This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
Currently the captions in the two before and after maps state that Scotland was "annexed" in 1653 (and also suggest by their coloration that Ireland was fully incorporated before 1653). I'm not sure we can be as specific as that. As noted in earlier discussions you could probably pick one of several dates for when Scotland was brought under English control, whether in part or in whole, and whether in practical terms or more legally defined ones. N-HHtalk/edits20:58, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also the map excluding Scotland has problems with dates. Whatever the English government was claiming Ireland was definitely not within the Commonwealth in 1649 as the war was still ongoing in that country for most of 1650. Further Ireland had no representation in the English Parliament until the Barebones Parliament of 1653 when most of the representives were members of the English occupation army (see here) -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead again
There was quite a bit of discussion about the lead before the version prior to this change was put in, only recently. It seems a bit premature to suddenly rewrite the lead again, especially without any substantive discussion. The "copy edit" edit summary is also somewhat misleading. There are major changes here, not all of which are necessarily improvements: we have lost the alternative term "English Commonwealth"; introduced a fixed end date of 1660; lost the brief explanation of the slightly different ways the term is applied; lost reference to the fact that during the early Commonwealth, England was nominally ruled by Parliament and the Council of State ; and, on a more trivial point, introduced a grammatical error by adding an unnecessary "and" ("and later with .."). N-HHtalk/edits10:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were no substantive deletion of text so Copy Edit was the correct term (particularly as I contributed to these conversations on the talk page and as far as I can tell never said that I agreed with the minor additions that I removed). To address your points in order
There is no substantive difference between Commonwealth of EnglandorEnglish Commonwealth. Both do not need to be in bold in the first sentence.
There is no direct causation between the second civil war and the republic. The commonwealth came about because of the execution -- the second civil war like the first civil war are two links in a chain that go back nearly half a century, and the finer points of that debate should not be placed in this lead.
The lead still contained "Power in the early Commonwealth was vested primarily in the Parliament and a Council of State". (actually as as was shown in the coup d'état of 1653 power really lay with the Army Council).
Minor grammar errors can be fixed without a revert.
Copyediting is usually only used to refer to grammar and formatting corrections and minor stylistic changes. No, the edit didn't lose a lot, but there were still substantive changes there, even if fewer than I first thought. I also think it's not unreasonable to suggest that some of the points might have been raised when an opportunity arose during the discussion above, which you did participate in, rather than just waiting for a few days after it was done and then making them without any discussion. It might even have offered some relief from the voluminous off-topic debate involved there. Anyway, on the points ..
I agree we could maybe lose "English Commonwealth" as an alternative bolded title, but that specific term is found, including as a book title, and equally I can't see any particular benefit in losing it
I'm not sure what this is referring to. I don't see where the lead claims causation per se or where exactly it goes into too much detail on the chronology
Yes, the edit created a footnote re the alternative periods the term can refer to, but that still removed visible text from the lead. Also, regardless of any footnote, the edit added the explicit claim that the Commonwealth lasted until 1660. This is not the universal terminology, and it is something I thought we had been discussing more generally above and had come to an agreement on (also I think the words "now usually known as" before the Protectorate are important, since they help both with the ambiguity of modern terminology and with the distinction between what things would have been called then and what they are called now)
I misread the changes at first glance, but did strike my incorrect claim that we had lost the Council of State stuff
The benefit in loosing English Commonwealth is a matter of style, including both makes this lead look like the camel it is. If the article was called "English Commonwealth" then I would have removed "Commonwealth of England".
"following the defeat of King Charles I in the Second English Civil War and his execution". Why include the second civil war in which Charles was not defeated as he was at that time a prisoner? Better to drop it completely (the complicated situation is summed up in the Prelude and Execution of Charles I in the SECW article). so I think "following the trial and execution of Charles I in late January 1649 until ..." is more succinct and accurate.
I added "...the RestorationofCharles II in 1660." The reason for the 1660 date is that the commonwealth lasted until the Restoration. There is no debate over this in the sources because Cromwell was "Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of ...", and as Blair Worden (2012, God's Instruments: Political Conduct in the England of Oliver Cromwellpage 275) makes clear for supporters of the republic the Interregnum was a Commonwealth it was just that that they were rather vague on for whom it was a commonwealth (see the whole page but particularly footnote 145). On page 273 Worden explains why the Rumpers chose Commonwealth "The Rump's own everyday term for the new regime was 'Commonwealth'." because "'free state' and 'republic' intimated that an alien for of rule had been imported, 'commonwealth' had comforting native associations". He goes on to say "Until 1649 the Long Parliament normally used 'commonwealth' interchangeably with 'kingdom'... The Rump had to avoid 'kingdom'..., but 'commonwealth' meaning state, and 'commonwealth' meaning a form of government, cohabited in its official language so closely that it can be impossible to tell which meaning was intended". So there is no debate that the Commonwealth government lasted until 1660, the only debate is if the "English Commonwealth" ended with the coup d'état in 1653. As can be seen by Worden's detailed explanation as the terms were used loosely by contemporariness, so most historians who describe the "English Commonwealth" as a specific sub-period do so with dates which restrict the focus of their books but do not necessarily imply that the rest of interregnum was not also a commonwealth, indeed even if one does not think that the term "English Commonwealth" is appropriate for the Protectorate one is left with the problem of what to call 1659-60 if the English Commonwealth ended with the coup d'état in 1653.
The reason for the footnoting it is that its content is about the meaning of the term commonwealth and not about what the commonwealth was (WP:REFERS). Footnoting differences in usage of a term in reliable sources is a common way to present such information as the information placed in a footnote explains the nuances of usage -- After this post revert discussion I would add into it "English" before the first use of commonwealth, (but that does not really help as one also has to include 1659-1660) -- But that is something to work on rather than reverting it.
As I say, I can see the advantage in being tidier and not having all three alternatives listed (they're all variations on a theme after all). It doesn't seem a big deal either way
Fair enough as to the specifics re Charles. But I think it would help to keep a bit more in the way of chronology and links here. Perhaps "following the defeat of the royalists in the Second Civil War" or "after the end of the Second Civil War"?
Yes the Commonwealth lasted until 1660 in one sense, and that's probably the term generally used at the time, but the terminology today tends to prefer the "Protectorate" for the post-1653 period, which is marked as a contrast to the pre-53 period, especially when looking at the government; and about which we have a separate article ourselves of course. I think we need to reflect that by fudging it slightly in the opening sentence here while explaining later in the lead the (different) uses of the term. And if we don't fudge it, why pick 1660 rather than 1653? As I said before, that may not be ideal but we have to deal with the sources and the terminology as we find them: in my view it's the least worst option and makes sure we cover all the ground and all the ambiguity. See for example this encyclopedia entry, at p126.
See above. Plus, while the essay you cite correctly suggests avoiding "refers to .." where it's unnecessary, that doesn't mean we can't or never do. This seems a rather obvious situation where it can't really be avoided in open text. The concern is less about what exactly any footnote might say than with the principle of relying on such a footnote rather than the main text in the first place, which leaves the explanation stuck at the very end of the entire page. A brief discussion of terminology has been in the main text for a while, long before my recent changes, so I think it's legitimate to accept doing it that way round as the status quo pending consensus to change it.
Overall I just think the outright removal or shifting of information from a lead, much of which has been there in some form or other for a while, should be avoided unless there's a clear benefit to doing it. I'm sure that, given the structure, the content it can always be improved, but that's a different point. N-HHtalk/edits16:18, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modified union jack used during the second Commonwealth
Sorry if I’m ploughing up ground that others thought settled, but I think there are some issues with titles and scopes of articles related to this one. Not, I should say, with the title of this article—I won’t dare to touch that issue—but as the preceding archive link suggests, this Talk page has been something of a rallying point for edits on the whole inter-article matter in the past, so I’ve chosen to make my observations here.
Interregnum (England) seems, by its own lead, to intend to be about life and events in England during the Interregnum, not about the Interregnum itself. Great—can the title reflect that? Something like “England during the Interregnum”?
I’m sure the title Interregnum (1649–1660) has been carefully chosen (over such predecessors as Interregnum (British Isles)) for good and inclusive reasons, but for someone only passingly familiar with the topic, it’s very confusing. It suggests that (a) I (should) know the Interregnum by its dates, and/or that (b) that there was another Interregnum in England or Britain, rendering “(British Isles)” insufficient as a distinguisher.
The scopes of articles on the topic need to be clarified (and the articles themselves interlinked more consistently), so that someone like me can come in fresh and know which articles are going to cover what facets—and I can go away feeling that I’ve got a decent idea of how matters relate to each other.
Far be it from me to tell the hard-working editors who’ve carefully hammered out consensus that they’re wrong and they have to do this or that, but… well, the danger everyone faces, writing in their own areas of expertise, is losing perspective on how non-experts will come to the topic, isn’t it? -- Perey (talk) 04:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
