Talk:History of England

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120102060414/http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofparliaments/index.asp to http://www.ltscotland.org.uk/scotlandshistory/unioncrownsparliaments/unionofparliaments/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100913050625/http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=415344&NewsAreaID=2 to http://nds.coi.gov.uk/content/Detail.aspx?ReleaseID=415344&NewsAreaID=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://exlibris.colgate.edu/help/findingprimarybritish.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (report bug) 17:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I don't think that way back machine is good for using, as resources for this ANewStateOfMatter (talk) 15:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

Redirect for pre-Conquest England

I will create redirects from pre-Conquest England & Pre-Conquest English to History of England#Anglo-Saxon period. Please let me know if you believe that to be inaccurate. Arminden (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Splitting the article?

In response to the tag, I'd suggest that a "History of modern England" article beginning from the 18th century and onwards might be best for splitting this? I'm conscious of how initially, the article covered very little of the 20th and 21st centuries in England, and ultimately with limited space that'll continue to be a challenge. NailHomeAtWork (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you will need to do this. Your edits are remind me in many ways of AI, though. It looks like to me you wrote up a 700,000+ edit on modern history of England via an AI bot. ~2026-34083-14 (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Any split should be at 1485, the usual boundary. But we need tort out the AI issue, about which I too am suspicious. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I get where people are coming from being surprised by the original edit, and this did come up with another editor when I first contributed, I'll confirm again to settle the whole debate on AI. I just have an interest in the topic, the lack of 20th and 21st century detail came to my attention, so I prepared and wrote the first edit over a few months in private before when it was added to the article, off the back of what I already knew about Wikipedia editing from doing small edits. Goes without saying that once it was published, the rules around word limits were brought to my attention. That hadn't applied when I'd done smaller edits in the past as a guest and such, that's where the misunderstanding and some naivety on my part came from. That's fair enough, and my bad. Cutting what I write down to key points everybody is happy with is fine by me, and the same will apply on any new article. NailHomeAtWork (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would suggest reverting back to the version of 14:23, 29 May 2026, before NailHomeAtWork's edits. That version had a "readable prose size" of 14,808 words, so adding thousands more words is not a good idea. I discussed recent edits with NailHomeAtWork at User talk:NailHomeAtWork#History of England and they denied using a LLM. I don't think that the article needs splitting, the article already has sub articles covering historical periods, which could be expanded or split. I don't have any experience of detecting AI, perhaps asking Wikipedia:AI noticeboard could help. TSventon (talk) 15:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I do continue to stand by that, no LLM was used, no AI bot was used. In terms of why I think it matters to cover more on England's history than was there before the 29 May version, culturally there are details distinct to England from the other three UK nations that I didn't really see covered in the closest equivalent, the history of the United Kingdom articles, because of the nature of it being broader. We have a north/south economic divide, and there's a chronology of events which led up to that (the Great Unrest, industries which declined around the 1960s/1970s). I don't really see any article that's discussing how English towns and cities have come out at the other side of that either. i.e. Manchester's regeneration, the 4IR sector. There was a brief description of how the majority switched from rural to urban living during the late 19th century, but with little context around why. Cornwall has tried to separate into the fifth UK nation several times in the last 20 years. There were sustained periods of attacks on England, moreso than the other UK nations because of historical context, by the Provisional IRA, ISIS etc. At the moment, there are a lot of protests happening here which are England-centric, the England flag being waved and so on. Those are just a few examples, but bearing in mind that the equivalent articles for Scotland and Wales go up to the present day in pretty decent detail, I would question having a version of the article with no mention of the Cold War, no mention of Afghanistan/Iran/Syria and the subsequent terror attacks, and so on, which is how it was at the time of the edit mentioned. Agree that in the "Main articles" headers, having key articles for those events would be helpful if nothing further, though. NailHomeAtWork (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we need to revert the entire article back here . The scope of your edits are way too large and looks very much like AI to me. I ran your text through an AI checker and there is strong evidence your text is AI written.

Some of your edits make sense, but remember, this is England, not the UK. A lot of your phrasing and paragraphs fit better with the UK rather than England itself. While some parts do focus on England, there’s a significant amount that doesn’t. And please, don’t just throw all this text into the History of the UK. If you look at the modern history section, compare it to the History of France or History of Scotland. It should highlight major events instead of dragging on. Your expanded modern history section has way more detail than the rest of the article combined. I’d prefer to see that level of detail applied to England’s older history, which, in my opinion, has a lot of segments that are too short and not well written. There are also a few inaccuracies that need fixing, and I’m looking forward to improving this page when I have the time later this year, as I hold a degree in history and I’m a historian. I hope you understand our perspective. The entire modern history section feels like a massive collection of AI-generated text. ~2026-34051-54 (talk) 16:21, 9 June 2026 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation. Belbury (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

@NailHomeAtWork:, (edit conflict) (again). I would suggest creating a draft article on a subject like "History of 21st century Britain" (or England) and then asking for feedback. It would probably also be useful to read some guidance such as Help:Your first article and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history). You started editing by adding a large quantity of text to a fairly prominent article, while the general advice to new editors is to start small and learn from advice they are given.

Update 1: I think there is a risk that adding a lot of detail on recent British history to this article could create a Wikipedia:POV fork (a "Bad Thing"). I copied the 20th and 21st century section from 1st June to User:TSventon/History of England and it looks like British history rather than English history.

Update 2: The TA above is making similar points. TSventon (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

RE: ~2026-34051-54. I do understand your perspective. First, I can only keep reinforcing that I didn't use AI, the context in my earlier message for why it was a strange looking edit is all I can keep saying there. Abridging the content until a majority feel it isn't clunky and hits the right points is fine by me, I don't doubt that over time other editors can perfect details. If nothing else, I hope something useful can be derived from my responses, or parts of what I've written. My only case to fight is points disappearing altogether.

To both, I think the point about conflating England and the UK is valid, and the complexity as I was writing this from my point of view was that England was the UK nation at the centre of the British Empire, with English monarchs, so has a unique relationship with some of those events. I was trying to articulate that. When it comes to The Troubles as one example, the Provisional IRA mainly carried out attacks on England because of the context of perceiving England as the (historic) the core of the empire. As another, three monarchs right at the heart of WWI were part English, and it was the breaking of ties with that English connection during the Bolshevik takeover that was significant in UK-Russia tensions. I wanted to try and put the pieces of the jigsaw together for people on why culturally, England has been shaped by tension with certain countries, why those terror attacks happened in England, and so on. That's a theme maybe somebody else can touch on.

On reverting to the 29 May edit, I would stand by saying it doesn't hit the beats on a lot of core events from the 20th and 21st century mainly (mostly what I covered above). My instinct is that within a decade, that could become more noticeable. In its old state, the last information went up to circa 2013 I believe, so the 21st century was still really young. Its increasingly taking on its own identity, along with England's cultural nuances. Happy to draft something, and see where we go from there. NailHomeAtWork (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the civil discussion. As I said, I really do respect what you are trying to do and I'm sorry if I was wrong regarding AI being used. But when someone dumps a 700,000+ edit in one single edit, it is a cause for concern.

I suggest we revert the page back to how it was before, and you can bring up drafts for your edits on a smaller scale here. That way everyone can overview your edits. The best way to edit a page here, in my observation, is to make small edits and not one giant edit. Helps people review each of your edits and makes sure your edits don't make the page too long.

History of England needs an urgent review/rewrite and expansion on history from ancient to the 19th century. There seems to be large amounts of historical periods missing, and a lot of English history isn't stated here, which I think is an awful shame.

You were right to update the modern history segment, but you did go overboard with your edit, imho. ~2026-34051-54 (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)—  Blocked sockpuppet of Lam312321321, see investigation. Belbury (talk) 10:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

That's ok, I should have exercised more caution! I agree that with every edit that's clipped it down to core moments, it looks better. I do tend to be verbose, I trust that other editors will improve on what I add.

I'll proceed to work on that, so should I start with a draft of the content as it could appear within this article, or a draft for a separate article beginning from (going off the above recommendations) either 1485, the 18th century or the 20th century? NailHomeAtWork (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I've rolled the article back to its 29 May version per User:TSventon's suggestion.

(Note that we've had some sockpuppets of LTA User:Lam312321321 engaging in this discussion and making direct edits to the article text: User:~2026-34051-54 and User:Nunsinspace have been blocked.) Belbury (talk) 10:15, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Include mention of 1102?

From the timeline of slavery abolition movements/efforts, Norman England is mentioned as the council declaring:

Let no one dare hereafter to engage in the infamous business, prevalent in England, of selling men like animals.

Is this not notable enough to include on this page directly? Given the significance of slavery in modern history still. Ybllaw (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2026 (UTC)