Talk:History of the United Kingdom/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
172, that's a massive amount of work you have put in, but I cannot imagine any but the most dedicated reader wading all the way through it. The sections you've added on economic history provide useful information, but are very difficult to read and far too long to be in balance with the rest of this entry. I imagine that someone will come along and chop them out again before too long. It would be much more helpful if you were to (a) condense them by about 50% and work on readability (in particular, removing Marxist jargon, which most people do not understand), and (b} move them to a more appropriate location, such as a seperate article on economic history, which can be summarised on this page, and then linked to for those who want to follow the ideas in more detail. Tannin
Better yet, why not write an entry called something like "Economic history of Europe & North America, from Napoleon to WW2", and then link to that from each of the histories you are filling up with verbiage at present? No point in telling the same story five differebnt times. Tannin
Ah.
I take back what I said months ago to Tannin. I'm coming back to this article and trimming that all down (just not tonight). After around 5 months I have a better idea what kind of content makes for a good article. I think that ny more recent contributions (even very long ones) have since been much more reader friendly.
A couple of things you could bear in mind as you go:-
- Wales itself wasn't a kingdom, mainly in that it contained a number of mutually independent principalities. The nearest thing to a Welsh kingdom was in fact Cornwall until the English conquered it not long before the Norman Conquest - it was distinct and under one ruler, and at certain times was counted as a kingdom, e.g. under King Mark of Cornwall. It was even called West Wales. Wales is generally thought of as a principality or (rarely) a province.
- The Corn Laws weren't particularly part of a colonialist/mercantilist economic approach. Rather, they favoured landowners in the home country, and the home country's strategic need for self sufficiency (a need that declined with increasing certainty of sea power and trading security). Effects on Canada etc. were incidental. So, the Corn Laws were mercantilist without being colonialist.
I hope that helps. PML.
I did not add the sections pertaining to the Corn Laws, but I will make the necessary adjustments to those sections when I revamp this article. Thanks for the suggestions.
172, that's a massive amount of work you have put in, but I cannot imagine any but the most dedicated reader wading all the way through it. The sections you've added on economic history provide useful information, but are very difficult to read and far too long to be in balance with the rest of this entry. I imagine that someone will come along and chop them out again before too long. It would be much more helpful if you were to (a) condense them by about 50% and work on readability (in particular, removing Marxist jargon, which most people do not understand), and (b} move them to a more appropriate location, such as a seperate article on economic history, which can be summarised on this page, and then linked to for those who want to follow the ideas in more detail. Tannin
Agreed this is a lot of work I've put the economic bits in a seperate article called the Economic History of Great Britain. Wouldn't it be a nice idea to remove the text that's covered there and link to the Economic History of Great Britain from the History of the United Kingdom? I'm a newbie so I don't want to do this myself.
To put a pedantic point here, surely the history of the United Kingdom is the history of the constitutional arrangements - Acts of Union and suchlike - and the social, economic and cultural history is best covered in the history of the constituent nations.
New User (Not 172)