Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Political timeline of the British Isles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political timeline of the British Isles[edit]

Completely pointless (I don't actually think we do "political timeline" articles/lists) and POV list, suffering from an overwhelmingly celtic nationalist bias. The original timeline didn't use the term "British Isles", it used the term "Pretanic Isles", which is AFAIK something used only by Irish nationalists to avoid saying "British Isles" The last two hundred years on this list are devoted almost entirely to the Irish question, when actually the British Isles have been doing other things doing. Not to mention all the other reasons listed here. Moreschi (talk) ( debate ) 18:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 19:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the problem of timelines in general as noted by the nominator, this is definitely worthless by the noted bias. The foundation of the Fianna Éireann is more important than the beginning of the end of the veto power of the House of Lords? The renaming of a political party is more important than the Falklands War? Strong delete. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think we do "political timeline" articles either and I wouldn't know where to begin with this one. For starters, this sails right into the ongoing British Isles naming dispute. There are numerous other massive NPOV problems. The last 200 years focus almost entirely on Irish history (or the history of Irish nationalism) with excessive attention paid to obscure "Celtic nationalist" outfits like the SNLA. On the other hand, the Napoleonic Wars and British constitutional history of the 19th and 20th centuries barely get a mention (when did women get the vote in the UK? You wouldn't be able to tell from this page). Specific dates are given for ancient historical events such as the Battle of Camlann, when I don't think any scholar would venture to be so precise. (oh yeah, and Margaret Thatcher was apparently prime minister in 1976 - I rest my case.). There is no real referencing either. I can't see how this can be salvaged. --Folantin (talk) 19:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . If all of the POV issues were taken care of this article would be so long and involved that it would cease to be useful in any way.--Vannin (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely agree with the above points. I will point out that a well researched article on the history of the Celts in the British Isles could be quite useful.Kbs666 (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how we can do a NPOV political timeline like this. As Folantin says, it is in the middle of the naming debate on the British Isles also. As for history of the Celts in Britain, it sounds good until you realise that we don't have an agreed definitionn for 'Celts', so I'm not sure about that. Doug Weller (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If nothing else, the debate on this article has brought to the fore the profound pro-British (British in the sense of English and ignoring of Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish) and anti-Irish sentiment of the majority of Wikipedia’s editors, beginning with the pejorative manner in which the initiator (Moreschi) of these proceedings spat out the word “Celticist”. The reigns of the different monarchs are marked in each change if nothing else; by the kingdom’s own laws, prime ministers such as Thatcher are nothing more than servants and complaining about the noninclusion of the beginning of her term is rather petty. Regarding the Falkands War, it’s about as relevant to the overall politics of the countries of the Isles as Grenada is to the United States of America. Strange that there have been no similar complaints about the utter lack of mention of the British Raj in India. The reason I included neither is that both those subjects impacted more on the international scene rather than the internal inter-relations of the countries of the Isles. As for Margaret Thatcher, even Tories despise her these days and wish she’d never been elected, and she was certainly not as big a figure as Lloyd George or William Churchhill, the absence of mention of which no complaintant bothered to mention. Rather than being deleted, the timeline could be broken up into a Dark Age timeline and a Timeline of Irish republicanism. Originally, that’s what this timeline was, two different timelines, later joined into one. What I’d hoped to do with this, Wikipedia being an open editorial entity, was to establish a core around which addtiions could be made, but the bias I mentioned at the beginning is apparently going to prevent that since it is so strong as to demand deletion rather than adjustment of the kind I just mentioned or of allowing it remain as is for users of Wikipedia to view and edit.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, what crap. What sheer and utter bollocks. It's you with the perspective problems here. Thatcher is still very popular amoug modern-day Conservatives/Tories, and quite how you think she was PM in 1976 - a full 3 years before she did get that job - baffles me. She was/is hugely influential on modern-day Britain. You clearly know nothing of UK history, so stop, in your ignorance, implying that we're all racists. We're not. I don't even have strong views on Northern Ireland, FFS, much less Celtic sentiment (ugly phrasing, but whatever) elsewhere. Apart from Cornwall, that is...Moreschi (talk) (debate) 19:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "What sheer and utter bollocks". Seconded. Who the hell is "William Churchhill"? The only thing this has proved is you know feck all about the history of the British Isles. (BTW The "Scottish National Liberation Army"'s political impact on the UK has been roughly equivalent to that of the Tooting Popular Front). "Apart from Cornwall, that is..." ...and the omission of the Cornish Rebellion of 1497 is obvious evidence of a reactionary imperialist mindset yada yada yada. --Folantin (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll third the bullocks. I'll point out that I'm of highland scots descent and very pro Scottish independence and thought this timeline article deserved deletion. Kbs666 (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant Winston Churchhill, of course. Regarding Margaret Thatcher, Morsechi, why not simply correct the mistake or point it out for me to correct? Since your mention, I recall she was not the PM at the time, but since doing a considerable amount of reading on the subject back in 2001, I’d learned she was leader of Tories in 1975 and gotten that confused with when she became PM. As for her degree of popularity, obviously the Tory who gave me her assessment of Thatcher’s popularity in her own party is from a different wing of the Conservative and Unionist Party than you are. But in that case, why not add her election to the timeline? Furthermore, if you have no feeling regarding “Celtic sentiment”, why spit out the term “Celticist” as if it were an epithet? Why delete entirely rather than edit, make corrections, fill in blanks, leave the article up for the users of Wikipedia to do the same? Lastly, Moreschi, Folantin, Kbr666, your language is way the out of line and a violation of Wikipedia’s standards of debate, even if it is cursing in British slang rather than American slang. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, lol. There's no point replying to this. You clearly don't get it. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Why delete entirely rather than edit, make corrections, fill in blanks, leave the article up for the users of Wikipedia to do the same?" Why not read some books on the history of the British Isles before you start editing on the subject? There's a bit more to the past few centuries than Irish Republicanism and the internal wranglings of some obscure "Celtic" "militant" groups. By the way, you've missed a few of the latter. You might want to add the following to your list: Shining Peat (founded by Dougal Maguire, Ted Crilley and Jack Hackett, 1997); the Cymru Rouge (1975, initially under the leadership of Gwladys Puw and Paul Pott); Tartan Army Faction (Robert C. Nesbitt, Glasgow, 1981). --Folantin (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever put together a timeline like this, spanning that extent of years, at least not one that wasn't focused on the United Kingdom, skewed toward a view from London. Since you think more should be included, add. If there are mistakes, correct. Or recommend splitting up the timeline like I suggested as an alternative. Regarding those miniscule groups you mentioned, Folantin, I supposed you could add them if you like; I only added mention of the SNLA because Busby pokes his head up every few years attempting to get attention and most recently was in the news for a plot against the Queen, even if his operation is more or less a one-man outfit save for young idealist radicals he is able to hoodwink from time-to-time.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are aware that your first sentence doesn't actually make any sense? Moreschi (talk) (debate) 21:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for pointing that out. I got in a hurry and left out the word "wasn't". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although with some regret. I actually like parts of the article, particularly the portion dealing with the 1-st millenium. However, apart from the POV and balance problems pointed above, I also think that the basic premise of the article is flawed. It is just too ambitious in terms of scope, covering too long a period of time and too many countries. With such a broad scope, it is hard to define reasonable criteria for inclusion (at the moment they seem to be somewhat arbitrary and POV driven). The article is already very long (and not well referenced); if one were to really fix all the balance and POV problems and sourcing issues, the thing would balloon even further and become completely unmanageable. Being a Russian, I am not that familiar with the British/Irish history but I too thought that there some strange omissions on one hand and some strange inclusions on the other. The run-up to WWII and the war itself are covered rather scantily. There is no mention of the Munich Pact or the appointment of Winston Churchill as PM; surely if Lord Halifax had become a PM in 1939, history would have turned out quite differently. Also, too little on both the rise of the British Empire in te 18th-19th centuries and too little on its disintegration and the fall of colonialism after WWII, Cold War, NATO, etc. I agree with the others above regarding the Falklands War and Margaret Thatcher. Certainly Thatcher is quite an important figure in modern British history (even though I myself view her influence rather negatively) and the Falklands War was a pivotal moment in terms of salvaging Thatcher's government, bolstering her popularity and ensuring another 8 years of her as a PM. By comparison, the fact that "SF-WP becomes simply the Workers’ Party" gets a separate 3-line entry for 1982. That clearly demonstrates how bad the balance problems in the current version are. The key point for me, however, is the first one: the scope of the article is too wide and unwieldy, and fixing the balance/POV problems and coverage and sourcing gaps would make it too long and unmanageable. Nsk92 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Nsk92, if the first millenium section is so valuable, then why not split the article in two instead of deleting it entirely? Or at least save that part of it? Why not a "Timeline of the British Isles" (or Insular Celts, or Whatever) and a "Timeline of Irish republicanism" (or even a "Timeline of republicanism in the British Isles"? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice The current three day old version is already irretrievably POV violating (just read from 1990 onwards and try not to be absolutely amazed given the premise of the title), and stylistically it meanders between one line list points and paragraphs of commentary and trivia. No prejudice for recreation as a timeline list topic of single line entries because real history reference works do manage to collate these sorts of comparative timelines quite well, which after all is wikipedia's aim to emulate. I have no doubt this topic would always become a POV/UNDUE nightmare, but we should aim to fix these issues, but this version is DOA. MickMacNee (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As to the question of whether or not Wikipedia does timeline articles, see List of timelines.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreschi, I'm just curious, why do you have Folantin's debate page appended to your signature? I'm just curious.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- the section up to 1750 seems to pick up many of the major events, but would be better as Timeline of the British Isles to 1750. Later sections are increasingly concerned with the struggles over the status of Ireland and at the end are wholly concerned with one of its four provinces, Ulster, mainly from a Republcian POV. That section should perhaps be deleted, but might be retained with a more appropriate title, such as Timeline of Irish Republicanism. Nevertheless, I am not convinced of the merits of such timelines as encyclopaedic articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split is much more reasonable than outright deletion. There are several timelines on Wikipedia already, one specifically on Scottish history I had not known about. If the current version is split as you suggest, the timeline on republicanism could be expanded to include more milestones in Scottish republicanism and those from English republicanism as wel; such subjects as the Levellers and the Parliament Acts would definitely relevant to that. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Timeline of Scottish history is the format I would prefer, single line reference sentences, not some of the long paragraphs here. As for a split, given that the list was created entirely by one person, the POV issues evident in the later parts may also exist throughout, but I'm not knowledgable enough to comment with certainty. It does however give me enough pause to maintain the delete and restart view, unless anyone else can assess it and convince me otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What exactly do Irish Republicanism and English republicanism have in common? Irish Republicanism is about belonging to the Republic of Ireland; in current parlance it's usually a code word for the more extreme end of the "unified Ireland" movement in Ulster (i.e. IRA/Sinn Fein etc.) rather than more moderate "Nationalists" such as the SDLP (cf. the distinction between "Loyalists" and "Unionists" on the other side). English republicanism is about anti-monarchism. Again, this timeline makes no sense. --Folantin (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mick, I mentioned earlier in this discussion the current timeline is two merged together, one of which was simply history up to a certain point (mostly the Dark Ages) that had little to do with politics of the past two or three hundred years. Folantin, if you knew your Irish history, you'd realize that a large part of Irish republicanism was focused on anti-monarchialism, especially in its early years. The founders of the Society of United Irishmen, after all, had Thomas Paine as their mentor. As a matter of fact, the Friends of the People Society in England and Scotland also had Paine as their inspiration. Republicanism in the Isles is interconnected, which you would be able to see if your view were not so narrow. Irish republicans are as much descended from the Levellers, ideologically-speaking, as modern-day English republicans. By the way, why does Moreschi have YOUR debate page tagged onto the end of his name? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I'm sure the most famous English republican, Oliver Cromwell, is a big hero of Sinn Fein. "By the way, why does Moreschi have YOUR debate page tagged onto the end of his name?" If you followed the link you would have found out. I hosted an open, informal debate about POV-pushing on Wikipedia on my user pages between April and June this year. Moreschi is interested in the same topic. Why have you suddenly changed your name? I'm sure it's equally irrelevant to this AfD. --Folantin (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yeah, I suppose you're right, it does have the same nonrelevance, but I never thought it had any more than that (zero). I was just curious. As for Cromwell, the genuine republicans do recognize the small debt ideology-wise they owe him, but Cromwell was not really a republican, he was a dictator. The Levellers, on the other hand, were republican. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept then it should at least be under a more accurate title. However, I'm not convinced that throwing together, as this list does, all political developments which might possibly have affected whether one part of the British Isles ought to be politically linked to another part of the British Isles, is a useful endeavour. Perhaps the number of events should be trimmed to only those which were genuinely significant. The biggest failing of the list is that it picks a novel way of looking at history, and so constitutes original research by synthesis. Therefore my preference is to delete it. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, why hasn't anyone complained that I left out the Treason Felony Act 1848? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under History of England, I found [[1]]. Imagine that! And no, I did not provide that name to that article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge (into Timeline of British history or History_of_the_British_Isles#Timeline_history_of_the_British_Isles). this can be the main article of Category:British history timelines. Under a reasonable title, of course. --dab (𒁳) 07:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a number of entries towards giving more balance to the last couple of centuries, including information derived from suggestions on this page (Parliament Acts, for example), for which I am grateful. Also, kudos to Dbachman for the table added to the article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Under the current title it should start when the BI became geologically identifiable surely? Doug Weller (talk) 17:5http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Political_timeline_of_the_British_Isles&action=edit&section=T-19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- that's an interesting suggestion :o) --dab (𒁳) 07:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It would have to start sometime after the northern and southern halves of the island of Ireland were joined together; the two are literally from separate continents. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentOr earlier than that. The removal of Political from the title introduces as many problems as it solves. That being said, the primary problems remain. First is the Celt-centric coverage. That Egbert established kingship over, attacked, and was attacked by Celts is deemed important. That he became king of Wessex? Established dominance over Kent? Irrelevant. That John became Governor of Ireland for several months is mentioned. That he ruled England during Richard's captivity, and even when he became king of England is not worthy of mention. Canute united a third of the British Isles with Denmark and Norway and received the submission of Malcolm, Macbeth, and the King of the Isles, and doesn't merit mention. The submission of the British kings to Edgar? No. These are just a few of too many examples. During periods (7th and 8th century, for example) when there are Anglo-Saxon sources of significant quality, we only hear when an Anglo-Saxon kingdom ends, or when a king attacks, is attacked by, or allies with a Celt, when every irrelevant succession to every insignificant Celtic entity is presented. We get more detail on Al-Andalus than Kent. This could be fixed, perhaps, by having someone who knows their stuff filling it out, but that would take much effort and leave it of a length unmanageable if done in the same detail as the information provided. Alternatively, it could be renamed to Timeline of Celtic Britain, sort of analogous to the equally badly executed Timeline of Iberian Muslims (or whatever they are calling it these days), but that doesn't solve the other severe problem. Much of what is shown is done with too much precision. Scholars don't even agree that there was a Battle of Camlann, let alone that it was fought in 517. The entire supposed chronology of Gwynedd is up in the air - Cadwallon of 630 may not even have been of Gwynedd at all. Later events based on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can't be dated with precision because the different versions give the same events in different years (tactfully avoided for the most part by not, apparently, consulting that source). There is a lot of interesting material here, but that is all it is at present, a dump for a lot of interesting but unreferenced, unverifiable, misleadingly precise material selected with extreme bias, that to fix would make the article unmanageable and require more time and perhaps more expertise than anyone aware of the problem seems to have, and to leave it awaiting some later fix would give a naive reader a serious misconception about the subject matter. That there is a Timeline of British history already does make one wonder the purpose of this second timeline purporting to be of essentially the same thing, but to simply merge it may contaminate the other article with the problems of this one. Agricolae (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete very oddly named article with a very odd bias towards the end. Seems to serve no useful or encyclopaedic purpose; per nom. et al. Verbal chat 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the name "British Isles", according to Wikipedia itself at [2], the name "British Isles" only came into being into use in the first half of 19th century, after the Union of the London and Dublin Parliaments. Since we're discussing bias, can I ask why it is OK to use a term derived from the complete hegemony of the government in London over the whole archipelago rather than reverting to something more neutral? Does that mean POV bias is OK as long as it's POV bias in favor of stronger countries? Will the description "British" even be remotely accurate after Scotland becomes a regains its independence and there is no more political "Britain" from which to be "British"? When I first put this rather lengthy timeline together, the very reason I used the name "Pretannic Isles" was because that designation gives equal weight and value to all the entities within, and there were many, many more in the Dark Ages than there are now. Why is it considered a POV violation to use a term that allows for the Irish, Northeast Ulster, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish, Orcadian, Shetland, Channel, and Manx identities the right not to be smothered under the term "British", which to most people around the world, including the people in England, means the same thing as English? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For the same reason that it is not POV to use a term (Scotland) that smothers peoples of the kingdoms of the Picts, Rheged, Strathclyde, Bernicia and the Votodini under the name of an Irish tribe - because that's what it's called. The accuracy of the associations implicit in the name has nothing to do with it - just look at the West Indies, so named because someone was on the wrong side of the planet from where he thought he was. Agricolae (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Picts, Rheged, Strathclyde, Bernicia, and the Votadini don't exist anymore, so your analogy is a fallacy. And when the Scotland was first united, the monarchs did use the title King of the Picts (Rex Pictorum), at least until 900 CE (Oengus mac Fergusa thru Domnall mac Causantín). After Strathclyde came under the dominion of the Kings of Alba (which is what they called themselves after 900 CE), they used the title Kings of Scots and Britons, up through the reign of Alexander III (who had that title on his seal--"Rex Scotorum et Britanniarum"). The people of Alba, Prydyn in Welsh, were quite happy to call themselves Irish apparently, since that is what is meant by Scoti, from whence "Scots" is derived, Scotland itself being derived from Scotia Minor to Ireland's Scotia Major. Speaking of Strathclyde, that name was used from 1975-1996 as a name for one of the regional council areas of Scotland. My main point was that rather than being commonly used for "hundreds of years" the name "British Isles" has only been in common use since the early 19th century. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your ability to miss the point is spectacular. The point is that Scotland is the name of the place. Whether anyone thinks is shouldn't be called that is beside the point. We use the most common and recognised names. It does not matter whether they have been the most common for a hundred or a thousand years. "Wales" means "foreign", but we don't change the name of the article because someone might object to that fact. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're the one who's missing the point. The Irish, Northeast Ulsterians, Scots, Welsh, Cornish, Orcadians, Shetlands, Channelers, and Manx are all peoples that still exist and I suggested that they resent being smothered under a term that to the rest of the world, and to many in England as well, is equivalent to "English". Agricola replied with a list of peoples that no longer exist being smothered under the name Scotland was the same thing; I was pointing out that it is not. I was pointing out (1) that the two are completely different because of that, and (2) restating my point that Scots, Irish, etc. are still around and the until the United Kingdom dissolves into its constituent parts and the term "British" therefore ceases to mean "English" that is is unfair to call those people by a name that means "English". Your response immediately above is the equivalent of someone from the American South complaining about switching to the use of the term African-American from Negro. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're going to make accusations of racism, however veiled, please don't do it here. Your extreme bias has already been made clear, so please don't labour it any more while making silly accusations. This AfD is not the place for it, and nor would I suggest is wikipedia. Also, your views of the terms English and British are incorrect both factually now, and historically. Verbal chat 16:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If I were going to make an accusation of racism, it wouldn't be veiled. No, what I am suggesting is hubris, which is something different and does have bearing on this discussion since the dispute over the name "British Isles" was mentioned earlier (and not by me). Yes, the terms English and British legally mean different things, but to most of the world the two are equivalent; the distinction is only assumed without specification within the United Kingdom itself. Personally, the name British Isles doesn't bother me, since "British" is ultimately derived from "Pretanic", but it does bother the Irish, a sizable section of Scots, and I'm sure a large percentage of Welsh and Cornish also; ignoring those concerns simply because the dominant population isn't affected is hubris. Also, my initial point was that the name "British Isles" was not in common use until the early 19th century rather than the "hundreds of years" claimed earlier in this discussion, and that still stands. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.