those subjects, starting with Humphrey Gilbert engaging in scorched earth policies against the population of Munster in the 1560s with citations including another Englishman, Edmund Spenser (who, incidentally, advocated the genocide of the Irish people), remarking favourably about women and children being burned alive as a result of English terrorism, or civilisation as they called it at the time. I'll end somewhere around Basra with a discussion of the British terrorising civilian areas with bombs and citing articles like this (Again, all this section's discussion is pointless; the article's title must be decided first). Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Do you guys ever give it a break and try and come up with something constructive? Google hits mean nothing all by the way. Am not going to search through all of those hits but lets examine the top 5 hits of each search term shall we?
"English Terrorism" - The United Nations Treaty Collection - Conventions on Terrorism, which is available in English. 2nd hit - Richard English - Terrorism: How to Respond. English terrorism news corpora - "I am looking for a corpora of news on terrorism written in English. If it's already tagged, that's even better (being tagged is not a condition). Do you happen to know any (which is free)?". 4th hit some guys blog in which he states "The UK government's decision to put Iceland on the terrorist list is in itself a terrorist act." - something to do with the banking crisis from last year?
"Irish Terrorism" - The first 5 hits all talk about the IRA or the troubles in N.Ireland and Islamic terrorism seeping into Ireland.
"UK Terrorism" - the top 5 results are about homeland security.
I believe the term for your above argument is straw man. Now why not try and be creative and help develop the wiki, this article and stop rambling on about crap that happened 500 years ago like it happened to you!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
PS to note this is not aimed at you Rannpháirtí anaithnid, who unlike others is attempting to make progress and has made what i think is an excellent suggestion.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, from the start of the sentence 'What should be in a "Military history of the British Isles"?' right to the period after your last word, everything is a pointless digression engaged in by people who clearly have too much time on their hands. The name of this article is the first thing that needs to be decided. This is, or at least it should be, obvious. Dunlavin Green (talk) 10:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you dont have a clear idea of what the article is going to be about how does one name it?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
A reasonable question ClemMcGann (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
The original name on this article was 'British military history'. Then an editor changed it to Military history of the United Kingdom. No problem there. Then, another editor (a self-declared loyalist from northern Ireland) unilaterally decided to change the entire context of this article by renaming it 'Military history of the peoples of the British Isles'. All of the above discussion is, therefore, predicated upon the continuing existence of this illegitimate change, marginalising the four other options, and thus prejudicing the vote. There is no consensus for an article about "British Isles" military history. This article should be moved back to its original title until the voting is concluded. Dunlavin Green (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
But would you like to answer the question posed to you?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I have, clearly: undo the illegitimate renaming of this article first and restore it to its original title of British military history. All of the above is essentially trying to highlight one of the five optional names for this article, the "British Isles" choice, and marginalise the others. As the vote is not completed yet, this is prejudicing the result by bestowing greater legitimacy on this title as the proper title of this article. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dunlavin Green (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Santana747 moved this article to Military history of the peoples of the British Isles without consensus. This article certainly can't go back to that title. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

break

I believe the discussion has taken a reasonable turn. It seems clear that for this article, the present format is nothing more than a list with no attempt to provide context or help readers understand the significance of various miliary encounters. If (a) new article(s) is/are written using a format similar to that suggested above, then the discussion about the title of this article is moot, and the discussion is now revolving on good candidates for new articles. Is this a fair summary? --HighKing (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

As I've been howling, split the article into 2 or more (whatever's required). Then we'll sort out the naming. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
a sensible 'howling' ClemMcGann (talk) 16:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree. It's long overdue. Dunlavin Green (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Agreed; though I'm not convinced there is much useful material in the article as it stands in any event. I think a lot of this debate is driven by a desire for over-precision in the titles of articles, which is specifically discouraged in WP:NAME. The main principle in naming articles is "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." The content should dictate the mname, rather than the other way round.
My own view is that the title most non-expert users are likely to search for is British military history. They would expect to find there the entire military history of both Britain as a geographical entity (eg the Roman invasion and the Norman conquest) as well as the foreign military adventures of the political entities now making up the UK. To limit an article about a country to its period of existence under that name, or to its exact modern geographical borders, is over-legalistic. It is a commonplace to use "British" or "Britain" to refer to the UK, and in Wikipedia we accept the common usage and do not adopt POV positions that it ought to be different. Contrast the use of "England" to refer to Britain or the UK, which was once common but has been unacceptable in the UK for about 30 years - though still very common in the rest of the world.
At present British military history redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom, but that article restricts itself to the period since 1707 - which must be wrong, in my view. The ordinary reader would expect to find a continuous narrative from ancient to modern, and not to have to change articles whenever a political shift occurred. I think British military history should be the main article on the broad topic, including English military history since the beginning of time.
that raises the question of how to deal with the military histories of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. As I said before, to relay on a single article to cover all of them would risk either losing sight of them entirely, or of giving them excessive emphasis in the context of the whole. There is no right answer, and I suspect that the approach should be different for each. Ireland has such a different military history, mainly a history of resistance to British invasion or oppression, that it certainly merits its own article, ranging across the whole of history to the present day, and covering the island of Ireland. The military history of Scotland might be covered in a article extending only as far as Union, or its earler history could be included in British military history. The contributions of the Irish to British military history (in terms of contribution of troops to British forces etc) should be duly recognised in both the British and Irish articles.
We should be looking for whatever will most assist the reader and produce a comprehensive encyclopaedia, not to observe fine or legalistic definitions. Cyclopaedic (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
"At present British military history redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom, but that article restricts itself to the period since 1707 - which must be wrong, in my view .... They would expect to find there the entire military history of both Britain as a geographical entity (eg the Roman invasion and the Norman conquest) as well as the foreign military adventures of the political entities now making up the UK." I agree with this entirely (and have said it many times above). This is precisely what the articles on all other modern European states do: they cover history going back thousands of years before the modern state was created , but within the context of the modern political entity. See Military history of Germany, for one of many examples. Your own choice of British military history (which was anyway the original name of this article) is absolutely fine with me as well.Dunlavin Green (talk) 09:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I think British Military History should continue to redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom and a mention in the introduction or a banner leading to another article which covers the history of the Island of Britain, if people do want to split this article rather than having a single one covering the British isles. When people of think of Britain or British they are far more likely to be looking for the history of the sovereign state, rather than the Island. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
No they're not. --HighKing (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe splitting the article is a good idea. The military history of the British Isles as a unit would be difficult to retrieve as a result. This article should be restored to the name prior to Purple Arrow making his uncalled-for move to the present, ridiculous title. Then the debate can begin afresh, but there seems to be a consensus forming that "Military History of the British Isles" is the preferred title. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment 1: "Consensus"? Where, pray tell, is this elusive "consensus" for, coincidentally enough, you preferred option of "Military history of the British Isles"? If anything, the voting above has a consensus for splitting this article into two and ditching the "British Isles" name illegitimately imposed on this article. So, again, where is this "consensus"? PS Wishful thinking and consensus are not the same thing. Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Comment 2: There is not, and never has been, a 'military history of the British Isles'. This is wishful thinking again and indicative of the nation-making exercise where a single 'history' replaces the many histories of an area in order to support a political or ideological aim. Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 11:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't think we should have multiple articles covering fundamentally the same ground. Why is it importntant to be able to read the militray history of a geographical area? Political connection makes more sense. Both British military history and Irish military history are large and important subjects. Everything else should link to them, or should be a sub-article providing more detail. The exception might be a more geographical article such as Battlefields and fortifications of the British Isles. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
An intelligent solution, although I don't see why the latter should be an exception. Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
It would be entirely acceptable to have both Military History of the British Isles and Battlefields and fortifications of the British Isles; they are two different subjects. There could also be Irish Military History as well as British Military History. All the articles come at the general subject of military history from a specific angle - some political, others geographical. There is nothing wrong with that. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
This is gone beyond comical. Does wikipedia not have any rules on repetition in articles? Or has the rulebook been thrown out the window when it comes to inventing and renaming articles to include the words "British Isles"? Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We already have three articles Military history of England Military history of Scotland, Military history of the United Kingdom, with the other two articles there is no reason for the UK article to duplicate what is in the English and Scottish articles. All we need is an article on Military history of Ireland (and probably a me to article to keep Welsh editors happy), in which case this article if renamed to "Military history of the British Isles" could become a disambiguation page to those articles. --PBS (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That might be a good comrpomise. Have a disam page for Military history of the British Isles which has links to history of England, Scotland, (Ireland if ones created), (Wales if one is created) and military history of the United Kingdom, dealing with the sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I would put this as second choice, behind a straight article about Military history of the British Isles, in line with the views given by the military history specialists, adn including the content they suggest. However, in the mean time - this will take a while to agree - the article should be renamed to its last name prior to PurpleArrow giving it the present title. LevenBoy (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
See what's happened above? 'Military history of the British Isles' was illegitimately imposed on this article (by a British loyalist who has done the same on other articles) which was originally named 'British military history'. Now, there is an attempt to impose this contrived and politically motivated title in the back door into wikipedia anyway. This is British intervention in Ireland to a tee: overthrow the natives and impose your own system, stand by it and brow beat the natives into submitting to your new ways and names and to accept their legitimacy. I note, too, that all rational reasons, and the minor matter of the vote above where most people voted to divide this article into two, have also been ignored. So far there are 13 votes in favour of splitting this article; and 9 votes in favour of 'Military history of the British Isles'. But still the British nationalists persist in imposing their ways and indeed, despite the evidence, one of them has claimed that the "consensus" is for the "British Isles" title. The historical resonance of this latest "British Isles" campaign is terrifying. Dunlavin Green (talk) 04:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Have you finished your pathetic little rant? Its funny that the article title lasted over 7 months, compare that to this current title which everyone accepts is stupid, inaccurate and pointless. I know which change was more politically motivated. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
"Have you finished your pathetic little rant?" BritishWatcher I expected better of you. If someone was to make such a comment to you would you be more inclined to move towards a compromise with them or less likely? In the interests of reaching a consensus, I think you should consider striking the comment out. --PBS (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
He is making wild accusations about people, i see it as nothing but a rant. It certainly didnt sound like he was prepared to accept anything like your reasonable compromise and i doubt my comment would of stopped him from changing his mind, but i will strike out the word pathetic and little. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  Dunlavin Green, you need to stop making accusations against editors. Your comments are attacks on all British editors, and your assumptions of nationalism being the motivation of British editors wholly fail to assume good faith. The wrongs that the British have inflicted on the Irish people are not going to be righted by insulting other editors. Fences and windows (talk) 20:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I like that idea, split the article into British military history & Irish military history. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

But if that was done I would still press for the British military history to be a dab page for the three articles we already have on Great Britain. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
If British military history is a dab page rather than a redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom, what other articles will be listed? the Scotland / England articles or a new one on Military history of Britain (the island)?? BritishWatcher (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I see that the fearless user:Aervanath has cut the Gordian Knot and move the article to Military history of Britain. I suggest a Wikipedia:Set index (special type of disambiguation page which can also carry footnotes) with Military history of England, Military history of Scotland, and Military history of the United Kingdom (and Wales when/if it is written), and also a "See also" for anything else related to the Military history of Britain. If we don't do that then we will have articles that duplicated each other and at the moment the only one worth the name article is the MhoS, so it is not as if there is not a lot to do.--PBS (talk) 19:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
So basically we delete everything on this article and replace it with a list of 3 things. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Military_history_of_Britain/Archive_2&oldid=1136368786"