Talk:History of English society
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Use of the term United Kingdom
The term United Kingdom is wholly inappropriate in the lead sentence. The term British Isles matches that of the adjacent template, it is used elsewhere in the article, and generally covers the period in question. United Kingdom is a comparatively modern innovation and completely out of place when talking about pre-history. I've reverted the recent change. CarterBar (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. The United Kingdom is a lot more appropriate that British Isles. The article is the history of British Society - it is not appropriate to use a geographic term when discussing culture and politics of Britain. Either use a generic term like "Britain", or rephrase the sentence. --Bardcom (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Disagree. Britain redirects to United Kingdom, which is just no good at all. British Isles is a geographic term, but that doesn't preclude its use in other fields. Indeed, the subject of geography covers the issues in this article. We have a template (right) and another box, whatever it's called (bottom), that use British Isles, so I really don't see what the problem is here. However, I'll leave if for the moment to see if anyone else chips in, or if we can agree on a more suitable term. CarterBar (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Using British Isles in this way is very incorrect and inappropriate. The article is very arguably mislabelled, and if I were Scottish or Welsh, I would argue that the article is nothing more than "History of England" (different arguement, and not mine) as it doesn't talk about anything but English people, incidents, and society. The references reinforce this point. The claim that "major social changed have affected the British Isles both internally and in its relationship with other nations" is biased POV, unsubsantiated and unreferenced. In fact, I've removed the entire sentence rather than attempt to correct the reference, it's that wrong. --Bardcom (talk) 12:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- The lead paragraph is now a single sentence and it looks stupid. You've removed a sentence claiming it to be unsubstantiated, but then why not remove every other sentence that isn't referenced? It appears that the removal could be an attempt to eliminate the term British Isles. I suggest it goes back, in the form that you last had it (using Britain; probably wrong but there we go). I've already said we should wait to see what others might have to say about this. It is wholly inappropriate to remove content in this manner. At the very least you could have put a citation requirement on the sentence. I will wait a day or two to see if anyone else has a view, but failing that I'll re-insert the original sentence. CarterBar (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disagree. Britain redirects to United Kingdom, which is just no good at all. British Isles is a geographic term, but that doesn't preclude its use in other fields. Indeed, the subject of geography covers the issues in this article. We have a template (right) and another box, whatever it's called (bottom), that use British Isles, so I really don't see what the problem is here. However, I'll leave if for the moment to see if anyone else chips in, or if we can agree on a more suitable term. CarterBar (talk) 10:53, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Proposal to change this article to be "History of England"
This article is not about "British Society" at all. It appears to be nothing more than a history article on England. I propose to either delete this article (as it's overlapping with several other articles) or to relabel it as "History of England". --Bardcom (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Totally agree. English society (with a few added lines) is was the article is actually about, and it's not exactly neutral to do a "topic by nation" covering thousands of years when the "nation" (British) didn't actually until a few centuries ago. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
-
Have you any suggestions as to what this article should be titled? I don't think it can be salvaged without some serious addition of content, and it's then merely replicating content from other articles. --Bardcom (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)That was quick. --Bardcom (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
