![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"The Glorious Revolution was a largely non-violent revolution (also sometimes called the "Bloodless Revolution")"
"Despite an uprising in support of James in Scotland, the first Jacobite rebellion, and in Ireland where James used local Catholic feeling to try to regain the throne in 1689–1690, the revolution was remarkably bloodless." (that is similar to saying 'despite much fighting and killing the revolution was remarkably bloodless')
I have changed these two statements as they are innacurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 August 2004 (UTC)
What may have started out as an attempt to revert to remove vandalism seems to have got into a dispute over which version we revert to. However the main difference between the versions is how we deal with the issue of whether it was a "bloodless revolution". I prefer the version which points out that, on top of the fighting in Scotland and Ireland, it was not completely bloodless in England. Also this version mentions the 2 Williamite victories in Scotland. PatGallacher 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Readers of this article need to be aware that the term "Glorious Revolution" is a Whig term used by the Whig school of history. This article is also written in this style, for example:
The Glorious Revolution was one of the most important events in the long evolution of powers possessed by Parliament and by the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights it stamped out any final possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards monarchical absolutism in the British Isles by circumscribing the monarch's powers.
The Whigs advocated the power of parliament and wanted to curb the power of the king and aristocracy. Whig historians view the past as one long march towards the constitutional monarchy of the nineteenth century. (I don't know where to put this question on this article; but the Glorious revolution branched out to the americas and this article does not tell about the portion of the war in america?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 September 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to info regarding the economic revolution that followed on the Glorious Revolution? It seems that there was a sea change in economic institutions in this period, particuarly the way gov bonds or their equivalents were used to support the central power, but the British East India company and fellow travellers activities might also form a large part. The period from 1688 into the 1720's or 40's seems very important to the formation of the modern state and is perhaps worth an article on it's own, but what to call it? Wblakesx Wblakesx 20:39, 17 October 2004 (UTC)
Seems like this should cover William's role in the troubles in Ireland. I don't know the subject matter, but I do know that William is remembered by both sides of the struggle as pivotal. The Orangemen of Northern Ireland take their name from William's hereditary title province in Holland, etc.
Chrisvls 00:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 11:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, this article, under the "Legacy" heading, should discuss how Ireland was royally (no pun intended) screwed following 1690. It's far from seen as a "Glorious Revolution" in Ireland - apart from amongst a certain community in the north of the island! zoney ♣ talk 00:10, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
There are a series of articles here that begin with the so-called English Bill of Rights and continue through the Glorious Revolution and which end up with Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney that are at present as clear as mud. There is one tell-tale line in the Glorious Revolution article on Wikipedia which explains that it was a "conspiracy" although that word is not linked nor defined. Unfortunately these articles are typical of twaddle that relate information that can only confuse the reader and leave that person scratching their head about what they have been reading. A clear cut understanding needs to be shown that the Bill of Rights is not a bill of rights and that the Glorious Revolution was indeed a conspiracy because the real power was held by the Privy Council (not Parliament) ever since the end of the Cromwellian republic. I am not suggesting that I wade in and begin a firestorm of rewriting which others might term a form of revisionist history, but someone needs to take up this challenge. These related articles are typical of history texts that bore readers to death because they fail to educate, only confuse. This is 2004 and a clear cut statement needs to be made about the subject material to show that it was conspiracy by the few for the benefit of the few who held real power while pretending to be the exact opposite. MPLX/MH 17:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The statement that the revolution was the "last successful invasion of England" seems excessively speculative, misplaced, misinformed, and superfluous.
Is as is said in the introduction Historians prefer the name Revolution of 1688 why is the title Glorious Revolution... does this smack of POV? and a lack of neutrality? -- Timsj 15:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although you make a very important point, regarding the common name, if people find it offensive, such as me, the search for glorius revolution could just be redirected to Revolution of 1688, hence you would not lose any traffic. -- Timsj 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I think you are wilfully misunderstanding me. One of the standard policies in Wikipedia is to challenge anything that seems to be POV i.e. from a biased point of view. This is particularly important in writing articles aout politics, religion or history. To make reasonable attempts to avoid bias is the basic standard for anyone attempting to write decent modern history. The fact that the title is questioned by modern historians is openly admitted at the beginning of the entry, we would not lose any visitors if redirected from the 'glorious revolution'. So my conclusion must be that you wish to keep it as Glorious for sectarian reasons. -- Timsj 18:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The article on the Battle of Reading talks of a small battle which we should work into the article. -- Joolz 01:08, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
Meaning of Invasion/to invade:
1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it.
2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage.
3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way.
All, but especially 3 fits perfectly.
Therefore invasion is the right terminology. Rex 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, because I laughed a bit when I read "Lets sort this out like adults".
Point is it was an invasion, I don't need to compromise everything I said/claimed here is true. It was an invasion, if the sentence "It was also the last invasion of England" is suddenly approved by 195.93.21.133, then why change "landing" for "invasion"? Rex 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
User talk:195.93.21.133, soon after I post this message I will revert the article to the accurate version.
The event described in this article is an invasion and should therefore have every right to be called an invasion. Your threats will not help you neither will continueing this edit war.
On wikipedia when there is a problem, it is discussed on the appropriate talkpage.Not by 2 letters (rv) in an edit summary. If you still believe you are right (by which you would contradict yourself in the earlier -and only- comment by you on this talk page) you can engage me in discussion.
Also, your IP adress has been repeatedly used by vandals, and although in my personal opinion you are somewhat like them if not the same, I am willing to believe you if you say you are not one of them. On the otherhand I'd like to say that these "impersonations" and "accusations" would stop if you'd simple create a personal account. Rex 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For (hopefully) the last time, the events described in this article constitute an invasion as described by the Cambridge International Dictionary. Therefore it is correct mention and categorize that this article includes an invasion.
In a nutshell: During the Glorious revolution and 8 years after the Third Anglo-Dutch War, a Dutch army landed in England. Thereby "entering an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way, in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage." This event was the last succesful invasion of England as an enemy army managed to reach England, in contrast to later invasion plans such as those of Napoleon and operation Sea Lion by Nazi Germany.
OK, here's my turn.
1-- Nations invade nations, not individuals. Holland did not invade England in the Glorious Revolution. Instead, William landed his army to claim the crown.
2.-- Someone above raised the point that Napoleon landed troops in Britain. So not "last" invasion if we use your meaning of the word. Look at the "invasions of england" page - the Napoleonic Wars are mentioned.
3.-- 1066 is universally agreed to be the last invasion of England. Wikipedia does not support original research or novel views. This is an encyclopedia.
--86.138.210.207
OK, lets look at the Cambridge definition
"1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:"
William did not take possession of England. He was welcomed, invited, and installed as King. He took the crown, not sovereignty.
--86.138.210.207
I havnt heard of a napoleonic invasion of Britian either, but another poster mentioned it and its on the list of invasions of england. But clearly even if such an invasion did occur it wasn't successful.
--86.138.210.207
The issue of whether the Glorious Revolution was an invasion and if so whether it was the last one needs to go to mediation or, better, an alert for an expert to contribute.
--86.138.210.207
You're right, I dont know how mediation works. I just think we need some balance. I've made an edit which I think can satisfy you and the others. --86.138.210.207
According to you, is every entrance of foreign troops into a country an "invasion"? Was D-day, for example, an invasion of France?
It is the consensus opinion of editors here that the use of "invasion" is misleading when compared to other invasions of Britain (not England, by the way). In England, (yes, England) the "invasion" was barely resisted, in fact welcomed by most of the population. Compare that with, say, the Norman invasion: a military conflict between two peoples that ended in Saxon defeat. BillMasen 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As a person of Dutch ancestry: nor is there any reason for a Dutch bias. As a native English speaker, I can assure you that your use of the word is misleading.
You mention the POV of the Germans and of the Allies in D-day. Have you considered the POV of the French people? Just like in England 1689, the elites connived in the landing and the public supported it or acquiesced to it.
1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it. The Dutch did not take possession of England. The Parliament deposed James and offered the Crown to William, with a large number of conditions -- including the right to choose William's sucessor.
2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage. Italicised "usually" is rather un-dictionary-like. But anyway, why should this event be the exception to that "usually"?
You mention Dutch historians. Cite them. BillMasen 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. By your own definition, an incursion unwanted by the nation, the GR is not an invasion. BillMasen 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Common sense didn't work, so I tried appealing to your parochial Dutch nationalism.
1) the landing was successful not because William had a large number of soldiers, but because James soldiers refused to fight.
2) Being unwanted by the jacobites is not the same as being unwanted by the majority of Englishmen
3) This is too vague to be a good usage in this case. History either has meanings one or two.
Why don't you just produce the historians you are threatening us all with. I bet I can find more. 212.219.57.50 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Translation:
Source:
This is my source, my point now has dictionary as well as referenced support. The revert will follow shortly. Also, BillMasen/212.219.57.50 I would like it if you used the same name during the conversation, otherwise you could be charged with sock puppetry. Rex 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I just might do that, but first let us solve this fuss, I didn't spend 2,5 hours looking for that book to find a reference for nothing ;-) Rex 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Inval and invasie can be considered synonyms (According to Van Dale). Rex 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I used "can be considered" and not "are". It depends on context, but I think invasion is the correct translation of inval here. We're not talking about a few people or a raiding party but a full blown army. Rex 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-- MWAK 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It might help to look at this from a contemporary perspective, that of William and his advisers:
My use of the present tense is deliberate. The whole thing must have looked extremely risky to contemporary observers.
Obviously, William himself felt that what he was engaged in was an invasion, not a revolution.
Moreover, that seems also to have been the feeling of the people of London when they saw the English army being ordered out of the city and Dutch troops mounting guard around St.James and Whitehall.
With the benefit of hindsight we can now say that the enterprise worked out rather well, but that didn't help the people making the decisions at the time.
Another consideration, which supports MWAK's submission about James' army not so much refusing to fight but simply being unable to resist the incursion effectively, is this:
Hope this helps. (BTW my first Wikipedia post) Recoloniser 11:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If I may put in my two cent's worth? The claim that the invasion was an Invasion is now supported in the article by a Dutch citation. This is not necessary, as there is a perfectly authoritative English language citation in the book edited by Jonathan Israel that is already in the references. It is his article "The Dutch role in the Glorious Revolution", in The Anglo-Dutch Moment, pp. 105-162. Israel makes no bones of calling an "invasion" what was clearly an invasion (p.105 and passim). So I suggest this citation is used to replace the Dutch one. I would do it myself, but I do not wish to be misunderstood and start a new edit war :-)-- Ereunetes ( talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Lets remember that the reigning King at the time James II was hated by much of the country for imposing his unpopular will on the people and that Parliament as a whole welcomed William. James II spent a large part of his life in France (England's traditional enemy) and was a committed Catholic because of this, so much so that he began to replace Protestants with Catholics in major posts for no reason other than religion. In a strongly protestant country this generated much anger. William had as good a claim to the throne as anyone through his wife and most people were willing to accept him as a liberator for these reasons. Willski72 ( talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It does seem to have been a rather slow invasion.
"Abandoning the Tories, James looked to form a 'King's party' as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, so in 1687 James supported the policy of religious toleration and issued the Declaration of Indulgence. By allying himself with the Catholics, Dissenters and nonconformists, James hoped to build a coalition that would give him Catholic emancipation."
Is this true? I was under the impression that Indulgence was extended only to Catholics. After all, Parliament passed the Toleration Act soon after the Revolution, so why would they criticise James for "indulging" Protestants?
Is this true? I was under the impression that Indulgence was extended only to Catholics. After all, Parliament passed the Toleration Act soon after the Revolution, so why would they criticise James for "indulging" Protestants?-- User:BillMasen
From the article:
So why do we continue to have this article under a clearly POV term? It is irrelevant as to whether it is the most used term. The majority are not automatically in the right.
zoney ♣ talk 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Title change has been reverted - should go through the proper procedure.-- Shtove 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A Google book search (using google.co.uk) returns:
The sever was playing up when I tried it so these may be false readings.
A general Google search for what its worth returned:
Also could this in part be a side of the pond issue with Americans using "Revolution of 1688" (a John the Baptist type event) while UK sources use "Glorious Revolution"?
So given that the UK seems to use "Glorious Revolution" and it is what it tends to be called in schools (eg see http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/1688.shtml)
and in Parliament papers (eg http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g04.pdf):
I think it should remain at the common British name for the event, (especially as there are no Wigs or their opponents left alive to argue that the name is wig propaganda!) in a similar way that the American War of Independence is not at that name because it is not the most common name in the US even though American Revolutionary War has what some still consider a built in POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not who it offends, but correctness. It has always been called the Glorious Revolution, though really it was neither. "Revolution of 1688" is clumsy and un-descriptive. BillMasen 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that this is not an issue of "neutrality" but an issue of how this revolution is known. From a cursory look at the sources, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is widely used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The title "Glorious Revolution" is inappropriate. This is not a British encyclopaedia, therefore I do not see why a clearly biased name for the event should be used. zoney ♣ talk 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The event is almost always referred to as the "Glorious Revolution" and whether or not one feels that it was glorious is utterly irrelevant. Any change in the title would itself be motivated simply by subjective POV. siarach ( talk)
The idea that NPOV is relevant is misplaced. WP:NAME is clear that the title of the article is not an endorsement of the term's use in the text or a reason to assume any alternatives are discouraged. As it seems "Glorious Revolution" is the term most often learnt around the English-speaking world, it is the most appropriate title for this article. Moreover, the move from one controversial name to another is pointless. From WP:NAME#Controversial names: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (Emphasis in original.) To those who think their NPOV concerns are good reason, the fact that a replacement title is also controversial negates that concern, as does the fact that NPOV does not apply to article names that are otherwise the most common name. - Rrius ( talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. The sentence "However, he was captured on December 11 by fishermen in Faversham near Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey" is misleading because it implies that Faversham is on the Isle of Sheppey. Faversham is on mainland Kent, I grew up there and people from the area would not appreciate being called Sheppey-ites!-- Leau 13:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Two different interpretations -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"The events of 1688 and their aftermath can thus be seen as much more of a coup d'état, achieved by force of arms, than an authentic revolution."
- Rrius ( talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This page says that "even Pope Innocent XI, an inveterate enemy of Louis XIV of France, provided a loan" in support of the coup. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XI states that "[t]here are, however, no grounds for the accusation that Innocent XI was informed of the designs which William III of England (1689–1702) had upon England, much less that he supported him in the overthrow of James II.[2]". Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robat ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the respects in which the "Glorious Revolution" was not what it seemed is the way historical reality and historical myth play a role in the aspect of religious toleration. First of all, one of the reasons why James was so unpopular with his subjects was his (in modern eyes commendable) attempt to alleviate discrimination against Catholics and Dissenters by his "illegal" use of the dispensing power. William ostensibly invaded partly because of this "Papist threat" to the rights of the established Church. As a Calvinist William, however, was not exactly gung-ho to defend Anglicanism. More importantly, his Catholic allies, the Pope, Spain, and the German Emperor, were not about to support (and be seen to support) somebody who was again about to persecute English Catholics, against king James, who had just ended this persecution. William had therefore to walk a fine line between being too tolerant to Catholics (and thereby giving up his claim to being the Champion of Protestantism), and being not tolerant enough. This explains his pro-toleration stance in his Declaration of October 1688, and also his attempt to procure a Toleration Act in 1689. The latter met with a resounding political defeat at the hands of the High Church Tories, who even managed to avoid the word "toleration" in the so-called Toleration Act. Consequently, William has somehow acquired the reputation of a Protestant fire-breather in popular mythology, whereas the real fire-breathing was done by people who were happy to deal him his first political defeat.
In any case, there is no relationship between William's being a Calvinist, and the fact that the Toleration Act only gives legal toleration to Nonconformists, and not Catholics. -- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem of classification raised in the discussion above is due to confusing two distinct events. William landed with thousands of troops - this was an invasion. After the invasion, and in the absence of significant fighting in the Kingdom of England, Parliament and William agreed a new and radical constitution (for the time) - this was a revolution. The article seems to be merging two historical events that are actually fairly distinct: the transfer of protestant heirs to the throne to England and the constitutional changes of the Glorious Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.1.107 ( talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The opening to this article needs to be completely rewritten. First of all, the last successful invasion was the Norman attack in 1066, which led to the Battle of Hastings. It is not an invasion if you are invited. The English populace asked him to come with an army to dispose of their monarch, James II. How can it be an invasion if you invite someone to come? If someone smashes your windows in, that is burglary. If you invite them in, its not burglary is it? Look at the Texas Revolution. Some blind idiots assume that as an Anglo-American invasion of the Mexican state of Tejas. Yet the Mexican government invited them, so how is it an invasion if you are invited? Also, how is this seen as the birthplace of British democracy. First of all, James II wasn't trying to gain absolute power the way Charles I did. He did not close Parliament for one, and he did not pass laws without the consent of his people. He was unpopular with his subjects because he was Catholic, not because he was trying to assume total power. The birthplace of British democracy was in 1645, in the form of the Battle of Naseby and the culmination of the English Civil War. It was after that war in which British democracy had been born. Never again after that would a monarch try to rule without the consent of his people. James II did nothing of the sort which Charles I did. It was only due to his religious orientations (and thus, ties with the Pope) which made him unpopular. This article needs to be seriously re-written. ( 82.28.237.200 ( talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
Think the following sentence "On December 18 the Duke of Norfolk warned James of a conspiracy on the side of his son-in-law." should read: "On December 18 the Duke of Norfolk warned James of a conspiracy on the side of his brother-in-law." 122.106.211.17 ( talk) 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to add a line regarding the passage of the Mutiny Acts in the section on the Jacobite Uprising. The act is a fairly important development in military law which was prompted by the uprising. Any thoughts? Jumpinbean ( talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the history of Freemasonry in the UK and saw that the Glorious Revolution was sometimes mentioned as an early reference to the political activity of the lodges. Relevant information on the subject ought be added, especially since many point to this event as the beginning of the 18th century intellectual and social changes. ADM ( talk) 07:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen the GR referred to as one of the Anglo-Dutch wars; at least in England, it's usually considered seperate. Also, I'm not too sure about the word "defeat"; not only does "defeat" imply military conquest (many historians do not consider the GR to be an example of this), but it also implies that England was annexed to the Netherlands, when as a matter of fact the two countries were still kept seperate, with only their monarch the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.25.38 ( talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added an infobox; I thought the article could do with one. I couldn't find a neutral image, though, so I've gone with the Seal. Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to improve the layout of this article by rearranging and adding information to their appropriate headings. The planning for the invasion should surely be in the conspiracy section, with the invasion itself given its own section. There is a lot of unsourced text in this article, I have tried to add sourced material, mainly from academic books. Also I think the article should use Old Style dates only, with the year taken as starting on 1 January, as many books do.-- Britannicus ( talk) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I'd agree, the dating is complex, but keeping to the dates then in use (and that are likely to turn up in sources) and explaining about Old style/New Style and Julian/Gregorian is a better idea than trying to adjust them.
Using the 1688/1689 format is explained
here; we could use that and add a note with a link as explanation.
Or we could add (
Old Style/
OS) and (
New Style/
NS) as appropriate, like in some other articles (such as
here).
Moonraker12 (
talk)
12:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (no relation BTW; that I know of!)
This article is surely part of our History of England. I concede that if dated events in Holland and Zealand (or Rome, &c.) are mentioned, then it might be misleading to change them into Julian dates, so it's best to use the actual Gregorian dates and identify what they are, with a note to explain the difference from our English or North European dates. I don't see any need to introduce Gregorian calendar dates into all parts of the article, so long as we identify what kind of dates are used. The whole foundation of the Glorious Revolution was English resistance to the imminent threat of Roman Catholicism, and the main reason why there were still two sets of dates is precisely the same resistance to all manifestations of popery... We could even say so! Moonraker2 ( talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I’ve made a start. I’ve put OS or NS with links for most dates; But I thought the "Invasion" section was better with the dual dating system, though, where there is the cross-over from continental to English usage. I trust that's OK with youm.
Also, I’ve hit a snag, which I’ll have to check, for the
Battle of Reading. One of the links there
[3] gives the date for the arrival at Hungerford as 6 December, while the article gives 27 November (“By 24 November, William's forces were at Salisbury; three days later they had reached Hungerford”); so I don’t know if the dates after this have already been adjusted.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)It says that William ascended the throne. I thought he was joint 'monarch' with Mary? Keith-264 ( talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MWAK, the peculiar nature of British monarchy does exercise me somewhat, like that bloke whose 'king Charles' head was... king Charles' head. Mary II did after all nick the throne off her dad. Who needs Eastenders with 'Westenders' like these?'O) Keith-264 ( talk) 14:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the citations in this article would benefit from the usage of the {{ citation}} template because there are a lot of citations and the template has two distinct advantages:
I have altered the the itinerary citation added yesterday to demonstrate how citation can be used to tie the short citation to the long citation.
The use of the {{ sfn}} and {{ harvnb}} template depends on whether the short citation needs additional information held within the short citation if it does not then use {{ sfn}} as it automatically takes care of repeat citations without the named ref tag as in <ref name=Itinerary> that I replaced in the above example, but if additional information is needed within the short citation (like a quote) then harvnb is better. It will become obvious when altering the short citations which is the better to use in any particular case.
There are two ways to do this. Either short and matching long citation. This has the advantage of when the task is finished any entries in references section not converted should be moved out to further reading (or deleted). However it does mean that the whole article had to be edited. If instead all the reference section is converted first to use the citation template and then each separate section is converted to use the sfn or harvnb templates, then providing they are working on different sections several editors can continue to work on the same article without an edit clash.
Usually the information that the {{ sfn}} and {{ harvnb}} contain is {{sfn|author|year published|p=num}}.
If one of the other templates related to {{ citation}}, such as {[tl|cite book}}, is used in the references section then an additional field has to be added to the related template to make if function with sfn or harvnb. It is "|ref=harv".
To see an article which was altered from the old method to the new please compare English Civil War (old) with the current version of the English Civil War.
Does anyone have any objections to me converting the references section to use the citation templates and the short citations to use sfn or harvnb? -- PBS ( talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been through the "Further reading" and "External links" sections adding citation templates. As the article has a large reference section -- with the exception of the Prince of Orange's deceleration (a primary source)-- I don't see any point keeping the books and articles in those two section in the article. Unless anyone wants to suggest other books or links currently in those two section to be kept in the article, I propose to move them into a collapsed box here on the talk page. -- PBS ( talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of those are already in the references section. Are there no others in the further reading or external links that you think worth keeping? For example one of the bibliographies I listed suggested that http://www.thegloriousrevolution.org/ was a useful site.-- PBS ( talk) 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has recently been change to read "This fact has led many historians to suggest that, in England at least, the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution"
"many historians" are weasel words. -- PBS ( talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It is sad that the why and the how of history are not considered to be encyclopedic, and are not even considered for inclusion in articles 67.206.183.76 ( talk) 18:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC). Admins here should worry more about weasels than "weasel words".
The article is an interesting reading.
However it is amazing that the legacy part is not hooking up to the main article. After 50 years of domestic fighting it all is settled in peace. The main shift is in view, the business of Amsterdam invaded London. London a much safer location (than Holland) in threat of the past (risk of being invaded) by them with the view of the struggle of battle for the cake, instead of making it (business) grow. It is a revolution because the Brish sociaty ever since has it as it fundament. It looks to have been a very good deal with William, for the nation.
The artichle is also missing the main point of all the protestant states became protestant due to the problem that Catholics so far has had problems with two master. Even Jesus claimed one can not have two masters. So it is not a matter of faith, only about politics.
To everyone outside Britain Ireland was an occupoied country and theat William had to reoccupy it is no surprise, later history has proven it very clear, ask the irish? Most likly still most non-Britains still call the Kingdom Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 ( talk) 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
For a time, the lead read, "The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, is the overthrow of King James II of England..."
I changed "is" to "was." My first attempt was accidentally reverted by an editor using Huggle, and I redid it. I was wondering if there was a reason to use the present tense rather than the past. I think it sounds better now, but I can change it back if I was mistaken.
Thanks! DCI talk 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
(hopefully I'm not too bothersome!)
DCI talk 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
63.79.163.162 ( talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Past tense just makes sense. You're arguing a grammatical point that contravenes convention. The event is over, it's not happening now. It happened. If someone asks, "What does 'Glorious Revolution' mean?", then you can define it with 'is' ("'The Glorious Revolution' is the name given to the overthrow..."), but this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. We're not 'defining' things, we're 'explaining' them.
A point to consider: if "was" were not expected for historical events, why would there need to be a specific policy to use "is" in biographies of deceased individuals?
Having this as editorial policy opens a huge can of worms (and will require massive edits throughout Wikipedia). Just look at War of 1812, Fall of Saigon, or September 11th attacks, the first three examples that came to mind. All use "was."
I'm going to change the article to conform to what I see as consistent Wikipedia style. If other editors change it back, well, I don't feel so strongly about it as to start any sort of edit war, just strongly enough to make the edit and explain my reasoning.
I've tagged this
"the monarch was
forbidden to be Catholic or to marry a Catholic, a prohibition that continued until October 28, 2011 when this latter requirement was rescinded in a meeting of the 16 countries who still retain the British Monarch as the Head of State"
from the introduction, as dubious.
For a start, I don’t know that that much detail belongs in the introduction of this article, which is primarily about events 300 years ago. A link to the
Act of Settlement 1701 page should suffice.
Also, I’m not so sure its true: Neither the Act of Settlement page, nor the
2011 proposals page say that it’s a done deal at all, they say that there’s a working party on producing the legislation. They also say the change would only come into effect if the Cambridge’s have a daughter before a son.
So the statement here seems a bit
OR-ish. If there are no objections I would propose taking it out.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A number of the books listed at the end of the article bear this designation: ISBN ????. I don't know how to enter citations or bibliographies on WP, so have not had to enter an ISBN. Does this designation mean that some books lack a number? Thanks for the information. Yours, Wordreader ( talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"The Glorious Revolution was a largely non-violent revolution (also sometimes called the "Bloodless Revolution")"
"Despite an uprising in support of James in Scotland, the first Jacobite rebellion, and in Ireland where James used local Catholic feeling to try to regain the throne in 1689–1690, the revolution was remarkably bloodless." (that is similar to saying 'despite much fighting and killing the revolution was remarkably bloodless')
I have changed these two statements as they are innacurate.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 August 2004 (UTC)
What may have started out as an attempt to revert to remove vandalism seems to have got into a dispute over which version we revert to. However the main difference between the versions is how we deal with the issue of whether it was a "bloodless revolution". I prefer the version which points out that, on top of the fighting in Scotland and Ireland, it was not completely bloodless in England. Also this version mentions the 2 Williamite victories in Scotland. PatGallacher 11:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Readers of this article need to be aware that the term "Glorious Revolution" is a Whig term used by the Whig school of history. This article is also written in this style, for example:
The Glorious Revolution was one of the most important events in the long evolution of powers possessed by Parliament and by the Crown in England. With the passage of the Bill of Rights it stamped out any final possibility of a Catholic monarchy, and ended moves towards monarchical absolutism in the British Isles by circumscribing the monarch's powers.
The Whigs advocated the power of parliament and wanted to curb the power of the king and aristocracy. Whig historians view the past as one long march towards the constitutional monarchy of the nineteenth century. (I don't know where to put this question on this article; but the Glorious revolution branched out to the americas and this article does not tell about the portion of the war in america?)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cap ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 2 September 2004 (UTC)
Can anyone point me to info regarding the economic revolution that followed on the Glorious Revolution? It seems that there was a sea change in economic institutions in this period, particuarly the way gov bonds or their equivalents were used to support the central power, but the British East India company and fellow travellers activities might also form a large part. The period from 1688 into the 1720's or 40's seems very important to the formation of the modern state and is perhaps worth an article on it's own, but what to call it? Wblakesx Wblakesx 20:39, 17 October 2004 (UTC)
Seems like this should cover William's role in the troubles in Ireland. I don't know the subject matter, but I do know that William is remembered by both sides of the struggle as pivotal. The Orangemen of Northern Ireland take their name from William's hereditary title province in Holland, etc.
Chrisvls 00:20, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 11:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Indeed, this article, under the "Legacy" heading, should discuss how Ireland was royally (no pun intended) screwed following 1690. It's far from seen as a "Glorious Revolution" in Ireland - apart from amongst a certain community in the north of the island! zoney ♣ talk 00:10, 12 June 2005 (UTC)
There are a series of articles here that begin with the so-called English Bill of Rights and continue through the Glorious Revolution and which end up with Henry Sydney, 1st Earl of Romney that are at present as clear as mud. There is one tell-tale line in the Glorious Revolution article on Wikipedia which explains that it was a "conspiracy" although that word is not linked nor defined. Unfortunately these articles are typical of twaddle that relate information that can only confuse the reader and leave that person scratching their head about what they have been reading. A clear cut understanding needs to be shown that the Bill of Rights is not a bill of rights and that the Glorious Revolution was indeed a conspiracy because the real power was held by the Privy Council (not Parliament) ever since the end of the Cromwellian republic. I am not suggesting that I wade in and begin a firestorm of rewriting which others might term a form of revisionist history, but someone needs to take up this challenge. These related articles are typical of history texts that bore readers to death because they fail to educate, only confuse. This is 2004 and a clear cut statement needs to be made about the subject material to show that it was conspiracy by the few for the benefit of the few who held real power while pretending to be the exact opposite. MPLX/MH 17:48, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The statement that the revolution was the "last successful invasion of England" seems excessively speculative, misplaced, misinformed, and superfluous.
Is as is said in the introduction Historians prefer the name Revolution of 1688 why is the title Glorious Revolution... does this smack of POV? and a lack of neutrality? -- Timsj 15:03, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Although you make a very important point, regarding the common name, if people find it offensive, such as me, the search for glorius revolution could just be redirected to Revolution of 1688, hence you would not lose any traffic. -- Timsj 23:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I think you are wilfully misunderstanding me. One of the standard policies in Wikipedia is to challenge anything that seems to be POV i.e. from a biased point of view. This is particularly important in writing articles aout politics, religion or history. To make reasonable attempts to avoid bias is the basic standard for anyone attempting to write decent modern history. The fact that the title is questioned by modern historians is openly admitted at the beginning of the entry, we would not lose any visitors if redirected from the 'glorious revolution'. So my conclusion must be that you wish to keep it as Glorious for sectarian reasons. -- Timsj 18:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The article on the Battle of Reading talks of a small battle which we should work into the article. -- Joolz 01:08, 4 June 2005 (UTC)
Meaning of Invasion/to invade:
1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it.
2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage.
3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way.
All, but especially 3 fits perfectly.
Therefore invasion is the right terminology. Rex 21:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Excuse me, because I laughed a bit when I read "Lets sort this out like adults".
Point is it was an invasion, I don't need to compromise everything I said/claimed here is true. It was an invasion, if the sentence "It was also the last invasion of England" is suddenly approved by 195.93.21.133, then why change "landing" for "invasion"? Rex 22:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
User talk:195.93.21.133, soon after I post this message I will revert the article to the accurate version.
The event described in this article is an invasion and should therefore have every right to be called an invasion. Your threats will not help you neither will continueing this edit war.
On wikipedia when there is a problem, it is discussed on the appropriate talkpage.Not by 2 letters (rv) in an edit summary. If you still believe you are right (by which you would contradict yourself in the earlier -and only- comment by you on this talk page) you can engage me in discussion.
Also, your IP adress has been repeatedly used by vandals, and although in my personal opinion you are somewhat like them if not the same, I am willing to believe you if you say you are not one of them. On the otherhand I'd like to say that these "impersonations" and "accusations" would stop if you'd simple create a personal account. Rex 18:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
For (hopefully) the last time, the events described in this article constitute an invasion as described by the Cambridge International Dictionary. Therefore it is correct mention and categorize that this article includes an invasion.
In a nutshell: During the Glorious revolution and 8 years after the Third Anglo-Dutch War, a Dutch army landed in England. Thereby "entering an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way, in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage." This event was the last succesful invasion of England as an enemy army managed to reach England, in contrast to later invasion plans such as those of Napoleon and operation Sea Lion by Nazi Germany.
OK, here's my turn.
1-- Nations invade nations, not individuals. Holland did not invade England in the Glorious Revolution. Instead, William landed his army to claim the crown.
2.-- Someone above raised the point that Napoleon landed troops in Britain. So not "last" invasion if we use your meaning of the word. Look at the "invasions of england" page - the Napoleonic Wars are mentioned.
3.-- 1066 is universally agreed to be the last invasion of England. Wikipedia does not support original research or novel views. This is an encyclopedia.
--86.138.210.207
OK, lets look at the Cambridge definition
"1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:"
William did not take possession of England. He was welcomed, invited, and installed as King. He took the crown, not sovereignty.
--86.138.210.207
I havnt heard of a napoleonic invasion of Britian either, but another poster mentioned it and its on the list of invasions of england. But clearly even if such an invasion did occur it wasn't successful.
--86.138.210.207
The issue of whether the Glorious Revolution was an invasion and if so whether it was the last one needs to go to mediation or, better, an alert for an expert to contribute.
--86.138.210.207
You're right, I dont know how mediation works. I just think we need some balance. I've made an edit which I think can satisfy you and the others. --86.138.210.207
According to you, is every entrance of foreign troops into a country an "invasion"? Was D-day, for example, an invasion of France?
It is the consensus opinion of editors here that the use of "invasion" is misleading when compared to other invasions of Britain (not England, by the way). In England, (yes, England) the "invasion" was barely resisted, in fact welcomed by most of the population. Compare that with, say, the Norman invasion: a military conflict between two peoples that ended in Saxon defeat. BillMasen 12:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
As a person of Dutch ancestry: nor is there any reason for a Dutch bias. As a native English speaker, I can assure you that your use of the word is misleading.
You mention the POV of the Germans and of the Allies in D-day. Have you considered the POV of the French people? Just like in England 1689, the elites connived in the landing and the public supported it or acquiesced to it.
1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it. The Dutch did not take possession of England. The Parliament deposed James and offered the Crown to William, with a large number of conditions -- including the right to choose William's sucessor.
2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage. Italicised "usually" is rather un-dictionary-like. But anyway, why should this event be the exception to that "usually"?
You mention Dutch historians. Cite them. BillMasen 20:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. By your own definition, an incursion unwanted by the nation, the GR is not an invasion. BillMasen 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Common sense didn't work, so I tried appealing to your parochial Dutch nationalism.
1) the landing was successful not because William had a large number of soldiers, but because James soldiers refused to fight.
2) Being unwanted by the jacobites is not the same as being unwanted by the majority of Englishmen
3) This is too vague to be a good usage in this case. History either has meanings one or two.
Why don't you just produce the historians you are threatening us all with. I bet I can find more. 212.219.57.50 13:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Translation:
Source:
This is my source, my point now has dictionary as well as referenced support. The revert will follow shortly. Also, BillMasen/212.219.57.50 I would like it if you used the same name during the conversation, otherwise you could be charged with sock puppetry. Rex 15:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I just might do that, but first let us solve this fuss, I didn't spend 2,5 hours looking for that book to find a reference for nothing ;-) Rex 19:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Inval and invasie can be considered synonyms (According to Van Dale). Rex 18:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, that's why I used "can be considered" and not "are". It depends on context, but I think invasion is the correct translation of inval here. We're not talking about a few people or a raiding party but a full blown army. Rex 20:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
-- MWAK 10:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
It might help to look at this from a contemporary perspective, that of William and his advisers:
My use of the present tense is deliberate. The whole thing must have looked extremely risky to contemporary observers.
Obviously, William himself felt that what he was engaged in was an invasion, not a revolution.
Moreover, that seems also to have been the feeling of the people of London when they saw the English army being ordered out of the city and Dutch troops mounting guard around St.James and Whitehall.
With the benefit of hindsight we can now say that the enterprise worked out rather well, but that didn't help the people making the decisions at the time.
Another consideration, which supports MWAK's submission about James' army not so much refusing to fight but simply being unable to resist the incursion effectively, is this:
Hope this helps. (BTW my first Wikipedia post) Recoloniser 11:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
If I may put in my two cent's worth? The claim that the invasion was an Invasion is now supported in the article by a Dutch citation. This is not necessary, as there is a perfectly authoritative English language citation in the book edited by Jonathan Israel that is already in the references. It is his article "The Dutch role in the Glorious Revolution", in The Anglo-Dutch Moment, pp. 105-162. Israel makes no bones of calling an "invasion" what was clearly an invasion (p.105 and passim). So I suggest this citation is used to replace the Dutch one. I would do it myself, but I do not wish to be misunderstood and start a new edit war :-)-- Ereunetes ( talk) 00:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Lets remember that the reigning King at the time James II was hated by much of the country for imposing his unpopular will on the people and that Parliament as a whole welcomed William. James II spent a large part of his life in France (England's traditional enemy) and was a committed Catholic because of this, so much so that he began to replace Protestants with Catholics in major posts for no reason other than religion. In a strongly protestant country this generated much anger. William had as good a claim to the throne as anyone through his wife and most people were willing to accept him as a liberator for these reasons. Willski72 ( talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
It does seem to have been a rather slow invasion.
"Abandoning the Tories, James looked to form a 'King's party' as a counterweight to the Anglican Tories, so in 1687 James supported the policy of religious toleration and issued the Declaration of Indulgence. By allying himself with the Catholics, Dissenters and nonconformists, James hoped to build a coalition that would give him Catholic emancipation."
Is this true? I was under the impression that Indulgence was extended only to Catholics. After all, Parliament passed the Toleration Act soon after the Revolution, so why would they criticise James for "indulging" Protestants?
Is this true? I was under the impression that Indulgence was extended only to Catholics. After all, Parliament passed the Toleration Act soon after the Revolution, so why would they criticise James for "indulging" Protestants?-- User:BillMasen
From the article:
So why do we continue to have this article under a clearly POV term? It is irrelevant as to whether it is the most used term. The majority are not automatically in the right.
zoney ♣ talk 23:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Title change has been reverted - should go through the proper procedure.-- Shtove 19:58, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A Google book search (using google.co.uk) returns:
The sever was playing up when I tried it so these may be false readings.
A general Google search for what its worth returned:
Also could this in part be a side of the pond issue with Americans using "Revolution of 1688" (a John the Baptist type event) while UK sources use "Glorious Revolution"?
So given that the UK seems to use "Glorious Revolution" and it is what it tends to be called in schools (eg see http://www.schoolhistory.co.uk/year8links/1688.shtml)
and in Parliament papers (eg http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/g04.pdf):
I think it should remain at the common British name for the event, (especially as there are no Wigs or their opponents left alive to argue that the name is wig propaganda!) in a similar way that the American War of Independence is not at that name because it is not the most common name in the US even though American Revolutionary War has what some still consider a built in POV. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not who it offends, but correctness. It has always been called the Glorious Revolution, though really it was neither. "Revolution of 1688" is clumsy and un-descriptive. BillMasen 14:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I would argue that this is not an issue of "neutrality" but an issue of how this revolution is known. From a cursory look at the sources, The Glorious Revolution of 1688 is widely used. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The title "Glorious Revolution" is inappropriate. This is not a British encyclopaedia, therefore I do not see why a clearly biased name for the event should be used. zoney ♣ talk 20:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
The event is almost always referred to as the "Glorious Revolution" and whether or not one feels that it was glorious is utterly irrelevant. Any change in the title would itself be motivated simply by subjective POV. siarach ( talk)
The idea that NPOV is relevant is misplaced. WP:NAME is clear that the title of the article is not an endorsement of the term's use in the text or a reason to assume any alternatives are discouraged. As it seems "Glorious Revolution" is the term most often learnt around the English-speaking world, it is the most appropriate title for this article. Moreover, the move from one controversial name to another is pointless. From WP:NAME#Controversial names: "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." (Emphasis in original.) To those who think their NPOV concerns are good reason, the fact that a replacement title is also controversial negates that concern, as does the fact that NPOV does not apply to article names that are otherwise the most common name. - Rrius ( talk) 16:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello there. The sentence "However, he was captured on December 11 by fishermen in Faversham near Sheerness on the Isle of Sheppey" is misleading because it implies that Faversham is on the Isle of Sheppey. Faversham is on mainland Kent, I grew up there and people from the area would not appreciate being called Sheppey-ites!-- Leau 13:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Old Style and New Style dates#Two different interpretations -- Philip Baird Shearer 08:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"The events of 1688 and their aftermath can thus be seen as much more of a coup d'état, achieved by force of arms, than an authentic revolution."
- Rrius ( talk) 02:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This page says that "even Pope Innocent XI, an inveterate enemy of Louis XIV of France, provided a loan" in support of the coup. However, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Innocent_XI states that "[t]here are, however, no grounds for the accusation that Innocent XI was informed of the designs which William III of England (1689–1702) had upon England, much less that he supported him in the overthrow of James II.[2]". Which is correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robat ( talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
One of the respects in which the "Glorious Revolution" was not what it seemed is the way historical reality and historical myth play a role in the aspect of religious toleration. First of all, one of the reasons why James was so unpopular with his subjects was his (in modern eyes commendable) attempt to alleviate discrimination against Catholics and Dissenters by his "illegal" use of the dispensing power. William ostensibly invaded partly because of this "Papist threat" to the rights of the established Church. As a Calvinist William, however, was not exactly gung-ho to defend Anglicanism. More importantly, his Catholic allies, the Pope, Spain, and the German Emperor, were not about to support (and be seen to support) somebody who was again about to persecute English Catholics, against king James, who had just ended this persecution. William had therefore to walk a fine line between being too tolerant to Catholics (and thereby giving up his claim to being the Champion of Protestantism), and being not tolerant enough. This explains his pro-toleration stance in his Declaration of October 1688, and also his attempt to procure a Toleration Act in 1689. The latter met with a resounding political defeat at the hands of the High Church Tories, who even managed to avoid the word "toleration" in the so-called Toleration Act. Consequently, William has somehow acquired the reputation of a Protestant fire-breather in popular mythology, whereas the real fire-breathing was done by people who were happy to deal him his first political defeat.
In any case, there is no relationship between William's being a Calvinist, and the fact that the Toleration Act only gives legal toleration to Nonconformists, and not Catholics. -- Ereunetes ( talk) 22:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps the problem of classification raised in the discussion above is due to confusing two distinct events. William landed with thousands of troops - this was an invasion. After the invasion, and in the absence of significant fighting in the Kingdom of England, Parliament and William agreed a new and radical constitution (for the time) - this was a revolution. The article seems to be merging two historical events that are actually fairly distinct: the transfer of protestant heirs to the throne to England and the constitutional changes of the Glorious Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.14.1.107 ( talk) 10:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The opening to this article needs to be completely rewritten. First of all, the last successful invasion was the Norman attack in 1066, which led to the Battle of Hastings. It is not an invasion if you are invited. The English populace asked him to come with an army to dispose of their monarch, James II. How can it be an invasion if you invite someone to come? If someone smashes your windows in, that is burglary. If you invite them in, its not burglary is it? Look at the Texas Revolution. Some blind idiots assume that as an Anglo-American invasion of the Mexican state of Tejas. Yet the Mexican government invited them, so how is it an invasion if you are invited? Also, how is this seen as the birthplace of British democracy. First of all, James II wasn't trying to gain absolute power the way Charles I did. He did not close Parliament for one, and he did not pass laws without the consent of his people. He was unpopular with his subjects because he was Catholic, not because he was trying to assume total power. The birthplace of British democracy was in 1645, in the form of the Battle of Naseby and the culmination of the English Civil War. It was after that war in which British democracy had been born. Never again after that would a monarch try to rule without the consent of his people. James II did nothing of the sort which Charles I did. It was only due to his religious orientations (and thus, ties with the Pope) which made him unpopular. This article needs to be seriously re-written. ( 82.28.237.200 ( talk) 14:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC))
Think the following sentence "On December 18 the Duke of Norfolk warned James of a conspiracy on the side of his son-in-law." should read: "On December 18 the Duke of Norfolk warned James of a conspiracy on the side of his brother-in-law." 122.106.211.17 ( talk) 03:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful to add a line regarding the passage of the Mutiny Acts in the section on the Jacobite Uprising. The act is a fairly important development in military law which was prompted by the uprising. Any thoughts? Jumpinbean ( talk) 03:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I was looking at the history of Freemasonry in the UK and saw that the Glorious Revolution was sometimes mentioned as an early reference to the political activity of the lodges. Relevant information on the subject ought be added, especially since many point to this event as the beginning of the 18th century intellectual and social changes. ADM ( talk) 07:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen the GR referred to as one of the Anglo-Dutch wars; at least in England, it's usually considered seperate. Also, I'm not too sure about the word "defeat"; not only does "defeat" imply military conquest (many historians do not consider the GR to be an example of this), but it also implies that England was annexed to the Netherlands, when as a matter of fact the two countries were still kept seperate, with only their monarch the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.25.38 ( talk) 10:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added an infobox; I thought the article could do with one. I couldn't find a neutral image, though, so I've gone with the Seal. Moonraker12 ( talk) 15:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried to improve the layout of this article by rearranging and adding information to their appropriate headings. The planning for the invasion should surely be in the conspiracy section, with the invasion itself given its own section. There is a lot of unsourced text in this article, I have tried to add sourced material, mainly from academic books. Also I think the article should use Old Style dates only, with the year taken as starting on 1 January, as many books do.-- Britannicus ( talk) 11:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
(outdent)I'd agree, the dating is complex, but keeping to the dates then in use (and that are likely to turn up in sources) and explaining about Old style/New Style and Julian/Gregorian is a better idea than trying to adjust them.
Using the 1688/1689 format is explained
here; we could use that and add a note with a link as explanation.
Or we could add (
Old Style/
OS) and (
New Style/
NS) as appropriate, like in some other articles (such as
here).
Moonraker12 (
talk)
12:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (no relation BTW; that I know of!)
This article is surely part of our History of England. I concede that if dated events in Holland and Zealand (or Rome, &c.) are mentioned, then it might be misleading to change them into Julian dates, so it's best to use the actual Gregorian dates and identify what they are, with a note to explain the difference from our English or North European dates. I don't see any need to introduce Gregorian calendar dates into all parts of the article, so long as we identify what kind of dates are used. The whole foundation of the Glorious Revolution was English resistance to the imminent threat of Roman Catholicism, and the main reason why there were still two sets of dates is precisely the same resistance to all manifestations of popery... We could even say so! Moonraker2 ( talk) 01:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
OK I’ve made a start. I’ve put OS or NS with links for most dates; But I thought the "Invasion" section was better with the dual dating system, though, where there is the cross-over from continental to English usage. I trust that's OK with youm.
Also, I’ve hit a snag, which I’ll have to check, for the
Battle of Reading. One of the links there
[3] gives the date for the arrival at Hungerford as 6 December, while the article gives 27 November (“By 24 November, William's forces were at Salisbury; three days later they had reached Hungerford”); so I don’t know if the dates after this have already been adjusted.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
15:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)It says that William ascended the throne. I thought he was joint 'monarch' with Mary? Keith-264 ( talk) 07:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks MWAK, the peculiar nature of British monarchy does exercise me somewhat, like that bloke whose 'king Charles' head was... king Charles' head. Mary II did after all nick the throne off her dad. Who needs Eastenders with 'Westenders' like these?'O) Keith-264 ( talk) 14:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that the citations in this article would benefit from the usage of the {{ citation}} template because there are a lot of citations and the template has two distinct advantages:
I have altered the the itinerary citation added yesterday to demonstrate how citation can be used to tie the short citation to the long citation.
The use of the {{ sfn}} and {{ harvnb}} template depends on whether the short citation needs additional information held within the short citation if it does not then use {{ sfn}} as it automatically takes care of repeat citations without the named ref tag as in <ref name=Itinerary> that I replaced in the above example, but if additional information is needed within the short citation (like a quote) then harvnb is better. It will become obvious when altering the short citations which is the better to use in any particular case.
There are two ways to do this. Either short and matching long citation. This has the advantage of when the task is finished any entries in references section not converted should be moved out to further reading (or deleted). However it does mean that the whole article had to be edited. If instead all the reference section is converted first to use the citation template and then each separate section is converted to use the sfn or harvnb templates, then providing they are working on different sections several editors can continue to work on the same article without an edit clash.
Usually the information that the {{ sfn}} and {{ harvnb}} contain is {{sfn|author|year published|p=num}}.
If one of the other templates related to {{ citation}}, such as {[tl|cite book}}, is used in the references section then an additional field has to be added to the related template to make if function with sfn or harvnb. It is "|ref=harv".
To see an article which was altered from the old method to the new please compare English Civil War (old) with the current version of the English Civil War.
Does anyone have any objections to me converting the references section to use the citation templates and the short citations to use sfn or harvnb? -- PBS ( talk) 21:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been through the "Further reading" and "External links" sections adding citation templates. As the article has a large reference section -- with the exception of the Prince of Orange's deceleration (a primary source)-- I don't see any point keeping the books and articles in those two section in the article. Unless anyone wants to suggest other books or links currently in those two section to be kept in the article, I propose to move them into a collapsed box here on the talk page. -- PBS ( talk) 22:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Some of those are already in the references section. Are there no others in the further reading or external links that you think worth keeping? For example one of the bibliographies I listed suggested that http://www.thegloriousrevolution.org/ was a useful site.-- PBS ( talk) 09:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The article has recently been change to read "This fact has led many historians to suggest that, in England at least, the events more closely resemble a coup d'état than a social revolution"
"many historians" are weasel words. -- PBS ( talk) 01:18, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
It is sad that the why and the how of history are not considered to be encyclopedic, and are not even considered for inclusion in articles 67.206.183.76 ( talk) 18:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC). Admins here should worry more about weasels than "weasel words".
The article is an interesting reading.
However it is amazing that the legacy part is not hooking up to the main article. After 50 years of domestic fighting it all is settled in peace. The main shift is in view, the business of Amsterdam invaded London. London a much safer location (than Holland) in threat of the past (risk of being invaded) by them with the view of the struggle of battle for the cake, instead of making it (business) grow. It is a revolution because the Brish sociaty ever since has it as it fundament. It looks to have been a very good deal with William, for the nation.
The artichle is also missing the main point of all the protestant states became protestant due to the problem that Catholics so far has had problems with two master. Even Jesus claimed one can not have two masters. So it is not a matter of faith, only about politics.
To everyone outside Britain Ireland was an occupoied country and theat William had to reoccupy it is no surprise, later history has proven it very clear, ask the irish? Most likly still most non-Britains still call the Kingdom Great Britain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.161.75 ( talk) 04:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
For a time, the lead read, "The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, is the overthrow of King James II of England..."
I changed "is" to "was." My first attempt was accidentally reverted by an editor using Huggle, and I redid it. I was wondering if there was a reason to use the present tense rather than the past. I think it sounds better now, but I can change it back if I was mistaken.
Thanks! DCI talk 00:01, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
(hopefully I'm not too bothersome!)
DCI talk 21:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
63.79.163.162 ( talk) 23:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I have to disagree. Past tense just makes sense. You're arguing a grammatical point that contravenes convention. The event is over, it's not happening now. It happened. If someone asks, "What does 'Glorious Revolution' mean?", then you can define it with 'is' ("'The Glorious Revolution' is the name given to the overthrow..."), but this is Wikipedia, not Wiktionary. We're not 'defining' things, we're 'explaining' them.
A point to consider: if "was" were not expected for historical events, why would there need to be a specific policy to use "is" in biographies of deceased individuals?
Having this as editorial policy opens a huge can of worms (and will require massive edits throughout Wikipedia). Just look at War of 1812, Fall of Saigon, or September 11th attacks, the first three examples that came to mind. All use "was."
I'm going to change the article to conform to what I see as consistent Wikipedia style. If other editors change it back, well, I don't feel so strongly about it as to start any sort of edit war, just strongly enough to make the edit and explain my reasoning.
I've tagged this
"the monarch was
forbidden to be Catholic or to marry a Catholic, a prohibition that continued until October 28, 2011 when this latter requirement was rescinded in a meeting of the 16 countries who still retain the British Monarch as the Head of State"
from the introduction, as dubious.
For a start, I don’t know that that much detail belongs in the introduction of this article, which is primarily about events 300 years ago. A link to the
Act of Settlement 1701 page should suffice.
Also, I’m not so sure its true: Neither the Act of Settlement page, nor the
2011 proposals page say that it’s a done deal at all, they say that there’s a working party on producing the legislation. They also say the change would only come into effect if the Cambridge’s have a daughter before a son.
So the statement here seems a bit
OR-ish. If there are no objections I would propose taking it out.
Moonraker12 (
talk)
17:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
A number of the books listed at the end of the article bear this designation: ISBN ????. I don't know how to enter citations or bibliographies on WP, so have not had to enter an ISBN. Does this designation mean that some books lack a number? Thanks for the information. Yours, Wordreader ( talk) 04:04, 19 January 2013 (UTC)