Talk:Convention Parliament (England)/Archive 1

Edit to achieve generalisation
Inexplicably Ireland was not included in the original edit! I have tried an edit to make it more general to reflect all three Kingdoms of the British Isles. Needs more on Scotland and Ireland though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinomen (talk • contribs) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not inexplicable. There may well have been other convention parliaments around the planet that editors of Wikipedia are not aware of. I have now moved this page to an English specific one and created a dab page at Convention Parliament. The Irish information is now in a new article called Irish Convention (1660) it has a dab extension of 1660 because there is already a page called Irish Convention -- PBS (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Irish Convention does not refer to a the material in question (another misleading title!). If a new article was created for the Irish Convention 1660 (and why isn't it included in the See also section here?) why not something for the Scottish 1689?--Utinomen (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is now a dab page Convention Parliament which lists this page, the Irish Convention (1660) and also the Convention of Estates of Scotland so there is no need for those articles to be included in a hatnote here (see Disambiguation). As to the "See also" section, I have not seen anyone add them. As to why the Irish Convention does not mention the Irish Convention (1660), see my comment that starts "It is not inexplicable..." You only wrote about the Irish Convention (1660) in the last day, so the thing to do is add a hatnote to the article Irish Convention, or if you do not think that the current article is the primary topic I suggest you ask at talk:Irish Convention if there is a consensus to move the page to Irish Convention (1917) to make way for a dab page at Irish Convention -- personally I don't think you will find a consensus for that. The previous sentence in this article about the Convention of Estates of Scotland did not link to that article, and that article did not have any mention of the Claim of Right Act 1689 (I added it earlier today). -- PBS (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I would find consenus either because they are two entirely different things. The Irish convention (1660) is clearly much the same as the English one of the same time whereas the second thing is a convention meeting on an issue (something that could happen any time). Having reviewed the material, I think this is just leading to unnecessary proliferation and that it would have been better for convention parliaments that were categorically similar to have be under one article rather that needlessly splitting them on a geogrpahical basis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Utinomen (talk • contribs) 09:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the WP:Bold edit turning this from a general page to a specific page was unnecessary and ill-thought out. The result seems to be unneccessary exclusion rather than an attempt to achieve clarity.--Utinomen (talk) 14:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It was a specific page about the English parliaments (until you added the Irish convention). The advantage of keeping it Parliament specific: definitions (one you raised), presidents etc. far outweigh any problems with exclusion as the chances are that there are many other convention parliaments which other editors may know about. In the long run there may well be enough information to have separate articles on the three parliaments listed here.-- PBS (talk) 21:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Was it? The addition of the Irish Convention still kept it specific abour Parliaments. The Scottish element may have diverged from Parliament as defined in England and Ireland but was clearly inseperably connected with the English events and conceptually related. I would have thought that anyone who knew about British history would have been aware that Ireland had a Parliament which had a relation with the English one (!), and, that the restoration and Glorious Revolution involved Ireland and Scotland as well.


 * "chances are that there are many other convention parliaments which other editors may know about". Well, I think for the 17th century we've got it covered! An editor has added the parliament of 1399. I have indicated below that it is conceptually different from those of the 17th century. In the event of any other being suggested chances are they will also be conceptually different. You split the article on geographical grounds, you accept that the article can now be further split on conceptual grounds?--Utinomen (talk) 08:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition
"The definition of the term convention parliament is generally taken to be:" Where is this definition from and who generally takes it to be true? --Utinomen (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Features of the convention parliaments

These description seem to be some ones analysis. However they leave out one crucial constitutional and legal fact - the King. Which calls into question the analysis for not being neutral nor factual, and is therefore misleading. The essential feature of the convention parliament is that they are not legal (not summoned by the King) but they restore the King (the source of legality). England was not a democracy in the 17th century! --Utinomen (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit which added the text you are concerned about was made as the Revision as of 13:56, 28 July 2004 it was made by User:Ericross. Ericross was the person who created this page and as the text originates from well before WP:V was written it is impossible to tell if the quote is meant to be a synthesised definition or a quote. As Ericross has not contributed to Wikipedia in about 2 years, there seems little point leaving a message on the talk page of Ericross asking for clarification.


 * Delete it altogether. As a reader I am looking at this article as about the convention parliaments not someones theory about them, so nothing would be lost by its removal.


 * I suggest that the first thing to do is to modify the text so that it is cited and then modify it again if we agree that substantial changes need to be made to the text. Because point about not being legal is I think a minority point of view, because to argue thus will undermine the Glorious Revolution of 1689, which is widely accepted as a legal. If I am wrong and the point of view that the convention parliaments are see illegal and this is considered to be a significant point then the majority of sources will mention that fact. -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The convention of 1689 still adheres to the same principles. According to the Whigs James II had abdicated and so they were Kingless. Obviously that Whig view was disputed but that does not alter the position of the convention in itself. The King (William III) legimitises the convention. The argument that he was not the legitimate King does not undermine the principle.--Utinomen (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have been doing some research into the questions raised here and I think I can now answer them via sources:

William Blackstone is about as good authority on this as we can get:
 * Commentaries on the laws of England: In four books, Volume 1 By Sir William Blackstone, George Sharswood, John Frederick Archbold, 108–110 on page 109 "But this was for necessity of the thing, which supersedes all law; for if they had not so meet, it was morally impossible that the kingdom should have been settled in peace."(page 109) "so not withstanding these two capital exceptions, which were justifiable only on the principle of necessity, (and each of which, by the way introduced a revolution in the government,) the rule raid down in general certain, that the king only can convoke a parliament.(page 110)
 * Commentaries on the laws of England: in four books: with an ..., Volume 1, By Sir William Blackstone 109 Same book but a different cgi.

Here is another commentary that takes the a similar POV as Blackstone: His is a commentary that takes a contrary POV
 * The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times, By Edward Augustus Freeman pp. 130–138
 * The speeches of the Thomas Erskine at the bar and in parliament..., Volume 1 By Thomas Erskine, p. 360,361 Alternative view.

These two sources have useful commentaries on the derivation of the word convention and how its meaning has changed over time:
 * Constitutional brinksmanship: amending the Constitution by national convention By Russell L. Caplan pp.5,6 Two meanings to the word convention.
 * The creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 By Gordon S. Wood, Institute of Early American History and Culture (Williamsburg, Va.) pp. 310–312 This article suggests it started with an English convention of the "states of the realm" Edward II in 1327.

The sources do not contradict what is written here, so there is no fire to fix, but clearly the wording will have to be altered to better reflect sources such as these. I do not have time now to edit any of this into the article but I will do so when I do. In the mean time if anyone has some time maybe they can make a start on it. --PBS (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the Chambers and Britannica clearly indicate the meaning--Utinomen (talk) 09:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * However, there is now a problem. As this page has been turned from a general page (in my view uncessarily) to a specific page should general definitions be on here at at all, should they not be removed to the dab page? --Utinomen (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now re-edited based on references suggested above.--Utinomen (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Having reviewed the matter this section seems superfluous. The two antiquated sources do indeed provide a brief summation of the two parliaments yet as the Caplan quote indicates there is a difference between 1660 and 1689. I think this section should be removed as the differences outweigh their overall similarities. The features of the parliaments can be noted under each relevent entry. No mention of the the spurious 1399 nonsense - I wonder why?. --Utinomen (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Convention Parliament of 1399
"Although this parliament is not often referred to as a 'convention parliament,' it meets the definition of the term" Is it referred to as a convention parliament anywhere? It meets whose definition of the term?--Utinomen (talk) 21:43, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of American civil liberties, Volume 1 by Paul Finkelman (ISBN 9780415943420) p.690 states "The Convention Parliament established its own legitimacy and proceedings (as did the two preceding convention parliaments of 1399 and 1660)". I have not added the source to the article as it does not appear capable of supporting the paragraph as currently written. Road Wizard (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can now see a further problem. The defintion of parliament. The quote above is from an article on the Glorious Revolution, and what parliament meant in 1399 was not the same as what parliament meant in 1689. Though I suppose at least the assumption of the throne by Henry IV and William III could be said to be similar...--Utinomen (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We do not need to define parliament all we need to do is link to an article that defines what the English Parliament was. -- PBS (talk) 02:11, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 By Gordon S. Wood, Institute of Early American History and Culture (Williamsburg, Va.) p. 310 This article suggests it started with an English convention of the "estates of the realm" Edward II in 1327. -- PBS (talk) 02:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times, By Edward Augustus Freeman p.132 say that the 1399 assembly initially called itself "Estates of the Realm", but was later retrospectively summoned as a Parliament by the King they had installed. -- PBS (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But were earlier meetings conceptually the same as the Engish and Irish convention parliaments of 1660, and the English Convention 1689? The 14th century is not a the same as the 17th century: As the reference you gave notes p. 310 "conventions of the estates of the realm were regarded as quite distinct from the Parliament" etc. I think this section should be removed as it refers to something conceptually different, either that or give a full explanation of how it is different.--Utinomen (talk) 09:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I have removed this section as it is clearly inaccurate, it was not a parliament - as supported by the reference noted above.--Utinomen (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There are two sources on this page that claim that it was a parliament, and rather than deleting information I think it better to explain that different sources have different opinions if this earlier assembly was an parliament or some other type of assembly. Therefore I am going to revert the changes until we can agree more suitable woring. Your argument about changes in parliament are in my opinion not relevant, as parliament as an institution is continually evolving, indeed the House of Lords is today closer in composition and design to that of Oliver Comwell's than than it is to the House of Lords under the last Conservative Government! -- PBS (talk) 12:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * the sources are not specifically about the subject in question, and as indicated above, I repeat "conventions of the estates of the realm were regarded as quite distinct from the Parliament". This surely is now WP:Synthesis--Utinomen (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the un-sourced and dubious templates added to the "Convention Parliament of 1399". Both sentences are directly supported by the sources given:
 * Not specifically in source: Source says first paragraph of the GLORIOUS REVOLUTION "(as did the two preceding convention parliaments of 1399 and 1660);"
 * dubious: "The Assembly ... though summoned by the Kings writ, was not opened by his commission" --PBS (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The first source is an encylopedia entry on another subject (Glorious Revolution) and is making a comparison. Please provide a source about the subject itself. The templates also highlights that because it is an assembly of the estates of the realm to call it Parliament would seek to give the false impression to the reader that it was in someway comparable to those Parliaments listed later in article. Please do not remove the template until the matter is resolved.--Utinomen (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want a source that the assembly was a parliament? or look at the Wikipedia article on Richard II of England it too provides a source that the assembly was a parliament. -- PBS (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The issues are 1)whether it is a parliament 2)whether it is correct to style it a Convention Parliament - obviously this is dependent on 1)
 * The Encyclopedia Britannica (15th edition) makes no claim that the 1399 assembly is either a parliament or a convention parliament, 29:41 talks of assembly before parliament. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004) in its entry on Henry IV again talks of before parliament could meet and his first parliament being in October 1399, and its entry on Richard II talks of assembly. May McKisack The fourteenth Century 1307-1399 (1954) states it was an "assembly of the states of the realm" "not siting in forma parliamenti" p494. Henry Gerald Richardson and  George Osborne Sayles  The English Parliament in the Middle Ages (1981) states it was a "meeting as an assembly of the estates of the realm" p55. The sources are indicating it was not a proper parliament. Your The Encyclopedia Americana comparison reference above is from 1903, it is out of date, just out of interest then, does a recent edition continue to give that line? The 2 references you have given make a comparison, they are not studies or topics dealing with the actual period.
 * The sources indicate it is not a parliament therefore it is wrong to use that title. The sources do not style it a "convention parliament", indeed having indicated it was a not a proper parliament it would be a bit of a contradiction to do so! It is not a Convention Parliament like the Irish Convention 1660, the English Convention 1660 or the English Convention 1689. To claim otherwise is to make WP:original research based not on a number of sources dealing with the period and personages, but on a one-line comparison.Therefore the section should be removed.--Utinomen (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(made spelling corrections --Utinomen (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC))

None of the conventions parliaments were "proper parliaments" that is why they are called convention parliaments! The thing is that it does not matter how many sources highlight that it was an irregular parliament, that is something that can be discussed in the section. There are sources that describe the assembly as a parliament. Sources have been presented that do call it a convention parliament. Books that tend to be accessible to Google search tend to be ones that are out of copyright, but that does not invalidate their content. There are books that describe the assembly as a parliament and there are books that describe it as a convention parliament. There are books that explain that the convention parliaments of 1660 and 1689 are not "proper parliaments" also exist by you are not claiming that they should not be listed here because of that. Historians use labels to describe parliaments, such as the Short Parliament, Long Parliament, Rump Parliament, Barebones Parliament, but if they were ever used by contemporaries they were nicknames.

The details of the assembly that met in 1399 are laid out in several of the books accessible through a google book search (I have already referenced Freeman (2008) [1872] The Growth of the English Constitution from the Earliest Times p. 132. Already but here are three more: C.H. Parry The Parliament and Councils of England, chronologically arrange pp. 155,156 and here is a more detailed one Maurice Hugh Keen (2003) England in the later Middle Ages: a political history pp. 242,245 and Henry Richardson The English Parliament in the Middle Ages pp. 55,56''. So it was the same assembly of men (under what ever name one wishes to give it that met in 1399 as the last parliament of Richard II as assembly (under whatever name it is called and as Henry II's first parliament. The point is that one can give different names to the assembly and this is done in different books.

Noel Cox (LLM (Auckland); Barrister of the High Court of New Zealand; Lecturer in Law, Auckland Institute of Technology) (1999) The law of succession to the crown in New ZealandWaikato Law Review, explains why we have this anomaly: "The first formulation of the doctrine of the demise of the Crown dates from some time between 25 and 29 September 1399. This doctrine was held to invalidate the parliamentary writs that had been issued by the authority of the former king. The last Parliament of Edward II had become the first of Edward III, and a new Parliament was afterwards called on the demise of the Crown without the issue of writs until 1867. Thereafter there was to be no interregnum on the death of one king, and the succession of the next."

Usually the Parliamentary interregnum between monarchs is not a legal problem because there is nothing that needs to be done. But in the case of the three periods discussed in this article there was a need for an assembly whatever it is called to act. That these assemblies were no regular parliaments, does not seem to be in dispute. We are only arguing over the 1399 name and it is clear that some sources describe the assembly of september 1399 as as parliament, some describe it as a convention parliament and others describe it as an meeting of the "estates of the realm". However all the detailed accounts state that whatever the assembly was called it had been summoned as a parliament by a writ issued by Richard but it had not been opened by his commission as he had been deposed and it was held that this had the same affect on the parliament as the death of a monarch. So why the "[dubious – discuss]" flag?

Secondly the first sentence has a source that I quoted above your argument for keeping it there is "The templates also highlights that because it is an assembly of the estates of the realm to call it Parliament would seek to give the false impression to the reader that it was in someway comparable to those Parliaments listed later in article. " As the members of the assembly were summoned as a parliament, and exactly the same members were re-summoned (a week after meeting, without new elections) how is it misleading? It is more misleading to overemphasis (a legal detail) that the assembly was anything else but a parliament.

I am in favour of expanding the section to explain these details. Indeed the sentences I put into the section were an expansion and there is nothing in them that warrants the flags you have put on them. Perhaps either you can expand the section put in in more details that you think are relevant.

A search of Google scholar on [parliament "September 1399"] Throws up lots of references, but of course access to most of them is restricted, however the snippets are shown and there may be a way out of our dilemma:
 * Legitimacy and Consent: Henry IV and the Lancastrian Title, 1399-1406 by P McNiven - Mediaeval Studies, 1982 - Brepols Publishers states "Although few historians now consider that the assembly was a parliament, it is nevertheless true that on 30 September 1399 Henry faced a gathering of men which could be said to represent 'the people of England', for the purpose of giving consent to a change of ruler,"

--PBS (talk) 01:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * But your comments agree that it was an assembly, not parliament!!! The assembly of 1399 is not commonly known as a Convention Parliament, you are trying to make a case for it to be so included which is clearly WP:original. If you are going to include this then next you could say barons discussing whether to accept John as King was Convention Parliament 1199! And what about the parliaments of 1461 and 1470 you might as well chuck them in as well!--Utinomen (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would not suggest that any of the other parliaments/assemblies (or whatever) were included unless there were sources that suggested that they were convention parliaments. This is not a case of OR because we have sources that call the assembly a parliament and others that call it a convention parliament-- PBS (talk) 04:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am putting the matter to No_original_research/noticeboard.--Utinomen (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This refers to a section of this article: Convention_Parliament_(England). Editor dispute on talk page here: Talk:Convention_Parliament_(England). Dispute is between myself and editor PBS (I will notify him that dispute is being put here). After unresolved discussion on talk page I contend that "Convention Parliament of 1399" is OR.

WP I refer to:

No_original_research V
 * Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are engaging in original research
 * Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources
 * Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources.
 * Tiny-minority views need not be included
 * claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions
 * Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources

My argument that it is OR. There are two related issues:

A Whether that entity which met on 1399 to depose Richard II (hereafter just "1399") is a parliament; B whether it is a Convention Parliament (and by Convention Parliament this is understood to mean as with Ireland 1660 / England 1660 / England 1689)

A. It is my understanding of the sources that the entity which meant on 1399 was summoned as a parliament under writ of Richard II but never actually undertook the role, rather it was an "assembly of the estates of the realm". Undoubtedly in times past some people may have considered that assembly to be a parliament (as with the C.H. Parry reference given by PBS - from 1839, and note my comment below about muddle in perception) as they did not necessarily have access to the sources that modern historians have. To use a quote provided by PBS "few historians now consider that the assembly was a parliament". There seems no argument for claiming that 1399 was a Parliament - unless of course you are an editor claiming that it was a Convention Parliament

B The contention that 1399 was a Convention Parliament is based on two tertiary sources (which are also used by the editor to support A):
 * Encyclopedia of American civil liberties edited by Paul Finkelman 2006 and note listing is about Glorious Revolution and not comment on the period or personages of 1399
 * The Encyclopedia Americana - 1903, out of date and replaced by later editions.

These contentions do not appear in secondary sources (or other tertiary sources?), and the basis of their contention is not clear. (My own OR is that somewhere down the line they are based on a conflation of an interpretation of Lord Somers's allusion to 1399 with that of convention; this reference, ironically given by PBS,  'The Deficiency of Conventions'p310- quite adequately explains difference between conventions and parliaments and how they became muddled in perception over time.)

In summary, there are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a parliament, instead they indicate an assembly, or a convention in the sense of a meeting of some sort but not that of a Convention Parliament. There are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a Covention Parliament. Therefore it is OR, to create or maintain an article called Convention Parliament of 1399, which creates the idea that 1399 is the same to what are commonly under stood to be Convention Parliaments (Ireland 1660 / England 1660 / England 1689), a claim which ultimately rests on two tertiary sources. --Utinomen (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The place to discuss this in detail is at Talk:Convention Parliament (England)/Archive 1. However to answer two point raised here "1903, out of date and replaced by later editions. ... In summary, there are no modern secondary sources given for 1399 being a parliament"
 * I checked the current edition of The Encyclopedia of American Civil Liberties, Routledge; 1 edition (October 10, 2006), ISBN-10: 0415943426 using Amazon's web site and page 690 has in it exactly the wording as the 1903 edition. There are plenty of sources that describe the assembly as a parliament, although I agree that they tend not to be the ones that go into the case in detail for example here is one from the UK parliamentary website: Birth of the English Parliament Magna Carta (1215) to Henry IV (1399) "Parliament deposed Richard II and Henry IV's reign started", and here is another Ronald H. Fritze, Historical dictionary of late medieval England, 1272-1485 Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002 Page 164 "Aside from deposing Richard II, the PARLIAMENT of 1399".
 * The discussion is a technical one (similar to how many angels can dance on a pin head) and I suggest we carry it on on the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 02:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

This has now been removed as no longer applicable to this article. If editors are able to provide reliable sources to substantiate the matter then it can easily be recreated as a new article from the Disambiguation page--Utinomen (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Another source: "Otherwise we shall find ourselves in the predicament of Gaillard Lapsley when, having committed himself to the view that the assembly summoned for September 30, 1399, was not parliament but a "convention of estates," he was confronted with the most positive evidence that it was termed a parliament by contemporaries. We must frankly recognise and accept the anomalies of medieval procedure, not least the anomalies of of the revolutionary parliaments of 1327 and 1399"

- Richardson & Sayles 1981 p.23



This sources is informative:

-- PBS (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Proposed split July 2010
In light of the unilateral action by editor PBS whereby the page was split apart, and renamed without even an attempt to seek consenus, I am proposing that the page be formally split apart and that the 3 sections be made into separate pages like Irish_Convention_(1660) which was orginally part of this article. All the articles would be under the Convention_Parliament disambiguation page. --Utinomen (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for a split. The page is nowhere near the size where it needs it. If in the future the page grows in size than it can be turned into a summary style page as it will still be necessary to have such a page to explain what an English convention parliament is. -- PBS (talk) 02:11, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But there was no need for the previous split on those grounds.--Utinomen (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The others were not English Parliaments. -- PBS (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is them being English got anything to do with it? and as above the 1399 so called example is not even a Parliament.--Utinomen (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * None of them were legally "proper parliaments" all of these three have been called parliaments in reliable sources. As I said above it will still be necessary to have such an article page such as this to explain what an English convention parliament is and when the sections get large enough they can be forked off into new article and this can remain a summary style articles . -- PBS (talk) 21:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, What is them being English got anything to do with it? Plus, there is a fundamental difference between those of 1660 and 1689.--Utinomen (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted you bold split as there is no consensus for such a split. -- PBS (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Convention 1689 has now been split into its own expanded article with link from dab.--Utinomen (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC) This now Convention 1660--Utinomen (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You made a bold move and edit I have reverted it. Please show a consensus for the changes you have made and I have reverted. You will notice that I have put main into the appropriate section 1689 section. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus not to complete the split you started.--Utinomen (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted you bold move for a second time. There is a procedure to follow if you wish to move a page where a bold page move has been reverted. See WP:RM if you move the page again without following the procedure it is likely that it will be seen as disruptive. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * But you yourself did not follow that procedure in the first instance! You still have not provided a substantive reason not to continue the split you started: was Englishness a consideration for all the parliaments in question? No. Could it be then that the consideration was to do with the monarch, exactly the same as in Ireland and Scotland?! And quite obviously each article will explain what they are. As for articles can be "forked off" - you already created a disambiguation page to do just that! As you have indicated that you are likely to find the splits and move "disruptive" then I will take the matter to WP:RfM--Utinomen (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not to a WP:RM? -- PBS (talk) 21:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You never offered WP:RM when you first moved the page. No satisfactory or justified reason was given for the first move. However, a move now can be justified because it would be logically coherent, i.e either all on one page or all from a disambiguation page. Also no justifiable reason has been given for retaining 2 conventions on this page rather than separately from the dab. There is no inherent connection between the English Convention (1660) and the English Convention (1689). The English Convention (1660) is much the same as the Irish Convention (1660) - they both restore the monarch, and the English Convention (1689) is much the same as the Scottish Convention (1689) - they both change the monarch. Englishness has absolutely nothing to do with it.--Utinomen (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the split tag. Given the size of this article, splitting it into 3 would result in three stub articles. AnthonyUK (talk) 16:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

October 2010
I wish to add the further reading section two primary sources:


 * (alternative site, using an edition published in 1930)


 * (alternative site, using an edition published in 1930)

Any objections -- PBS (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Not to the references themselves, but this particular form of citation, which Wikipedia seems to be promoting across all areas of itself, still makes me flinch. It isn't used academically in the UK for history, surely? Moonraker2 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is the result of using the standard cite book template, and it is as standard as anything else in this field. Do you have any other suggestions? -- PBS (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)