Talk:Military history of Britain

ordering

Sugges ordering this:

• Prehistoric Britain
• Roman Britain
• Mediæval Britain
• Early Modern Britain
• Modern Britain

Like the history colum on the right? Or, it might be worth combining Roman with pre-Roman as there doesn't seem to be much there, and spliting medieval, where there's loads? We could then have more in depth subpages for each of those? Joe D (t) 13:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes - I suggest we start with 4 sections (Pre-Roman and Roman; Mediaeval; Early Modern and Modern) and sub-divide them when the text gets large enough to warrant it. We may need, for example, Hundred Years' War, Wars of the Roses, Napoleonic Wars, Wars of Empire, WWI and WWII, but let's see what we get. Some of the lists will need to be floated off to new pages - e.g. List of British wars/List of British battles; List of British military alliances; List of British military fortifications. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:08, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sudan

I was working on wikifing some poetry written by Ruyard Kipling with lots of British Imperial military references. All the campaigns I have looked for except the Sudanese are listed on theis page. The first Expeditionary Force against the Mahdist Jihad, 1882-85 and the later second Expeditionary Force employed in the Reconquest of the Soudan, 1886-89. The only mention I find of this at all is in the article on Muhammad Ahmad. If anyone can make a proper article on the Sudan campaigns please let me know on my talk page so I can update the poetry on Wikisource. Thank you --BirgitteSB (Talk) 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Auld Alliance

I've largely rewritten the section on the Franco-Scottish alliance to eliminate factual errors and grammatical solecisms. The errors in point of fact are;

1. The first formal written treaty between France and Scotland was concluded in October 1295. There were never any arrangements for mutual defence between the two nations prior to this date. William the Lion's involvement in the dispute between Henry II and Louis VII was inspired by his attempt to lay claim to Northumberland. This, incidentally, does not date to 1165.

2. Norway was never part of the Auld Alliance. A thing can only become 'auld'-old-with the passage of time. By the time the Scots started to refer to the treaty with France in such terms any past associations with Norway were long forgotten.

3. The Hundred Years War-which began in 1337 not 1336-had nothing at all to do with Philip's aid for Scotland in the early 1330s. David II did not 'flee' to France-he was only a child-but was taken there by the Earl of Moray in 1334 at the invitation of King Philip. David was not 'deposed' by Edward III; he had been effectively displaced in 1332 by Edward Balliol. Edward later recognised Balliol as the rightful king of Scotland, though no mention was ever made of David Bruce.

4. The Auld Alliance as such did not start the First War of Independence, or can 'be said to have inflamed' the English invasion of Scotland, because the full terms of the treaty were not known to them in the spring of 1296.. Edward I invaded because John Balliol was in breach of feudal law, refusing to send troops to join the English army.

5. David invaded England to aid his ally in 1346; but it was very much in his own 'interests', not those of King Philip.

6. The very minor Battle of Bauge can hardly be referred to as a 'crushing' defeat for the English.

7. The Treaty of Edinburgh ended the alliance because by this time France was perceived as the greater threat to Scottish liberty. Scotland most definitely did not 'consider itself Protestant' by this treaty, which deals with diplomatic and military issues. Scotland became formally Protestant by act of Parliament in the same year. Rcpaterson 23:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Turkish War of Independence.

Why on earth was this included in Britain's modern conflicts??? It suggests that the country actually fought against the forces of Kemal Pasha, which is most assuredly not the case. The closest the two countries came to open conflict was during the Chanak crisis. Rcpaterson 00:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional Amendments

The other errors and misconceptions I've identified here are as follows;

1. It is a myth to say that 1066 was the last successful invasion of England by a foreign force. The country has been invaded-sucessfully-too many times to list in detail. The last such invasion was the arrival of William of Orange in 1688.

2. The First War of Scottish Independence concluded in 1328 with the Treaty of Northampton, not 1306.

3. There was no Anglo-Scottish war from 1513 to 1547, but two quite distinct phases of warfare, the first in 1513 with a possible extension to 1514; and the second from 1544 to 1551.

4. As with the above there was no fifty year Jacobite Rebellion, as the dating given suggested. There are, rather, four seperate and quite distinct phases of rebellion-1689-1691; 1715-16; 1719; 1745-46.

5. Scotland was not part of the Franco-Venetian alliance. Her involvement in the War of the League of Cambrai was quite incidental. James IV's invasion of England in 1513 was in response to an appeal from France, under attack by Henry VIII.

6. The Triple Entente of 1908 was not an alliance and it did not bring Britain into the First World War. British involvement was in reaction to the Germany's invasion of Belgium, a breach of the 1839 Treaty of London.

Finally I have serious reservations about the Anglo-Portuguese alliance still being 'in force.' Did British use of the Azores in 1982 really have anything to do with this alliance? I would also be pleased to know in what way Portugal aided her ally during the Second World War? Rcpaterson 01:11, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Germany

Shouldn't all the pre-German Wars of Reunification references to Germany be Prussia? --Narson 21:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right to point out that there is no 'Germany' as such until the late ninteenth century. The term is probably being used here in a collective sense; for though Prussia was the chief German power in the various conflicts mentioned, they also involved-to a greater or lesser extent-some of the more minor states like Bavaria, Hanover and Saxony. Rcpaterson 22:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Though the small nations didn't really fight in any meaningful sense, as shown by their absense in any of the descriptions on Wikipedia. Same way we don't include the Kingdom of Naples in the napoleonic wars. --Narson 09:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

British military??

why British? what about England's own history not the union? Also did you noticed the British military and French military articles are totally different, one is a (non-neutral) text the other is made of lists... the English version about French military is twice the size of the French version while this British article here in the English version is just a list. The French army's English article is just a stub while its history article is a super long article... something's wrong here. Shame On You 04:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Stonehenge

Stonehenge image has absolutely nothing to do with British military history. So what if its part of British history; you could put up a picture of a British destroyer or perhaps a picture of Richard the Lionheart. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.227.129.254 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

United Kingdom and Chile Alliance

Chile colaborated with british forces in the 1982 Falklands War. It must be in the Alliance section. (84.76.37.212 23:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

name change?

I've just come across this article - I'm immediately surprised by it because I expected the military history of the last few hundred years (the length of time the United Kingdom has existed) but instead this article goes back way before the creation of the UK. Can I suggest a name change to 'British military history'? Either than or we should cut the article down to military history during the period the United Kingdom has existed. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This name is almost like a reductio ad absurdum against changing the name. I mean, what the hell is this title?!

It is convention that articles are organised by current country. Whilst it is perhaps encyclopaedic to have other articles (say, about 'Military history of south Asia', 'Military history of the Middle East', 'Military history of Prussia', etc) that defy current country organisation, the article for the country's history itself should cover all history for that territory, including prior to the formation of the relative state (in this case, in 1801).

This is the convention elsewhere. General history articles of that ilk abound. Military histories exist of Germany, Romania, Italy, Croatia, United States, Canada, South Africa, Zimbabwe, India, etc that go back beyond the formation of the current state. 'Military history of the United Kingdom' is an appropriate name.

An even better solution would be to rename this 'Military history of the British Isles', and then create a new article focused on the United Kingdom (i.e. since 1801). However, until the latter is done, I suggest that the former is not, as (as stated above) the country categorisation is primary. Bastin 01:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. So "Military histories exist of Germany, Romania, Italy, Croatia, United States, Canada, South Africa, Zimbabwe, India, etc that go back beyond the formation of the current state". Well I just checked United States and the opening line of the article states, "The military history of the United States spans a period of over two centuries." I thought the USA was perhaps a good example to check as it is similar to the UK in being a political union with a clear starting point when the 13 states first 'got together'. (The UK, similarly, started when two countries - Scotland and England - joined in political union in 1707, a political entity later joined by Ireland in 1801 though most of Ireland later left the Union in 1922.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You clearly did not check that article thoroughly enough. It starts with 'over two centuries' - which means just that: over two centuries. That is, by the most stringent definition, it is at least two centuries old. Then, the article precedes to establish that, under its definition, it is considerably longer, as it covers 'Colonial Wars' and the American Revolutionary War, both before independence (that is, the former entirely and the latter partly). If you want to copy that article, you can put in the introduction 'The military history of the United Kingdom spans a period of over two centuries', then explain that whilst the country was created in 1801, the military history of its predecessors would receive a treatment: which, of course, you'd then give it.

To clarify, the United Kingdom was founded in 1801. The Kingdom of Great Britain (founded in 1707) was a predecessor country, just as the Kingdom of Ireland was. Bastin 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for the reply. Though we may disagree about the date the UK was formed, I think we agree that some degree of prior information may be relevant. However, I wouldn't expect to read about some battle that took place in the 1300's 'in the USA' because the USA didn't exist then! By the way, I notice that the military history of Israel only deals with the last century - what about all the battles that happened over previous centuries? Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 18:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The absence in the case of Israel is almost certainly due to the fact that Israel is a relatively contentious issue. There are additional complicating factors, too; were you to call it 'Military history of the peoples of Israel', you'd find that most peoples of Israel have immigrated over the past century, and that millions have left Israel during the same period. It is safe to assume that Israel is in a tiny minority, and doesn't represent the convention that is usually applied.

Taking a more comprehensive look, it becomes obvious what the convention is. Amongst European countries:

Covers pre-establishment history: Armenia, Austria*, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden

Covers only since establishment: Switzerland, Republic of Macedonia*, Turkey

I suggest that 18 to 3 is a relatively conclusive result. Bastin 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I concede the majority do follow the pattern you describe, but the UK is quite unique in that it was formed by the political union of two previously independent countries. (I can't think of other examples of political unions like the UK - if you can, let me know and it will be interesting to see what it says in that country's article.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Just to reopen this topic for a different reason. I suggest changing the title to "Military history of the people of Britain" given that this is what this article appears to be about. Any comments? --HighKing (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It includes the military history of peoples from across the British Isles, including Ireland. The name is fine. LemonMonday (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is history from a British perspective only, and is written with the modern UK of GB & NI in mind. The British Isles is not a political term, and it is inappropriate to use the term to describe warfare - especially given that Ireland is a neutral country and has not participated in many of the conflicts discussed in the article. I'll file a move request. --HighKing (talk) 12:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Support - The current article title is misleading and incorrect - the article only deals with military history from a British perspective and was moved late last year from a more correct title (and one more in keeping with standard wikipedia naming of articles on this subject). There was never any military history of the British Isles, and there were never any military actions on behalf of the British Isles. This is a request to move the current article back to Military history of the United Kingdom. --HighKing (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Outside view here: Just the term people, seems to be a sort of POV that should be avoided. The people of? Why not just say of "such and such a place". Hence, I think HighKing has a valid point for this. --CyclePat (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

But, on the other hand, why not then "Military history of the British Isles"? I haven't read the article... but if the focus is on the British Isles, then please consider my afformentioned suggestion. If not please, consider HighKing's request to change it to Military history of the United Kingdom. That's my 10 cents! --CyclePat (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for responding and kicking off a discussion. The main reason is because the British Isles doesn't have any military history - hence the very contrived title of "people of the British Isles". And I'm still unsure why the name was changed (without consensus) in the first place! --HighKing (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the main reason is that HighKing hates the term British Isles. He has a long history of trying to rid Wikipedia of it. 82.3.65.106 (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny how it's always the anon IP editors that take the cheap shots.... --HighKing (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, maybe there is a precedent to be learned from the articles Military history of the Soviet Union and Military History of Russia. Or, if you look at the articles Russia and USSR you will notice the difference in territory. Furthermore, I think someone already suggested removing, just look in the above other section, "of the peoples", which would give "Military history of the British Isles". Wikipedia, also has an article on the British Isles which explains quite clearly in the introduction the contreversy. Furthermore, correct me if I'm wrong, but there is even article on the British Isles naming dispute. The name we suggest here should not limit the scope of the article so as to remove this important contreversy... unless of course this article is actually a spin-out Wp:CFORK which only takes into consideration "the time" and the POV of which the geographical location was named "British Isles". This does not appear to be the case. Hence, I highly recommend not doing this per WP:NPOV. So, now that I've set a few rules... What is the current content of the article? Ex. Do we talk about the fact that "the British Isles were all, with the exception of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, included in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland until 1922."[1]. If so, then it may be appropriate to go according to HighKings request. No, matter the case, there most likely needs to be an explanation within this article which explains the controversy and why the article is titled as is. --CyclePat (talk) 02:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi CyclePat - the main question we should ask about the title is "Is the title accurate?". Currently, it is not. It's very noteworthy that when the article was renamed in September 2007 *without consensus (see above discussion)*, it was named Military history of the peoples of Britain (which redirects here) and since then, here are the diffs. As you can see, nothing of substance has changed. Before that name move, it was called Military history of the island of Britain (which redirects here) in April 2008, and Military history of the United Kingdom (a content fork) before that. In Feb 2007, it was simply British military history - which BTW (surprise surprise!_ redirects to this article! It's obvious that the term "British Isles" is being used synonomously to mean "British".

The simple fact is that the term British Isles is being used incorrectly in this context - in fact very mischeviously, and against agreement. Wikipedia states that it is a geographic term, but in the context of military history, it is clearly being used as a geopolitical term. This article is clearly written as British Military history, as the article history shows. Using the term British Isles in the title implies that all constituent parts acted in concert. Never happened.

The article does not list all of the conflicts that took part within the geographic region - which is what I would expect an article with this title to do. Instead it lists the wars waged by Britain. It has a link to the "British Army Portal". Clearly, this article has nothing to do with the British Isles, and the title should be either moved back to British military history or to Military history of the British people, or more properly to Military history of the United Kingdom in line with other articles (again, refer to previous discussion above). --HighKing (talk) 10:53, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

This article is about the peoples of the British Isles - English, Irish, Scots and Welsh - and their shared military history. It is only in comparatively recent times that Ireland has become independent and for most of the period in consideration here, the Irishmen have fought alongside their brothers from the other home nations. This article includes significant material about conflicts in Ireland; Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, Battle of the Boyne, Irish Rebellion, Williamite war in Ireland and the Easter Rising, to name but a few. The people of the British Isles have a common heritage and history. It is appropriate that one aspect of that history - military history - should be gathered together in this article. Ireland's current neutrality is a complete red herring regarding a potential move, but maybe the fact should be mentioned in the article. Also, put a portal in for Irish military issues; in other words, expand the article where needed. I wholeheartedly reject the proposed move. LemonMonday Talk 14:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your response fails to address most of the point raised. The mentions of the "conflicts in Ireland" are all written from a British military conquest point of view. You say that the article should be expanded but you fail to state the reasons why an article with this title makes any sense from a military point of view.... The British Isles have never been united from a military point of view. You state that the article is about the "peoples of the British Isles" - no it's not, it's actually about the British. You say that for most of the time, Irishmen fought alongside their brothers from the other home nations. I don't know what planet you're from, but in most history books it's clear that for most of the time, there was no such thing as "home nations", and the Irish were fighting the English. --HighKing (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Support the move. The whole "British Isles" thing is so patently politically contrived and agenda-driven that the only wonder is that it is tolerated in the name of any article considering Wikipedia's NPOV policy. This recent upsurge in creating "British Isles" articles is simply the British far-right trying to push their views. 194.125.113.219 (talk) 16:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Leaving aside the tone and content of your response, and the multiple policy breaches therein, Anon IP editors opinions are rarely counted for these purposes, as it's too easy to game the system. If you want your opinion to be counted, please create a login. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The comments by User:LemonMonday about the "shared military history" of these supposedly "British Isles" and "It is only in comparatively recent times that Ireland has become independent and for most of the period in consideration here, the Irishmen have fought alongside their brothers from the other home nations" confirm, if any confirmation was needed, the myths and ahistorical nonsense that is behind use of this. Where was Ireland's "shared military history" when Cromwell came and dispossessed the overwhelming majority of us native Irish from our land and gave it to British settler-colonialists? Funny idea of "shared military history" indeed. As for Irishmen fighting alongside their "brothers" in something British nationalists term the "home nations", would that include the countless Irish who fought for Spain, France, Argentina and numerous other nations? Or does that just not fit into the pseudo-history which the "British Isles" people want to propagate here? 213.202.162.111 (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. It is clear from the comments of those supporting this move, especially the anonymous editors, that the real motive is political. It manifests itself here as a hatred of all things British. This is a clear attempt to subvert the concept of the British Isles. The article is a reasonable summary of the military topics that, historically at least, were common across the islands. The situation is of course different today concerning Ireland's neutrality but as an historical article, or more precisely as a large disambiguation to related articles, I believe the current name to be the most appropriate. Mister Flash (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

• Ad hominem attacks against other editors are best ignored. It is always the sign of a weak argument to resort to such tactics, but if continued it is always best to remind editors to avoid such. See "Behavior that is unacceptable" purple (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Please observe policy, especially WP:AGF. Please comment on the discussion, not on your (incorrect) opinion on political motivation. You'll just bait the trolls.

You make the point that the article is a reasonable summary of military topics common across the islands. I disagree. All of the topics are British military actions that may have inadvertently included elements of other parts of the British Isles, but equally have inadvertently included many parts outside the British Isles. Nearly all sections only include Britain. For example the Viking section fails to include any of the important Irish battles such as the Battle of Clontarf. There is nothing in this article that excludes Britain. I've removed your token gesture of inclusion of the Irish Defense Forces, at least until this discussion is resolved, and until you can justify the inclusion of the link based on military action. --HighKing (talk) 01:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Some points to support the argument:

• The inclusion of the Union Jack on this Talk page
• The headings used in the article - for example
• List of Fortifications in the British Isles only mentions those in the UK
• List of Castles makes the point of only listing castles in the UK - England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland. Fails to note castles in Ireland, Isles of Man, etc.

• List of British military institutions
• List of British military alliances
• The See Also section is all British

--HighKing (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, instead of whingeing about how the island of Ireland is not well represented in this article why don't you simply add the content. You mention Battle of Clontarf, it took me all of ten seconds to add it. I acknowledge that Ireland is underrepresented here, as is the case in many similar articles, but the answer is to add content, not to move the page. Also, I've put Irish Defence Forces back in. Don't confuse military action with military history. Much of the history is concerned with "action" but the terms are not interchangable. Mister Flash (talk) 08:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Mister Flash, instead of childish name-calling, why don't you actually *read* the argument put forward. Not only is this article a blatent piece of using British Isles inappropriately, but there should not be an article on military history of the peoples of the British Isles in the first place, because it makes absolutely no sense. Attempting to list other stuff into the article just shows how pathetic the article is, and how pathetic the attempts to make it relevant.

• Oppose British Isles would cover Ireland, while UK wouldn't (well, not the current UK), and history prior to the creation of the UK also appears in this article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

y

• Support Pretty much all of the content has to do with the United Kingdom and I don't see why the military history of a geographical area should be linked together or even notable. Military History of Scandinavia doesn't exist nor does Military History of the Iberian Peninsula. However there are many individual articles about the military history of countries. This article should do the same. There's no reason not to.MITH 12:22, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There's common history of the peoples of these islands, including military history. It's a good article with its present name. MidnightBlue (Talk) 12:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? Please list the "common history" relevant to military action. --HighKing (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Everything prior to 6 December 1922, and absolutely everything prior to 1801. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I guess user:Setanta747 was up to some of his typical pov-motivated editing when he made the move. The page should go back to its original name. purple (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per MidnightBlue. "We" invaded them, "they" invaded us, others invaded both of us and so on. Parts of one island got caught up in conflicts mainly taking place on the other. I would note, however, that the article is incomplete, omitting relevant Irish sections/links. List of Civil Wars omits the Irish Civil War, for instance, and there is no List of Irish military institutions section or List of Irish military alliances section (which would presumably cover Ireland's participation in UN missions). Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Support. I support this move as well. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added Irish Civil War. MidnightBlue (Talk) 11:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Howabout moving the article to Military history of Great Britain and Ireland? 14:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Why not move the page now, Setanta747 didn't ask anyone. I'll move it later this evening, unless there is a good reason put forward 'not to do it'! purple (talk) 16:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The "good reason" is that it's still being discussed, there appears to be no consensus, like it or not, the current version has achieved stability for a while, it is currently being expanded to make it more relevant to the title, and if you do move it, I'll move it straight back. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

If it needs to be moved, I'll move it, whether you WP:ILIKEIT or WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I believe others in the WP community having their say, not just your opinion. purple (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

But there's no consensus for the current title which was done out of process. There is more in favour of returning to the old stable title then remaining with the artificially placed one we have now.MITH 17:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find it's five in support and five opposing at the moment (one editor, LemonMonday, is obviously opposed but didn't flag is as such, but sid he was opposed). The previous move is irrelevant to the current debate. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Merge in Military history of the United Kingdom and then split into "Military history of the United Kingdom (pre-1922)", "Military history of the United Kingdom (1922-)" and "Military history of Ireland". Sceptre ^(talk) 17:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: That seems sensible enough. You've also just highlighted (for me at any rate) that the existence of the Military history of the UK article makes this 'British Isles' one essentially one of duplication. That's a reason to remove it rather than just rename it. Either way, in its present title this article is trying to make a political point while the content is adding nothing to knowledge. Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is a common history for many of the periods covered by this article. I can't think of a better description for a consideration of the military history of the peoples - and it is The Peoples we are talking about. LevenBoy (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Care to detail this "common history"? And why the Irish have been trying to throw the British out for so long if this has been such a great "common history"? Why is the only place in Ireland that wants British rule populated by self-declared British settlers if it was such a "common" history? Are you missing the elephant in the room and denying reality in order to fit into your ideology? It would seem very strongly that this is what you are engaging in. And you "can't think of a better decription" of the Irish than to call them British? We, the Irish people and the British people, are clearly on different planets never mind islands if this is what you think. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The United Kingdom only existed from 1704, & any article covering earlier periods should clearly not be titled using UK. Equally the present title is pathetic. Either use British Isles or "Great Britain and Ireland". Johnbod (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, thanks for that. What do you think of the title "British military history"? --HighKing (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the range and period covered it should be defined by geography not politics. Johnbod (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Johnbod, other articles on the same subject focus on the political aspect - military history is by its very nature practically impossible to separate from political history. Other articles in the "Military history of X" follow a format whereby it is the history from the point of view of the modern state (examples throughout the discussion). It seems to me that the current title was incorrectly chosen to begin with, and there seems to be some opposition to returning it to the previous title. What do you think? --HighKing (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Great Britain? (à la Military history of France, Military history of Germany, Military history of Spain (not 'Military history of the Iberian Peninsula' for instance), Military history of the Netherlands,Military history of Italy etc etc) Dunlavin Green (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

comment:JohnBod raises a valid point. Any change, per his suggestion, sees my support because it makes senses. Also, may I recommend, as I've alluded in my previous comments, that we should consider deciding what we want in this article? Perhaps, 1) British Isles 2) formation of the UK and Ireland 4) Debate on territory. How much and how far we talk about those subjects is quite irelevant for now but may I suggest again, something short and sweet like Military history of Russia? --CyclePat (talk) 02:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s.: How about a little more text instead of lists? I find it quite boring and lame? Actually, Why not just call it List of... or Timeline of United Kingdom military operations (ie.: See Timeline of United States military operations) ? b.t.w.: This article definatelly has more about the British or UK, so I think it should be titled in consequence. One may wish to consider WP:Naming Policy and that we should:

1) Consider the using the most easily recognized name for the readers and not us techno-geeks.

2) On the other hand, consider Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_historical_contexts and that both names appear to be valid (so long as the article actually covers the subject mater... which is not the current case regarding the British Isles, which is barely mentioned in the article.)

3) Also, on the other hand, please consider those readers that actually do want to read about the contreversy of the British Isles. Wikipedia:Naming#Controversial_names. But this is a weak argument.

4) Wikipedia:Naming_conflict#Dealing_with_geopolitical_contexts specifically addreses our current problem. It states that it "... is conventional for states to be referred to by their geographical territory as a short form - thus the "United Kingdom" for the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

5) Then again, articles like this from 1912 kind of throw me off

Anyways, somewhere, something went wrong with this article. Nothing is stoping anyone from starting an article on the British Isles or UK military history, but this article appears to concentrate on the UK (I must admit, quite difficult to evaluate since it is a list... hence, evaluated via the number of occurences of the term "British"). Anyways, clean-up the article, explain what the entire thing is about the British Isles and change it back to UK (at least for now... unless you add some more info on the Isles.) --CyclePat (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the last two or three days more info has been added, espcially about Ireland. That is the way forward, not to go for a controversial renaming, which clearly has no consensus. See the banner at the top of this page; only move if there is a clear consensus. LevenBoy (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The last 2 or 3 days has seen a rather pathetic attempt to fit the content with the title, and ignores the fact that the British Isles has no military history, unless you wish to refer to the period where the British Isles was used as a shorthand for the early days of the United Kingdom (in which case, why not simply use UK?). There is no consensus for the current title and it was moved very sneakily out of process. As per CyclePat above, I believe the title should be moved back to where it was. This reminds me of the whole out-of-process where Flag of Ireland was improperly moved to Flag of Republic of Ireland a while back. I would not encourage edit warring, but there is simply no consensus for this move. --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that my proposal is somewhat malleable. However, it is a question on what the pre-1922 article would be called, given that the name of the dominant state in the British Isles changed after it annexed other parts (England → England and Wales → Great Britain → Great Britain and Ireland). I think that splitting this into UK and Ireland articles for dates after 1922 is a good idea because they're traditionally different when it comes to wars (i.e. we jump straight in, whereas the Irish are traditionally neutral). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument put forward by Dunlavin Green below seems to suggest that it is normal practice for these articles to use modern state names, which in this case would be "UK". Alternatively, we could revert to the original article name of "British military history". Your thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess that the article go back to its original name, and then discuss. It was the same editor who moved the Flag of Ireland, and then subsequently left WP. The common style it seems, is to have the history by nation/state whatever, and not in geo-political context, as in this case. Also, regarding the former name, is Scotland considered to be in the remit of Britain, and since what date? A lot of work here, but reverse Setanta747's edit to begin with. Purple ☎ 01:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Moved from WP:RM. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The article was moved without consensus to the current title. It appears that there a consensus has been reached on the Talk page (9 to 5) to return the article to the original title and to open a new discussion on an appropriate page move. This controverisal page move was performed by User:Setanta747 who has previous history in making these types of controversial edits. The title British military history although a redirect, has history and therefore requires an admin to make the page move. Can I ask an admin to check the Talk page and make the appropriate page move. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has not been achieved for the move. Please see the debate on the Talk page. There are as many editors opposed to the move as those in favour of it. LevenBoy (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I second the point made above. This is a blatant attempt to force through a page move without agreement. LemonMonday Talk 12:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I refute the points made by the above two editors. There is no consensus for the current title of the page moved out of process and there is significant support to move it back, followed by the starting of a new process to form a new agreed title, as the unproperly formed status quo has no consensus.MITH 16:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess this isn't the place for argument, but I refute MITH. There is definitely no consensus, as evidenced by the argument here, amongst other places. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the title of this article changed?

I see this article was unilaterally changed from 'history of the peoples of Britain' to the politically motivated 'history of the peoples of the British Isles'. This is at best duplication of various other articles, and at worst simply an attempt to claim Ireland and the Irish people as "British". This article has now become a political statement from the John Bull school of British politics. Wikipedia is not Britipedia, by the way. 213.202.138.52 (talk) 11:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now delinked Military history of the peoples of Britain to this article. Should that be considered WP:AfD purple (talk) 16:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to list this name move to a wider audience - I propose to list it at Talk:British Isles as I believe most editors with an interest monitor that article. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

This was redirected by User:Setanta747 some months back. I don't know how to do the AFD tags, so if another editor proposes, I'll back that. purple (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

If we rename this article back(?) to Military history of the United Kingdom every military action prior to the formation of the United Kingdom would have no place here. Fishiehelper2's suggestion to rename this article 'British military history' (16 February 2008) is far more sensible. Daicaregos (talk) 22:30, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that title. It makes sense.MITH 22:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course it does, because it removes "the hated" "British Isles". I object to any renaming. As it stands now, the artcicle includes singnificant references to Irish issues. As for putting it to a wider audience - why do think the old adversaries are now here? I picked up on this because it already has a mention at Talk:British Isles. HighKing, you are not going to get consensus here. MidnightBlue (Talk) 22:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you give any other reason on why British Isles should be used in the title other than WP:ILIKEIT?MITH 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote:"The only reason you and HighKing want it removed is WP:IDONTLIKEIT". -- MidnightBlue (Talk) - Thank you for making my point about your POV stance.MITH 23:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that is a sensible suggestion/alternative. The only reason I suggested "United Kingdom" is to keep it in line with other "Military history" articles. Most of the series of "Military history" articles are written from the point of view of modern boundaries (a fact mentioned above as part of the original naming discussion where a consensus to move the article was not reached). But I'd support a move to this title as it's also appropriate. --HighKing (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The name change proposal (in the previous section) to Military history of the United Kingdom is still extant. Do you want to wait until that vote has run its course before proposing a different name? Daicaregos (talk) 22:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true, but the last thing we want is a repeat of this exercise. In essence HighKing is trying to get consensus about eliminating "British Isles" from the title, so I suggest the current discussion can stand as a one off page move attempt. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Please be aware of MITHs attempt to misrepresent my responses by editing his comments "after the event" (and it was a long way from an edit conflict, check the timings). Please see the detailed edit history of this page. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't misrepresent anything. I asked you the question here at 22.47. You answered [to it here at 22.53. I have only changed my response to the answer from yourself all after 22.53. Nothing wrong with that.MITH 23:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You made this edit at 23:05. Anyway, I've had enough of this trivia. I'm moving back to the real debate, but not before a night's sleep. MidnightBlue (Talk) 23:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Support: I'd support 'British military history' as a more accurate name as suggested above by Daicaregos. Otherwise revert the name to its original title. This renaming of article titles to include the term "British Isles" has happened on several articles in the past while with particular people trying to impose their politics on articles. The same thing was done a few months ago when 'History of Britain' was changed to History of the British Isles. Unsurprisingly, the same user who changed the name of this article,User:Setanta 747/Mal, made that change also. According to his homepage he's a British unionist in the northeast of Ireland so that gives us all perspective on the politics behind both changes. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:08, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Howabout British and Irish military history. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a wikipedia article entitled German and French military history? Dunlavin Green (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't make sense because they have very little common history, unlike Britain and Ireland. LevenBoy (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

They have as much common history as Britain and Ireland. They have exchanged owndership of territory, and have fought many times. Or what about British and French military history seeing as how Britain used to own and rule territory that is now owned and ruled by France? etc. --HighKing (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, User talk:LevenBoy, as regards Germany and France you mean apart from that minor issue of occupation and brutalisation by one country of the other? Moreover, there is the desire on the part of "British Isles" ideologists to portray more commonality between Ireland and Britain than there actually was/is. Unless of course "commonality" is defined as something one side inflicts and the other endures. Then, sure, we have a lot in "common" except the minor issue (another one) of the Irish doing the suffering and the British doing the profiting. What a basis for creating this pipedream "British" identity that covers Ireland. The creation of the EU put the final nail in that ideological coffin. PS: I look forward to an article on the 'American Isles' considering the "commonalities" which exist in Britain as a result of American dominance. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I can see why the title saying military history of the British Isles was supported, it avoids the problems of when it became the "British military" and could cover all the conflicts in the history of these islands. However id accept the name change to British military history BritishWatcher (talk) 10:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Problem with calling it British is that it wouldn't differentiate between Irish and non-Irish people, especially in connection with the conflicts prior to Irish independence. We would be saying that Irish people are British people and I don't think that would go down too well. British Isles is an all-encompassing term that brings in all the peoples of the islands. I notice now there is a small but significant number of entries dealing with specifically Irish campaigns. LemonMonday Talk 11:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

How very true,User:LemonMonday. And synonyms for this 'all-encompassing term' could be imperialistic, jingoistic, and irredentist. Dunlavin Green (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Howabout British and Irish military history? GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

That would be a good compromise title as it looks like the disagreement is over both the content and the title. Your proposal changes 1 without changing the other (ie a compromise), so it might work. Although, I myself don't understand the need to link the two islands together. However I'll support your title if other do so too.MITH 18:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"The military history of the peoples of Britain and Ireland" - it excludes the Channel Islands and the IoM. The present title is fine, although I acknowledge some Irish editors don't like it. That is not, however, a good enough reason to change it. Those inclined to do so are of course at liberty to start an article called Military history of the peoples of Ireland". LevenBoy (talk) 18:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just out of interest in there actually anything about the Isle of Man or Channel Islands in this article?MITH 18:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a link to the German occupation of the Channel Islands; added a few days ago. Can't see anything about the IoM, but there wouldn't be a great deal of military history there anyway. Maybe they had a regiment or something? LevenBoy (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

And a quick Google has found this [2]. Maybe we could add a section to the article. LevenBoy (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that there are several books dealing with military history of the British Isles. Here's a selection from Amazon [3]. I note also that one of them uses "British Isles and Ireland" (erroneously) in the title. LevenBoy (talk) 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I have yet to hear evidence justifying why this article should include Ireland considering that all other similar articles on wikipedia focus on the military histories within the unit of the modern states such as Military history of France, Military history of Germany, Military history of Spain, Military history of the Netherlands,Military history of Italy and so on and so forth. Second, there are no articles on the military history of, say, the Iberian Peninsula or Scandinavia. Third, the fact that all of the above modern states ruled parts of other states in their military history does not prevent these articles either; the article Military history of Germany, for instance, deals with events going back over one thousand years. Given these important facts, it is up to the advocates of "British Isles" politics to justify why this article should defy wikipedia convention by incorporating the military history of another European country. Given these precedents, the only rational options for this article title are Military history of Great Britain or Military history of the United Kingdom. Dunlavin Green (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is obviously being used for political purposes. In this instance by nationalists with the intent of pushing the idea of a 'British Isles' culture on anything that moves off the coast of France. When is Wikipedia going to put an end to this nonsense, and I don't see an admin in sight to sort this one out, alas! Purple ☎ 19:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Move to Military history of the United Kingdom

Having looked at the treatment of the military history pages of the other European countries, I now give my support to the above Requested Move by HighKing, and the idea of merging it as suggested by Sceptre yesterday. The grounds for this are on the three observations made earlier:

• All other similar articles on wikipedia focus on the military histories within the unit of the modern states such as Military history of France, Military history of Germany, Military history of Spain, Military history of the Netherlands,Military history of Italy and so on and so forth. This is wikipedia convention.
• There are no articles on the military history of, say, the Iberian Peninsula or Scandinavia.
• The fact that all of the above modern states ruled parts of other states in their military history does not prevent these articles either; the article Military history of Germany, for instance, deals with events going back over one thousand years.

All of which makes this article not only unconventional but rather redundant in practical terms, except for the political statement it is seeking to make. Dunlavin Green (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we know you support the move. This is the third time you've stated it, but the lack of consensus remains. LevenBoy (talk) 21:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: As does the lack of a rational reason from you (or anybody else) for the existence of this politically-driven article. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Given the fact that the article was moved to the current title without consensus and out of process, I believe the right thing to do is to return it to the previous title, and to open a process discussing a new title. --HighKing (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll consent to that. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Me also. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I support that too. Daicaregos (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Support.MITH 07:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose You - HighKing - have aleady requested a move, in effect back to the old title, and you have no agreement to do so. Your repeated attempts at overcoming the lack of agreement are getting tiresome. What is you don't understand about "no consensus"? LemonMonday Talk 08:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Yes this is getting beyond a joke. The debate is there for all to see above. It splits down the middle for those who want a page move and those who don't. You must obtain clear consensus before moving this page. What has gone before does not matter. The argument relates to the present situation and no new ideas are forthcoming. Can we all move on please. LevenBoy (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Please read the text in the above banner (duplicated from the top of the page), particularly the section about "clear consensus". You do not have this, so please don't cause unnecessary aggravation by moving this page. My suggestion is that you leave it for a while, maybe a couple of months. See how, or if, the article develops, and if after that time you still think a move is in order, try again to achieve consensus. LevenBoy (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

There is currently less consensus for the current title, which has no right to be there. It may end up coming back but the page name needs to be done by the books.MITH 08:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As I said, the argument splits down the middle. Consensus is either there or it isn't, and in this case it isn't. Regardless of what any book says you still need agreement and you are really pushing it when you say the current title has no right to be there. Please do not provoke a pointless edit war. LevenBoy (talk) 08:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Provoke an edit war?? Is there consensus for the current title yes or no?MITH 08:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant. And you know it. The proposition is to move the current title and there is no consensus to do so. You might as well ask "Is there consensus to have an article called British Isles". Clearly not, but the article exists, so the onus is on those who want to change the status quo; as is the case here. LevenBoy (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The current title is not the status quo - its not stable, it was done out of process. Of course there's consensus for the British Isles article. Every move request failed miserably. This is completely different, there no consensus for the current title.MITH 09:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The current title has been in place for eight months. That is clearly the status quo. As I say below, you simply can't swing the arument round like this. If that tactic was used elsewhere there'd be no stability at all. LevenBoy (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

THere is no need for this current article title and its certainly has no consensus, change to British military history or Military History of the United Kingdom. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, see point I made above. The current article is the status quo. To swing arguments round like this could potentially cause mayhem. LevenBoy (talk) 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i see military history of the United Kingdom already exists and that article is far more clearer and tidy than this one, so it certainly shouldnt replace it. I could see the reasons for having an article on the military history of the British Isles which is a geographical term, so it would be like Military history of Europe. But i think it should be laid out like that article on Europe, at the moment this is just a big messy list. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - suggested renaming because an article already exists at Military history of the United Kingdom BritishWatcher (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose See my previous comments. LemonMonday Talk 13:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do a wiki search for Military History (titles). You'll see there are arcticles for countries, continents, empires, ancient states, groups of countries, miscellaneous organisations and much more. To have one aboout the peoples of the BI is definitely not at odds with policy or standards. LevenBoy (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for "British military history"

I think we have a consensus to return this article back to the original title, as per discussions above, or "British military history". There are 9 editors that indicate Support, and 5 that oppose. Seeing as how I'm banned from removing "British Isles" from articles, could I ask that another editor is bold and performs the move? If someone then wants to open a debate on how the article can be better named and structures, we appear to have at least 14 interested editors so I expect we'll quickly open the new debate. --HighKing (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

(conflict)You can't count. You have double counted those in support and omitted some who oppose. In any case this is not a vote and there is no consensus. You are gaming the system and misrepresenting the comments. If this article is moved I suspect it will be moved back pretty sharpish, thereby provoking a totally unnecessary move war. You would do well to read WP:CONSENSUS#Process. LevenBoy (talk) 11:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have counted correctly and have not double counted. Those that support are HighKing, CyclePat, MITH, purple, Dunlavin Green, GoodDay, Sceptre, Daicarejus and BritishWatcher. Those that oppose are MisterFlash, MBM, Bastun, LevenBoy, Johnbod. Next time, rather than name call and make wild accusations, it would be better if you presented evidence and perhaps an argument? To date, I've seen neither from you. --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word those numbers are correct. I attempted to make the move, but as the title is taken an administrator needs to make the move.MITH 11:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Count it yourself - you should. Don't bother moving it; it will immediately be moved back and a request filed for move protection. LevenBoy (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you've tried to move it and can't, I suggest you contact an uninvolved admin and ask him about the consensus, or lack of it, before requesting the move. LevenBoy (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've asked for help for a move from an admin on WP:RM --HighKing (talk) 14:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You HAVE NOT counted correctly: You've failed to include LemonMonday in those opposed. Also, BritishWatcher is opposed (you counted him in favour), and CyclePat has not expressed a definitive opinion, he's just given advice. So that makes it 7:7 in my book. Regardless, this is not a vote and you know as well as I do that you need to achieve clear consensus. You are a very long way from doing so. LevenBoy (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher states "However id accept the name change to British military history" and CyclePat also puts forward an argument to move it to either "British" or "UK". LemonMonday registered his opinion after the count, so it's disingenuous to suggest he wasn't counted. Either way, it undermines your position that you are a defender of process and consensus for the current name even though it was was done without consensus and out-of-process. Hopefully an admin will soon put this right. --HighKing (talk) 16:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are not proposing a move to "British military history", though, you are proposing a move to "Military history of the UK" - so it isn't correct to count BritishWatcher as being in favour of the move you actually proposed. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Batsun, it was suggested above by MBM that we use one process to decide the new title and nobody objected, so for that reason, this request encompasses alternative suggestions. I'm interested in your stance on this and the support you are giving this article. I think this article in particular is a benchmark on how the term "British Isles" is still being used politically. Until I flagged this article, there were no Irish references, and was obviously a British article. Leaving that to one side for the moment, the idea of creating an article on the military history of this group of islands isn't too bad, but would probably result in long paragraphs on the objections to the term, long paragraphs on how the Irish fought the English at every turn, and would end up being a recap of all the crap that we've got in all the other articles. The purpose of this article is to simply list British military history. That is the intent behind the creation of the article. --HighKing (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You will find that LemonMonday stated his opposition to this move at 14:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC), so you have simply failed to count him. BritishWatcher has changed his mind. Anyway, it doesn't matter because as everyone keeps telling you, consensus is needed. I can't believe you have the gall to claim consensus, as you do at the start of this section. It beggars belief. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the move request to the old title of the page Military history of the peoples of Britain, so that once that is done a new title can be decided. Once the first move is done, the consensus could be to move it back to include British Isles, we'll have to see. But the out of process move has to be removed.MITH 16:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about with your out of process move. The user who moved it didn't need permission to do so. We are talking about last September. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the discussion above dated from last year, you will clearly see that a move was discussed and no agreement or consensus reached. So why do you believe the user didn't need permission? All contentious moves must be listed and process followed. Where are the admins when you need them! --HighKing (talk) 00:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The user who moved it, and other similar articles, is a self-declared British loyalist living in the northeast of Ireland. He knew the term was controversial, so he moved it without notifying, never mind seeking the consensus of, interested parties. This was a sly politically-motivated move if there ever was one. Funny how you are all over "consensus" when it suits you. Dunlavin Green (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Shortcutting the squabbling

We're stuck in a rut going round in circles. I suggest we call in a 3rd opinion or an administrator to give their opinion on the legitimacy of the most recent page move. Does anybody have any suggestions as to the most appropriate place to make a request, or perhaps someone already knows a patient administrator who hasn't been burnt out by this squabbling already? --HighKing (talk) 00:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Setanta747's move from "Britain" to "British Isles" in the title is not problematic, then I see pleanty of reason why a move to a much more appropiate title will be far better. We might even see some admins turning up! Purple ☎ 00:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a stinker. We've got 2 interpretations of consensus, concerning the previous page-move. GoodDay (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Where? I don't understand the point you're making. There's a discussion on this Talk page from April 2008 where the page was moved from UK to Britain by Fishiehelper on 15th April 2008. But in Sept 2008, Setanta747 moved the page without filing a request, without discussion and therefore obviously without consensus. And now we have some editors claiming that no consensus is needed to move it *to* a title, but a consensus is needed to move it back??? Is this what you mean? --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming, those who support Setanta747's page-move, are arguing that there was a silent consensus (nobody protested his change, until a few days ago). GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

All contentious page moves must have a WP:RM filed. And consensus isn't tested by not testing for it... Next you'll be arguing that it wasn't contentious - lol... --HighKing (talk) 15:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• "(nobody protested his change, until a few days ago). " Irrelevant. Any editor in Wikipedia has as much right to make a name change as Setanta747's tendentious name-change on that occasion. 'Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander', what's different. Purple ☎ 16:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm just using my telekinetic abilities, to see what the don't move crowd's resitants is. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, I recommend that we all don't get into a page-move war. To do so, isn't good for our pysches. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Object to out-of-process move to incorrect title

• Whatever the article was called or how it arrived at Military history of the peoples of the British Isles, that's where it should be unless a proper RM procedure is used to move it elsewhere;
• However, despite participating in that RM debate, above, which has not yet concluded, User:Purple Arrow has now unilaterally moved the article to Military history of the peoples of the British Islands;
• The article is about the military history of Ireland, Great Britain and their associated smaller islands - what is commonly known as the British Isles;
• The British Islands are something else entirely - islands owned by the United Kingdom;
• The move was therefore incorrect for two reasons - 1) being out-of-process (RM debate ongoing, obviously contentious, no consensus); and 2) to an incorrect title.
• User:Purple Arrow - please move the page back to its immediate former title fortwith. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 16:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Bastun, you cannot claim that it's OK for the article to arrive at this title without a proper RM, and then demand an RM to put it back. And the article is *not* about the military history of Ireland, GB, etc. It claims to be about "the peoples of the British Isles", which is a makey-uppey name to try to include the term British Isles into an article as I've ever heard. --HighKing (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The more I dwell on it, this article should be split geographic wise, into Military history of the peoples of Great Britain & Military history of the peoples of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What, once again, is wrong with this article being merged with Military history of the United Kingdom. All other military history articles on European countries are based on this format. Nobody has answered why this should be different. It is clearer by the day that this article is simply a political statement with no practical value and plenty of duplication of existing articles. It breaches wikipedia rules in so many respects it's not funny. Dunlavin Green (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's my second option. I've absolutely no problems, with limiting the usage of British Isles throughout Wikipedia. Nor I've a problem, with expanding it's usage. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

If Wikipedia wants the "true Military of British Isles", it goes like this. Over the last millenium British military peoples came over to Ireland, and historians estimate that as many as 6,000,000 Irish people perished at the hands of this "Military". If the article were to stay, then the article content must be true to the article title. There are many facets to such an article as 'Military history of British Isles', if it is permitted. Purple ☎ 17:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)#

Thank you very much for that little rant Purple Arrow it was most helpful. We have an article already at Military History of the United Kingdom, which is where British military history should probably be redirecting. I can see the use of having an article on Military history of the British Isles, and yes ofcourse it would have to include what happened in Ireland, those matters are linked on the page currently anyway.

What i do know is the current title is stupid.. Military history of the peoples of the British Islands? my god ive never heard anything so silly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad you liked my synopsis. Some of us are trying to drag parts of WP into the 21st century, hope more join in that effort. Purple ☎ 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And you do realise 5/6ths of Ireland hasn't been a British Island since 1922? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I was pro removing British Isles from the title as it was done out of process by a troublesome editor, however I think effort needs to be made to make sure that a new title is agreed and has consensus. If that involves moving back to British Isles then so be it. There is no consensus for the current title and it would be hypocritical of the anti BI editors to back away from this now that they temporarily have their way. A new title needs to be agreed as soon as possible.MITH 22:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Suggestions have been already made. The objection I raised was to the title of *this* article, which to me is obviously about British military history. There is another article, European military history which is written as an article and not a list, and acts as a summary. My preference would be to return this article to "British military history", given the content and the original intent of the article. I do not agree with the current title for this article. But to be clear, my objection was about the title for *this* article, given the content. --HighKing (talk) 23:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What does this {{UKHBS}} code refer to, which is at the top of the page. It seems to be about UK history. Purple ☎ 22:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article can be discussed and changed after a new title is agreed on.MITH 22:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Move it back to pre-Setanta747, and I'll back that 100%. User Setanta747 moved the article even though there was a general agreement that such moves involving the string 'British Isles' should have agreement for change. Setanta747 was out of process, but no admins showed up here to 'right that wrong'. I say it again, any admin can solve this by moving back Setanta's edit, and then "discuss" if a move is warranted. Purple ☎ 23:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The change to British Isles was made over 6 months ago and this is the first time anyone had a problem with it and changed the title not back to what it was originally but to something completly different which everyone appears to hate. This article should be returned to British Isles, as it was the last stable title and then we can debate where it belongs.

This is clearly an attempt by certain editors who seek to remove the fact that British Isles is a geographical term known not just in Britain but around the world. There is an article on Military history of Europe so i fail to see why its impossible to have one on Military history of the British Isles these are both geographic locations. It may be better for two articles one for Britain and one for Ireland, but considering the history of Britain and Ireland in the past 1000 years is so linked, it makes sense for a single article on the British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

On the surface your argument is sound. Europe is a geograpical location, and British Isles is a geographical location. Unfortunately, British Isles was also used as a political term to refer to the areas owned and ruled by the British monarch. Since this is an article on military history, I believe it would be much too confusing to use "British Isles" in the title as it would be more correct to assume that the article only deals with the time when "British Isles" was in use as a political term. --HighKing (talk) 14:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with BritishWatcher, but if we compromised on HighKing's suggestion then we would need to split this into articles, one for Ireland (the island!), and one for Great Britain - and of necessity, there would be some duplication. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you live with that? It would solve some problems. Daicaregos (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

If noone objects to the duplication, then sure. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd go along with that too. --HighKing (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Split the article. GoodDay (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Move protected

Page has been move protected, due to ongoing dispute over page name. Please discuss here on the talk page, and if necessary seek out dispute resolution processes. Cirt (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You should atleast move it back to an accurate title before locking this page. British Islands is stupid and incorrect, i dont really feel strongly about if this should be at British Military history or British Isles... but British Islands has NOTHING to do with what this article currently talks about and the title needs to be changed ASAP. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with BritishWatcher that "British islands" makes no sense. My preference is for "British military history" and I would support a return to that original title. --HighKing (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Unfortunately that is not really within my purview to do that. Please see m:The Wrong Version. After it has all been worked out to consensus satisfactorily, the page could be moved for the final time, though I imagine it would probably unfortunately still need to stay protected. Cirt (talk) 18:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? The RM was discussing either 'British Isles' or 'Britain' (or possibly UK). British Isles has a completely different meaning to British Islands. Ireland is not a British Island, and both the nominator of legitimate RM debate and those opposing it are agreed that 'British Islands' is the wrong title. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The point was to move it to a neutral title until an appropriate title was found to suit all parties. The compromise suggested in the section above " split this into articles, one for Ireland (the island!), and one for Great Britain" is worth exploring. Daicaregos (talk) 22:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Says who? The proposal was to move the page to anything that excluded the words "British Isles" from the title. The proposal did not gain consensus but the page was moved anyway "out of process" as you might say. LemonMonday Talk 11:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Result

I vote this article is moved back to the title before PurpleArrow moved it.

Proposal: Move this page to Miltiary History of the peoples of the British Isles.

• Support. LemonMonday Talk 11:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as IMO, this article ought to be split. Also, the article had been moved to include the British Isles term without gaining consensus. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support No justifiction for move to current name (and the blocking admin has screwed up). LevenBoy (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Will agree to put it back to pre-Setanta747 title though. --HighKing (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support Should never have been moved from that title in the first place. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - This article should be deleted and not replaced by anything. Military history of the United Kingdom is a better article than this one. There is still History of the British Isles , History of the United Kingdom and History of Ireland so i think everything is covered unless at some stage someone wants to do a Military history of Ireland but thats going to have alot of conflict for sure. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - Because it was moved there for the wrong reasons, and that title did not reflect the content. I'd agree with it going back to the old title of 8 months ago, and then discuss any proposals. Purple ☏ 15:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we've got consensus for the proposal. I'll contact the blocking admin and arrange a move back to Military history of the people of the British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ummm 4 oppose going back to British isles 3 support it so clearly no consensus for anything right now, there seems to be majority support for this article to be deleted. I think thats the best option as this article really isnt needed. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If it goes back to 'British Isles' without consensus, then I'll move it away again. Trust me! Purple ☏ 01:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

What! And where was the consensus when you moved it??? MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - it was moved here for the wrong reasons, as blatantly stated by Purple Arrow immediately above. Would also support a move to the 8-month-old title. Anything but 'British Islands'. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BritishWatcher, above. Daicaregos (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per BW (and I voted for delete below as well) Suggest RFD --Snowded ^TALK 17:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - MITH 17:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete this article

I see no merit in this article as it is currently constituted, let me know if this article is put up for an AfD. --PBS (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I kinda like that option. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It could turn it into Wikipedia:Set index if it goes back to its original name of British military history --PBS (talk) 14:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

British military history should redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom if this article is deleted. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, just delete it. it makes no sense at all as it currently stands. LevenBoy (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Put it up for AfD then... --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would solve your problem as well, wouldn't it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The only one with a problem is you. At least I'm consistent in my approach which is in line with the WP:BISLES work and not a knee-jerk reactionist who gets in a tizzy if anyone suggests that the term isn't applicable in some circumstances. You have no allowance for any objections under any circumstances, and your childish name-calling is tiring. Grow up. --HighKing (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The article title is just fine. What's wrong with British Islands? It's a perfectly good name, and used by the British government, and in British laws etc etc etc. British Islands would include all the islands belonging to the United Kingdom, even the Channel Islands, and exclude the Faroe Islands. Leave it as is. Saying that, I would have no objection for it going back to the pre-Setanta747 edit, if that's what other editors want. Otherwise 'leave it be'. Purple ☏ 02:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

In other words, anything so long as "British Isles" is not included in the title. No, the current title is nothing short of laughable and we have it only because you moved the page without agreement. Failing a move back then I vote for deletion. I think we may have a consensus for this. MidnightBlue (Talk) 09:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• You have presented no argument, only the statement that British Islands is laughable. Appeal to Ridicule. Purple ☏ 12:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We see the current title as a joke which is why people laugh at it. The intro to British islands: The term British Islands is used in the law of the United Kingdom to refer collectively to the following four states. The content of this article does not reflect your chosen title. History of the people of Britain would of made sense, but not doing one about the "peoples" of the British islands". Purple Arrow, lets just agree to delete this article and the problem goes away. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Delete it.MITH 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The current title is totally pathetic and Purple Arrow its amazing you can even try to defend such a silly title. I agree with others, lets just delete this article because there is not going to be agreement when certain editors are running around wikipedia trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it really is a 'good title', but if other editors like yourself BW appear to IDONTLIKE, then I will accommodate that view, unlike your inflexible stance of last week where you couldn't even concede any understanding that the move to the BI title could indeed be a POV move. It is also untrue for you to claim that there are editors "running around WP trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles". Get a grip, that's a false claim, or back it up with some reasoned examples. That has become a kind of mantra amongst a certain section, of about 4 or 5 editors, and the "claim" has worn extremely thin indeed. Purple ☏ 14:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm i thought my original stance on this matter was fairly neutral. I said i can understand the reasons for wanting this to be British Isles and theres an article on military history of Europe, British Isles is a location just like Europe so i cant see why it shouldnt have one too.

But i also said i was ok with this being renamed to British military history and i opposed the rename to Military history of the United Kingdom because a better article already exists at that location. Thats why im supporting deleting this article and not replacing it with anything as its simply not needed and any content of such an article is going to be heavily disputed. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: 'British Isles is a location just like Europe so i cant see why it shouldnt have one too.' Midnight, would you please, for the love of sweet Jesus, take your head out from that sand? Your specious arguments are unbecoming. If there had been a country called 'Europe' and that country had (brutally)taken over all the other countries around it (and ruled them brutally for centuries), and those countries subsequently became free, do you really think a 'History of Europe' covering those areas would not be controversial in those circumstances? This really is a case of not seeing what you don't want to see. Dunlavin Green (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I concede you were more flexable than I inferred, and apologies for that, MidnightBlueMan was looming a bit, for whatever reason. Purple ☏ 14:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"running around WP trying to delete anything that mentions British Isles" (BW quote). I can think of three editors who are, or have been, doing precisely that. More accurately they are briefing against the term, to use a political analogy, and are opportunistically removing it. MidnightBlue (Talk) 16:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed there is a campaign being waged by several editors against the British Isles sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

.

• Sadly, your response is totally negative to an overall consensus. Who are these several editors, are they in your imagination? You have lost credibility with me on issue. Your crowd just lie, lie ,lie, and I'm full to the teeth with you lot. These are some articles that I may write Military history of Britain and France, Military history of Britain and Portugal, Military history of Britain and Germany, Military history of France and Germany, depending. Wikipedia must be balanced , and conform to general format. Purple ☏ 01:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the suggestion that this article has no potential. There is room for an overview of the military history of the British Isles as a particular element of the history of the British Isles. However whether that was my view or not the decision to prod it was rather swift - accepting consensus on the basis of a few opinions. Given the controversy already shown over this article, Afd should have been the correct process. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:20, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You can unPROD it if you want, simply by removing the template. There's still a problem with the current name though. I agree with you that an article detailing the Military history of the British Isles has a place in Wikipedia. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Graeme why pick an arbitrary unit of the British Isles (particularly given some Irish Nationalistic sentiments) why not make it a the Military history of the peoples of Western Europe or the Military history of the peoples of the World. It seems to me that a Military history of Britain (include/exclude Great take your pick) as Wikipedia:Set index article, but to try to make one of the British Isles is just opening up a can of worms, for no real benefit. The other option is to rename it the Military history of Great Britain and Ireland but as I said before why that arbitrary mix and not one for Western Europe? -- PBS (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I for one don't consider it a particular arbitrary unit since there is a lot of interlinked history behind it. Many history books cover the area, though not always evenly in content. The topic can be tackled in a less Anglocentric fashion (consider Norman Davies The Isles - his choice of a title for the area avoiding the use of British). But notwithstanding my opinion, my addition was chiefly about the use of Prod which was added a scant 24 hours after the first suggestion of a deletion (and that was through the AfD process), and that consensus seems to have been assumed, and my difference of opinion noted at the time. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Surly there is just as much interlinked military history between the England, Scotland and France as there is between England, Scotland and Ireland. --PBS (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I support the deletion of this article --T*85 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Purple Arrow - have you actually read British Islands? It does not mean what you think it means. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 10:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

* Delete Articels about military history would normally relate to the last existent political entity --Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

* Delete The subject matter is already well covered by other articles. Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've put it up for an AfD see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_May_25#Military_history_of_the_peoples_of_the_British_Islands. To make life easy I have included this section so that contributing editors do not have to repeat themselves. -- PBS (talk) 09:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

* Delete. There is already a Military History of the UK article and this article serves absolutely no purpose except one: to assert a political claim over Ireland by unilaterally renaming this article to include the words "British Isles". It should never have existed. Dunlavin Green (talk) 08:56, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing from WP:RM

 Administrator noteSeeing as how this has been put up for deletion at AfD, I am removing this from WP:RM as moot. Any discussion on renaming should take place at the Afd, and the closing admin there will move the article appropriately. If that discussion results in no consensus, then someone can notify me on my talk page and I will move it back to the last stable name, which is the standard procedure if a move request is closed as no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct policy is that if the move request fails, then the article remains at its current title. When you say you will "move it back to the last stable name", what, in your opinion, is the "last stable name"? --HighKing (talk) 18:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

the one with British Isles in was the last stable title but i dont see the point in moving this if the entire article is about to be deleted anyway, it will simply open up more dispute and conflict BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Irish Civil War

I'm well aware that the Irish Civil War was not a war fought between people of the British Islands. Unfortunately, following PurpleArrow's out-of-process move of the article to the current and incorrect title, it's been locked down at the wrong version. Despite that, the article is about the military history of the British Isles - which did include the Irish Civil War. In exactly the same way it included the Battle of Clontarf and other linked-to lists and articles appropriate to a British Isles or Britain and Ireland article, and not appropriate for a British Islands article. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 13:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have been referring to this. :) Daicaregos (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, if ever the was a "wrong version" this is it. "Military history of the peoples of the British Islands" - wtf? Really, this is a new low in the British Isles controversy. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 14:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Options

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. Bastun^{BaStun 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)

• Option 1 seems the most sensible and I have added a source consistent with this which focusses on the Roman and prehistoric period. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:39, 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)

• Option 1 - Support. There's no need for further debate on further options. Let's go for it now, and nail this once and for all. LevenBoy (talk) 17:56, 30 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)

• Options 4 or 3. The former is my preference, the latter is my secondary choice. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 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)

• Option 1 - Support. I too prefer Military History of the British Isles, but until the name is resolved once and for all I also support the suggestion that it should be moved back to its previous title - Military history of the peoples of the British Isles. MidnightBlue (Talk) 18:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

(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

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 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)

• Support--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support, as per my previous comments. LevenBoy (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose-per my comments already given on this talk page.MITH 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose-Ireland is not to be considered "British".--FF3000 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - This article is a huge mess, and needs serious stripping down and reworking into an interesting and informative article about military history within the easily defined geographic area known as the British Isles. Whether or not (and I have doubts) the term British Isles was historically synonymous with the period of British rule in Ireland, it is today the overiding geographic term used for the islands, including on Wikipedia itself - until the location of the article British Isles is legitimately moved, then articles about aspects of the island group as a whole should used that geographic term.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support A sensible title for a notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support per my previous comments on this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Original research. There are essentially no secondary sources dealing with this. "Military history of the British Isles" gets 2 hits Google books (for the same quotation in each), 10 hits on normal Google and 3 hits for academic articles using Google Scholar. What's more the "article" is simply a list of conflicts, as such (per norm) is should be located at List of conflicts in the British Isles (or whatever) as added to the List of conflicts in Europe pages (and other relevant places). (rewritten from original !vote) --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose Top doesn't exist, and it's just a list. These topics are normally broken down by country here at Wikipedia. The Encyclopedia should follow in style/theme. Tfz 16:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless you limit it to the three centuries prior to 1921 - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 2 - British military history

• Strong Oppose There is already a better article on British military history at Military history of the United Kingdom (where British military history now redirects to). 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)
• Support: Much better than "British Isles", but still a completely superfluous article as the Military history of the United Kingdom article is already covering it. Dunlavin Green (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

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)

• Oppose --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose-per my comments already given on this talk page.MITH 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• *Oppose per my previous comments on this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a misleading title. If this article is intended to cover military history within the defined geographic limits (as I think is its intention, if not its effect), then this title excludes Ireland, the second largest of the islands, and thus is unrepresentative. As already pointed out above, this title already redirects to a much mor appropriate article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support: and then merge with Military history of the United Kingdom - ClemMcGann (talk) 23:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Option 3 - Military history of Britain and Ireland

• Oppose MidnightBlue (Talk)
• Oppose See my post for Option 1--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• 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. Bastun^{BaStun 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)

• Support, as that's what I prefer. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support Best option for me. Daicaregos (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support I would prefer this option. Different countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deedsie (talk • contribs) 09:46, 3 June 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. Bastun^{BaStun 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 the only sensible suggestion imho ClemMcGann (talk) 23:08, 2 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)

• Oppose--Rockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support-per my comments already given on this talk page.MITH 15:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

* Support per my comments already given on this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:04, 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. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per my previous comments on this page. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 09:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose not the subject of the article. The suggested title is the military history of a political state, the article is (or is intended to be) the military history of the geographic entity that is the British Isles.--Jackyd101 (talk) 12:54, 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)

Alternative proposal

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. Bastun^{BaStun 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. Bastun^{BaStun 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 [4]. 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.

@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 [5], and 4,369 on Google books [6] 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)

"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)