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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history of the peoples of the British Islands (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The consensus on the talk page to date is to delete this article.[1] PBS (talk) 09:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that people do not have to repeat what has already been said, here is a copy of the conversation from the talk page:

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)[reply] Hmm, I kinda like that option. GoodDay (talk) 14:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] I'd have no problem with that. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] Yes, just delete it. it makes no sense at all as it currently stands. LevenBoy (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Put it up for AfD then... --HighKing (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Yes, that would solve your problem as well, wouldn't it? MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Above comment withdrawn. MidnightBlue (Talk) 20:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] You have presented no argument, only the statement that British Islands is laughable. Appeal to Ridicule. Purple ☏ 12:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] I agree. Delete it.MITH 10:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] "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)[reply] Agreed there is a campaign being waged by several editors against the British Isles sadly. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] . 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] 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)[reply] I support the deletion of this article --T*85 (talk) 05:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Purple Arrow - have you actually read British Islands? It does not mean what you think it means. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 10:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] * Delete Articels about military history would normally relate to the last existent political entity --Snowded TALK 16:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] * Delete The subject matter is already well covered by other articles. Daicaregos (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--PBS (talk) 09:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article was created originally as "British military history" and is clearly dealing with that topic and not the military history of the British Isles. Furthermore, the term "British Isles" was used as a political term to refer to the United Kingdom from early 1700s to early 1900s, so if an article of this title is to be (re)created, it should redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom --HighKing (talk) 09:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This seems a viable topic and Military history of the United Kingdom doesn't cover the same ground as the residents of the British isles were fighting wars long before any of the component parts of the UK came into being. Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using your own argument, the term "British Isles" (and "British Islands" too, it must be said) was only invented by the British as a political term to refer to islands under their control, and the residents of Great Britain and Ireland were fighting wars long before then. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And using your argument we wouldn't have any articles that use the phrase "Ancient Greece", because that is not what the ancient Greeks called themselves. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete "British military history" makes far more sense. Nobody uses "British Islands" in real life. Cyclopaedic (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they do use British Isles, which was the name of the article before its name was recently changed without consensus. MidnightBlue (Talk) 10:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the move to British Isles was a highly confrontational move, also done out of process and without consensus. It's pretty two-faced to claim that what's OK for a title that *you* like, is not OK for a title you disagree with. Chose a different argument. --HighKing (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Keep and rename to Military history of the British Isles - An article on the Military history of the British Isles makes sense however there will never be consensus on such an article because certain editors are on a campaign to remove "British Isles" from wikipedia. For that reason the article should be deleted as all the content it covers is available on other articles anyway and but the current title (that was changed to with no consensus) is incorrect and pointless. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: It really needs to be established what this article is about: Either it is a military history of Great Britain, in which case it should be Military history of Great Britain, or it is a military history of the British Isles (i.e. Britain, Ireland and the smaller islands) in which case it should be Military history of the British Isles. I can see a case for both articles to exist within Wikipedia but this is an editorial decision for the article and cannot be solved via Afd (the article clearly has the potential to be notable).--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my point above about using "British Isles" in this context. --HighKing (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see it, but I don't understand it: as long as the article about the geographical British Isles is at the title British Isles then that is the name that should be used for all articles relating to the British Isles, such as this one. If there was an alternative title than British Isles for the article British Isles then this article could be at it, but there isn't. Until an alternative to British Isles is found that represents majority usage in the English speaking world, British Isles is what Wikipedia does and should use wherever the term is required.--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is agreed that this term should *only* be used in a georgaphical context. A military article is political. The term "British Isles" has a political history. So by creating an article about a historically political subject (military) for a geographical region (British Isles) but using a title with political history (British Isles), are you still using the term in a geographical context? I think not. It's for the same reason that you won't find articles entitles Kings of the British Isles, but you will find Kings of the Britons, Kings of Ireland, Kings of England, Kings of Scotland, etc. --HighKing (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you will find History of the British Isles, of which military history of the islands is a part; a big enough part for a spearate article. And just where does it say (dictate) that the term should "only" be used in a geographical context? MidnightBlue (Talk) 19:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible however that an article with the title Military history of the British Isles can be about military history within the easily defined geographical boundaries of the British Isles. If this article fails to do so then that is an editorial problem, not one for Afd.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except the "British Isles" also has a military history separate to that of the geographic region. It's one thing to use "British Isles" in a geographic sense, it quite another to use it misleadingly to imply that the military unit that was the "British Isles" spans a much larger period of time. --HighKing (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I somehow missed your reply. You've just said above that "British isles" should only be used in a geographic context, a statement that I agree with. I suggest a geographic use of the term (i.e. military history of the islands to the north of the continent of Europe, known almost universally, including on Wikipedia, as the British Isles) and you change tack and insist that it is suddenly a political term. Either British Isles is a purely descriptive geographical term or it is a historical political term, and this discussion must be guided by the main article British Isles, which is a geographical article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to be a candidate for imporvement or a merge not deletion. --neon white talk 11:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What do you think British Islands means? As the other British Islands rely on the UK for their defence, why do you think this is a "candidate for improvement"? If it is to be merged what content should be merged into what? --PBS (talk) 19:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a notable subject. Currently this looks more like a portal than an article but with some cleanup (perhaps organize into a timeline/flowchart?) this has some great potential separate from the Military history of the United Kingdom. This already has several sources and here's another potential source. ThemFromSpace 14:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why the arbitrary "Military history of the British Isles", If we are going to have an arbitrary title why not why not "Military history of North Western Europe" or "Military history of England and Denmark" (they were once ruled by the same king) or the "Military history of England and France" (they were once ruled by the same king) and have a very long military history? Why Group Ireland in with England Wales and Scotland but ignore France? --PBS (talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Military History of the British Isles. I recently added some material to this article (prior to its renaming) to make it more inclusive of the British Isles as a whole, but the material was deleted. This material should be re-added. MidnightBlue (Talk) 17:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there won't be consensus for anything else.MITH 17:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Material is already covered in other articles --Snowded ^TALK 18:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Merge British Islands has a limited legal meaning. It is unsuitable for a topic like this. All of the battles and wars listed involved England (I cannot see any that relate to the military history of Scotland or Ireland, except where those countries at war - usally defending themselves - against England). It should be merged with Military history of England. --rannpháirtí anaithnid (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Split this article. The second option would have Military history of Great Britain & Military history of Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article name should be Miltary history of the British Isles, not the garbled Military history of the peoples of the British Islands. The British Isles is not some arbitrary grouping as PBS suggests, it is a well-established grouping of islands off NW Europe. Ah, I see the problem - it is trying to be about too many things. The Military history of the United Kingdom already covers the wars fought by the UK. This article should focus on wars fought in the British Isles, so all the relatively modern overseas adventures can be excised. Fences and windows (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Military history of the British Isles, as it is not about British Islands (i.e., islands owned by the UK) but the military history of the British Isles. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 00:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Split this article. The second option would have Military history of Great Britain & Military history of Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/Split to Military history of Great Britain & Military history of Ireland. Military History of Ireland has makings of very interesting unique article. Pleanty of worthy sources, amazing it hasn't been done yet, but WP is a work-in-progress. Purple ☏ 03:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or History of English/British Army Irish recruits--Rockybiggs (talk) 14:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and should be called Miltary history of the British Isles--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of military encounters of the British Islands, or something of that sort, might be a better name. Honestly now. This is perfectly encyclopedic material. If you wanted to know about every military encounter that nation ever dealt with, this would be the place to find it. Dream Focus 13:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles has never been a nation, its a geographical area which was more or less synonymous with a political entity for a hundred years or so --Snowded ^TALK 21:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and let the MilHist Wikiproject sort it out. AfD is not clean-up or merge/split etc. also nom's pointy poisoning the well - consensus on the talk page to date is to delete - isn't helpful. Subject is notable and sourcable. AfD is the wrong venue for this content issue. -- Banjeboi 17:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Which "well" are you talking about? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The well would be this AfD, putting "The consensus on the talk page to date is to delete this article" at the top of this page would seem to poison this well. -- Banjeboi 09:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  One might as well call it a treacle well did you bother to read the previous discussion. It seems to me that all but one was in favour of deleting. Please explain why you think in it notable. --PBS (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/rename/split – there is undoubtedly valuable, verifiable content here; let those in the know parcel off and package it as appropriate. Deletion is a last resort for unsalvagable articles.  Skomorokh  18:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename back to Briotish Isles. CottonGrass (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename back to British Isles. Regardless of the heated debate on the modern usage of the word am sure with work editors would be able to turn this into a good article on the military events that have happened all over these isles.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the advantage of "British Isles" over "North Western Europe"? -PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because North West Europe includes, from my perspective at least, France, Germany etc The military history of purely the British Isles would be able to show how the various kingdoms that have inhabited these Isles have interacted with one another.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  How can one begin to understand the history of the military interaction of England and Scotland without simultaniously including a history of the military interatction between England and France? This was a war triangle that lasted centuries (up and beyond the unification of Scotland and England (the fifteen and the fortyfive). So what is the advantage of an article about the geographic entity called the British Isles? If one goes back further then for much of the saxon period an article about England and Denmark makes more sense than an article about the British Isles. If one is looking at west cost of Scotland then the reliationship was for many centuries one between Ireland, Scoltand and Scandinavia, with little or no reliationship with the rest of the British Isles. So I don't see why there can be a focus on "inhabited these Isles have interacted with one another" which islands would that be, and what is the advantage such an article over an article on North West Europe? --PBS (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because if you go down that route you might as well just leave it as just the Military history of Europe considering how related all these things can be. Am not going give you the dictonary definition of what the British Isles are, you can easily find that out yourself. I think people could look at certain cut off points i.e. not having to detail Romes conquest of Gaul to finally get to there conquest of Albion or detail the migration of the Germanic tribes etc to finally get to them landing in England etc--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  We have other articles already military history of England, military history of Scotland, military history of the United Kingdom, military history of France, (all named after states) what is the advantage to one named after the name of an area for which there is a political dispute over the name (IONA)? Why Ireland, Scotland and England together and leave out France when most of the dynamics of the wars in and between Ireland, Scotland and England are tightly bound to wars between England and France? --PBS (talk) 07:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to its original title of British Isles. I cannot say more than what has already been said. -- Phoenix (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and discuss the name elsewhere. Good job of an outline. To delete because of a naming dispute is remarkably unconstructive DGG (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the advantage of "British Isles" over "North Western Europe"? As before the development of the United Kingdom, When England attacked France Scotland attacked England, so an article that does not include France, is not a balanced article, as the dynamics within of conflicts within the British Isles are usually meaningless unless one in includes France and Spain/low countries. Why is it that you wish to have an article that geographically only covers part of the theatre of war? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- (1) Arguments that there is no such thing as the "British Isles" are ill-informed. I do not think this is a distinct topic from military history of the UK is really open to question. Geo Swan (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Usually one is more interested in the dynmics between nations and states rather than a geographical entity. Why cover a graphic area that only covers part of the theatre? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the flaw in this line of devils advocate is that in several thousands years of warfare in Europe calling the British Isles only part of a theatre of war is ambiguous and erroneous depending on the context. For example were the British Isles only a portion of this North West/Western European theatre of war when discussing the Roman invasion, the English invasion of Scotland or conquest of Wales, the Norman invasion, the war of the three kingdoms etc.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: This article was unilaterally renamed to include the term "British Isles" in it. "British Isles" was never in the original title contrary to many misinformed people above. This change to "British Isles" was done by a self-declared British loyalist from the northeast of Ireland. The same person has renamed several articles simply to make this specific political point. This article under this title is a political statment, no more and no less. I guarantee if you gather the political views of all the people who want to impose this name on this article you will find that they are eurosceptic flag-waving British nationalistic types to the last man. Absurd that this irredentist carry-on is still going on in 2009, decades after free education was introduced into Britain. Dunlavin Green (talk) 08:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

``political statment`` laughable from a staunch flag-waving nationalist type.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Military History of the British Isles. This is a potentially useful article. It should not be deleted because of a dislike for the the term British Isles by a minority of editors. LevenBoy (talk) 10:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There doesn't appear to be a consensus to delete - the consensus is that there is valuable content in this list article and that it should be kept. The question appears to be revolving around what the title should be. I propose to close this AfD and reopen the title topic on the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the valuable content? --PBS (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and move back to British military history. This AfD is just a veiled Wikipedia:POINT. Fornadan (t) 21:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British military history would imply the history of Great Britain, and as such redirects to Military history of the United Kingdom. Fences and windows (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

which leads us back to the central question: what is the purpose of this article? It seems to serve no practical purpose as the Military history of the United Kingdom article covers that very comprehensively. Thus there is going to be much duplication if this article is kept. I can see that some people just want to have the name on wikipedia, but what will this article actually add to this encyclopedia? 86.44.44.218 (talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the wars fought on the British Isles is a pretty useful addition to this encyclopedia. The UK is not the same as the British Isles, and it's only been around for the past 300 years. Fences and windows (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed one on the British Isles would be useful. There is an attempt at TALK:Military history of the peoples of the British Islands#Options page now to decide where the article belongs. Everyone who has voted for this article to be kept should go there and try to help resolve what it should be renamed as. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, by the same argument the "British Isles" has only been around for 400 years, since the term was coined by John Dee and used historically to describe a political entity, that being the islands united by a single British monarch. If an article is to be written on the military history of the British Isles, then it should only span that time period.

It's also a bit pointy that other articles (e.g. Military history of Germany) describe military history from the point of view of a current political entity, regardless of how the territory waxed and waned over time. The military history of the UK article is a content fork and should be contained with a military history of Britain article. And finally, despite the "fixes" being applied in an attempt to keep this pointy article in it's current place, can someone now explain to be why British military history now points to Military history of the United Kingdom??? Or have the British editors forgot their reasoning for the UK article in the first place? --HighKing (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The military history of the UK article is a content fork and should be contained with a military history of Britain article." If it is a content fork then what definition of "Britain" are you using? --PBS (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing, British Isles is an established way of referring to the islands off the NW of Europe, and is now geographical not political. You say this article is "pointy". Exactly what point is being made? Fences and windows (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The current article seems to have much merit and should be built on per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  What is the merit of the current article? -- PBS (talk) 16:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is educational and so well satisfies our core mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any merit in the current content. It is largely a list, but assembled without any real objective in mind. If it is supposed to relate to events in the geographical area, most of the list will have to be deleted, because it lists everything from the Third Crusade to the Sierra Leone civil war. I can't see the point in a list of wars and battles in which people living in a geographical area have participated; the military history of political entities makes more sensee, but that is covered comprehensively by other articles, with the possibleecxeption of military history of Ireland. Cyclopaedic (talk) 23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Such issues of scope do not warrant deletion as they can be addressed by ordinary content editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "Military history of the peoples of the British Islands" how does a title such as this educate anyone? What do you think it British Islands means? --PBS (talk) 07:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PBS, the current title is silly and makes no sense at all which is why we ended up here. But this was a title given to it by one editor a few weeks ago without consensus simply because he doesnt like British Isles and we have not been allowed to restore it to its previous title (which lasted over 7 months). For that 7+ months the article was titled Military history of the peoples of the British Isles. That title allowed us to cover all conflicts in the history of the the British Isles, unlike an article such as Military history of the United Kingdom which is restricted to just over 300 years since the birth of the sovereign state. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You did not suggest changing the name in your initial statement. Why do you think that a military history about a geographic entity has merit? We already have articles on the Military history of Scotland, Military history of England and Military history of the United Kingdom, as it is impossible to understand the most of the dynamics of military history between England, Scotland and Ireland after 1066 without including France, what is the advantage of such an article? Before 1169 there was next to no military contact between England and Ireland so again what is the advantage of this article over creating one for the military history of Ireland which can include the relationships between Ireland and Scotland and the relationships Ireland had with the Scandinavian countries, long before they had much contact with what is now England. -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only started to get involved with this article after the name change took place on the 20th of May, the title is totally crazy so i wanted it moved back or atleast changed. Because of the ongoing dispute about "British Isles" i thought it very unlikely that an agreement would be reached to rename so i supported the suggestion of just deleting the article (which is better than an article with an incorrect title). Anyway after i saw there was alot of opposition to deleting i supported the change back to British Isles which ive always prefered and seen the use for.

Its true that there are many articles on conflicts involving these nations. Military history of England is currently just a list but i think at some stage it would be better if it was laid out as Military history of Scotland is. Military history of the United Kingdom can only start at 1707.

I can see the sense in having a Military history of Britain and Military history of Ireland and i dont strongly oppose that, the trouble is when people look for Military history of Britain they are likely looking for the article on British military history not about the island going back to Roman times so i feel that should redirect to Military history of the United Kingdom. Also at some stage someone may want a military history on the sovereign state Ireland, considering theres the ongoing naming dispute i would think Military history of Ireland is where theyd want the sovereign states military history, not the island. Its true that in the early years theres very little military conflict between Britain and Ireland, but the vast majority of things listed are conflicts after the 12th century and there would be alot of content repeated if the article got split in two (especially as theres many other articles already as you mentioned)

For that reason i think it makes sense to have one article on the military history of the British Isles and it was stable for 7+ months until two weeks ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Irredeemable and utterly useless listcruft in its present form, bad enough to justify ripping it up and starting again. Although the article has existed since 2003, I very much doubt it was ever the centrepiece for the topic, it has the look of a neglected backwater about it, while the really usefull content is no doubt duplicated in other better focused articles, the ones with the words and pictures and references and all that jazz. MickMacNee (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move, preferably to Military history of the British Isles —ras52 (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep where it is - nonsense to move it to Military history of the British Isles. Sarah777 (talk) 10:42, 2 June 2009 (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.