Talk:History of the United Kingdom

Move
Moved from Britain to keep in line with other projects such as U.S. History and France, History. Denis Cavanagh 10:06, 16 December 2007 (CST)

England
The introduction seems wrong to me - I've never heard of 'prehistoric England', and that country, when it did come into existence, certainly did not control the rest of the island from the outset (Scotland was a separate country until 1707). Not quite sure how to reword, though. Another problem is the title 'Elizabethan Britain' - there was no such place, as Elizabeth I was Queen of England but not Scotland. John Stephenson 06:01, 2 June 2008 (CDT)
 * I'll fix some of it. Richard Jensen 07:30, 2 June 2008 (CDT)

Poor conceptual issues in this article
Nowhere is there any proper discussion of political and legal territorial changes, in particular those relevant to the long debate on at Elizabeth II concerning the correct name for the country (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) and how the declining fortunes of the Empire led to those changes. If you want to start an articles on something with gaps left in it, then fine: but it is not fine to set out the entire structure and ignore basic concepts. It needs to be rethought conceptually how to manage this properly. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 06:52, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

Honestly Martin, if you disagree with something change it yourself. It gets draining when all you ever hear is criticism. Denis Cavanagh 07:46, 3 June 2008 (CDT)


 * It is the role of editors to guarantee standards on CZ. Some editors write a lot, others do not. As I am very busy writing things every day for my work, it is a bit tiring for me to write much on CZ as well. My comments were directed at Richard, who has refused to accept the political and legal realities that there is no coherent entity called Britain. I am sorry if you feel offended, Denis, but I think this is a serious issue. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 10:57, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

I'm not offended Martin, just weary. I was the one who moved most of this article from the 'Britain' article and added a little on Lloyd George and post WWII. Other users have done the rest. This article is small and will grow, but it doesn't help when somebody stands over you with a whip telling you to get to work! Denis Cavanagh 11:20, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

Although I must add, you do have a point. The same structure has been taken for other articles like the polish or french history articles. It generally helps to get the framework up for a large survey article like this, and the trickier conceptual arguments belong to their own article. (A broad survey would largely talk about Kings, castles, wars, political reforms etc. rather than go into detail about the abstractions.) Denis Cavanagh 11:29, 3 June 2008 (CDT)
 * The intention was not to stand over with a whip, but to point out that a basic issue of "what is Britain?" is missing. If it helps, I can promise to add a section on citizenship and nationality changes in the post-colonial period, which seems central in terms of the history of Britain and its identity. I cannot do it before July, though. What is also needed is something about reconfiguration of territory in the post-colonial phase, which is basically post-1945. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:16, 3 June 2008 (CDT)

Abandoned article?
I am not a history student but I feel ashamed that this article has been left in this unfinished and patently inadequate state. Apart from its multiple gaps and omissions, it is  depressingly light on sources and evidence, and gives a general impression of academic arrogance. Surely the subject deserves something better? Are there no CZ British historians ?Nick Gardner 22:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's inadequate, but I feel we also need to establish what it's about. The opening seems to confuse Britain with British Isles, and mentions Ireland - but as it goes on it becomes confined to Britain　and, increasingly, England. Material may have to be moved to other articles so that 'history of Britain' focuses mostly on that island, at least until the establishment of its political constituents. Arguably as well it should be 'history of Great Britain', as 'Great Britain' is the name of the island. John Stephenson 06:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick, quite a lot of articles on CZ are haphazard and barely started. It is a construction site after all. Denis Cavanagh 13:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's okay with me if the article is moved to History of Great Britain. CZ:Naming Conventions states that this should be the proper name of the article anyway.  Russell D. Jones 14:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If what you are saying, Denis, is that if only I am patient I will find that CZ historians will continue the construction work, in due course, I should be content to stand back and wait. If so, I hope you will forgive my impatience.  Anyway, in the meantime  I have drafted in two paragraphs concerning prehistoric and Celtic life, and I have altered the opening section to define what seems to me to be the appropriate  scope of the article.  Although there are obvious differences between the histories of Ireland and of Great Britain, their histories are so interwoven (up to the end of the 19c) that it does not seem sensible to try to disentangle them.  I hope the CZ historians will find what I have done helpful.  If I should decide to attempt any further drafting, I will try to resist the danger of a pro-English bias.


 * I have no opinion about the choice of title provided that it is not obviously inconsistent with that scope (after all - as Norman Davies points out in The Isles - a certain amount of terminological confusion seems unavoidable). Nick Gardner 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I was merely saying that there an awful lot of articles on CZ like this, its not that they are 'abandoned' exactly, but that there aren't enough people here to write them. And your doing a good job, hope it didn't seem like I was suggesting otherwise! Denis Cavanagh 17:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Revised structure
I have now set up what I hope is a usable structure for this article - that is to say a structure that will enable people to make ad-hoc contributions to the article while taking account of its developing balance - and without having to undertake any unwanted commitment to the article as a whole.

I have also set up a fairly comprehensive timeline with a view to its use as a means of avoiding tedious cataloguing of events in the main article, and as a way of providing links to the sources drawn upon in the main article.

I expect to put forward a few further chunks of drafting from time to time, and I hope that others will do likewise - Nick Gardner 11:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Although it may appear otherwise, I have not (so far) deleted text, but merely hidden it. Nick Gardner 14:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

As the drafting has progressed, I have been able to crystallise my approach to the problem of collapsing into one article the vast volume of data that constitutes the history of Britain. I have considered the solution of making it simply an index to a large number of subsidiary Citizendium articles - which is the approach that is mainly used in U.S. History but at the present rate of progress, there is no prospect that that approach would serve the reader well at any time in the near future. It occurred to me that an article that gave the reader a broad appreciation of the developments that have played a significant part in the creation of Britain as it is now  might be useful to some categories of reader. So, in the main article, I have tried to envisage the reader as a busy visiting martian who is looking for guidance about the happenings that contributed to the creation of Britain as it is now, without distracting material about transitory developments, however they may have been at the time. I have tried to meet the needs of those who want an index to more detailed material by using the timelines subpage for that purpose. I envisage that in the fulness of time the external links in those pages would be supplemented, or replaced by, internal links to CZ articles. Also, I plan to use the Addendum subpage to provide statistical data in support of statements in the main article.

I have put forward this explanation because I realise that I have stumbled as an outsider into an approach that differs from that used in other CZ history articles, without consulting existing history authors or editors. Should this give rise to serious objections from professional historians, I should feel bound to withdraw and leave the field to them. If so, I do ask to be told as soon as possible. - Nick Gardner 10:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is still developing, so no objections here about that. I'll point out, though, that the article does start out talking about the British Isles generally, but by the section on Anglo-Saxons has narrowed itself to the History of England.  I also noticed that the sections are getting longer (Tudors, for instance, is over twice as long as earlier sections, perhaps rightfully so, but the trend bodes ill for the future sections).  I agree with your analysis of the problem Nick.  The topic is so huge that it would be impossible to write a short article on it (some multi-volume works probably don't do it justice).  So (I think) these over-arching articles would serve us and readers better as introductions and portals to a variety of more detailed subtopics.  Howard struggles with this same issue with the Vietnam War group of articles. Russell D. Jones 12:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I'm open to suggestions about happenings in Ireland during that period that are relevant to the outcome.  I'll consider shortening the Tudors paragraph, but offhand I can't think what can be left out that isn't essential to an understanding of what is to follow. Nick Gardner 13:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (Parenthetically and professionally I was struck by the periodization schema used, i.e., royal succession. U.S. historians use a schema called the "Presidential Synthesis" in which periods of time are broken up by presidential administrations.  It was modeled on the British historians' use of royal succession as an explanatory schema, but it strikes me now how arbitrary and artificial royal succession is as an explanatory schema when I had previously thought it rather natural [probably because I had never given it much thought].  But it does seem to make more sense to have longer periods of time [i.e., Georgian England] than four/eight year administrations to explain trends.  Russell D. Jones 12:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC))
 * Point taken, there's a lot of overlapping between reigns. I'll bear it in mind as I continue drafting. Nick Gardner 13:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nick, I'm not suggesting any changes here at all. Just pointing out a difference between British and US historians.  Russell 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rename?
I have no idea when "Britain" came into being, but I'll bet it wasn't until the modern era (post 1500); and I think the "Britons" are different from the "Brittish," (no? I never use the term "Briton" to refer to modern-era "British"; am I wrong?) and neither (or maybe one might) include the Celts, Picts, Jutes, Angles, Danes, Normans, Saxons, Irish, Welsh, or Scots. So, having stirred the pot, what exactly is "Britain, History" about? What is "Britain" in this context? It seems this article is more about the History of the British Isles or (nod to Winston Churchill) the History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Is a page rename in order? Russell D. Jones 00:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Russell: Fascinating! Your point is well taken, but you raise a question to which, I fear, there is no entirely satisfactory answer. To paraphrase  Churchill, all I can really say in defence of the title  is that "all the alternatives are worse"! There is a 7-page examination of the problem by the historian Norman Davies, who then evades the issue by adopting "The Isles" as the title of his 1999 history. But to follow his example would cause Googlers unnecessary suffering!!


 * To get back to your point, the Oxford English Dictionary defines "Britain" as
 * The proper name of the whole island containing England,Wales and Scotland, with their dependencies, more fully called Great Britain, now also used for the British state or empire as a whole
 * and adds an explanation that partially supports your point
 * After the Old English period, "Britain" was used only as a historical term until about the time of Henry VIII and Edward VI when it came again into practical politics in connection with efforts made to unite England and Scotland; in 1704 Janes I was proclaimed "King of Great Britain", and this name was adopted for the United Kingdom at the union in 1707 ...
 * As you may know, the term "Briton" (sometimes spelt "Brython") was the name of a Celtic tribe believed to have been among the country's earliest inhabitants, which is probably why the Romans called the place "Britannia". "Briton" is nowadays treated as synonymous with "British" although it is considered an old-fashioned or poetical term (as used, for example in the song "Rule Britannia"), and you are right to suggest that many Englishmen prefer to call themselves English. However,to use that word to refer to all of the country's inhabitants is guaranteed to bring forth howls of protest from the Scots. Unfortunately, "English-speaking" is too  broad because it would include Australia and Canada (and I hear that a version of English is still used in the United States ?!) - and I  understand that the word "England" did not come into use until around 700 to 800 AD. To meet your point as far as I can, I propose to alter the definition to "An account of some of the happenings that have influenced the development of the country now known as Britain" and to add something of the sort to the opening paragraph  -  unless someone comes up with a better alternative. Nick Gardner 08:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What did George Bernard Shaw say about BE and AE language variants? "A single culture separated by a common language?"
 * Do you like the title "Britain, History?" Russell D. Jones 13:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was there when I started and I have yet to hear a decisive reason for changing it. Nick Gardner 16:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would like to join in here, but I'm having difficulty making any sense of what you're saying :) D. Matt Innis 17:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you find difficult? I am saying that I believe the existing title to be  a sufficiently good indication of the content of the article that it should enable readers to find what they are looking for. Anything that meets that criterion is OK by me. (Although a search for semantic perfection is an interesting pastime, I think it is more important to spend time on the content of the article.)  Nick Gardner 05:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm American. I was just playing along with your humor ;-) Unless, of course, it wasn't meant as humor! D. Matt Innis 17:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was slow of me, Matt! - and I do now appreciate the joke. It's good to share a chuckle - that is something we do have in common. Nick Gardner 20:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Another American here. I don't know much about Britain, England, or any of that, but I think that the article is describing the history of all three countries (England Scotland and Ireland) is it not? If so, shouldn't the article be titled History of the British Isles?Drew R. Smith 11:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The article is about "the happenings that have contributed to the creation of the country now known as Britain". An article about the British Isles would have to include the history of Ireland after its independence from Britain, which is excluded by that definition. Nick Gardner 12:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, good point. Like I said, I don't know much about it, just thought I'd stop by and offer my 2 cents. Drew R. Smith 12:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Ehm, excuse my ignorance, but what country is "Britain"? What is the difference between "Britain" and "Great Britain" here? I've certainly heard "Britain" used (in fact, nobody I know talks about "Great Britain" in normal conversation) but is that not just a short-hand version of the official title "Great Britain"? Not being an expert in British history overall (though very familiar with the Anglo-Saxon period), perhaps I'm missing some really basic thing. After all, the article "Great Britain" on CZ links to this article here.


 * Another organizational quibble I have is about the earlier history of England. I find it somewhat misleading to divide the "Old English period into "The Saxons" and "The Vikings" as if the latter replaced the former. The confusion is aided by the dates included in brackets. The "Saxon period" did not end ca. 800. It ended in 1066. Perhaps the titles and some of the text can be changed to provide a better introduction of the Viking raids and their influence on the forming of England? Michel van der Hoek 13:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to offer on this point. I certainly did not intend to suggest that the Saxons were wiped out by the Vikings - or, for that matter, by the Normans; nor that no Normans remained when the Plantagenets ruled. I have considered various ways of breaking the text into paragraphs that would not interfere with its readability,  and all that  I have been able to come up lack semantic precision in some respect.  I have come to the conclusion that there is no entirely, unobjectionable solution to the problem -  and that, in any case, the readability of the text is far more important than the semantic precision of the paragraph titles. If you know of a solution that avoids conflict between those two objectives, please go ahead and implement it.  Nick Gardner 21:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How about sub-subheadings? You could mark the entire period between Romans leaving and 1066 something like the "Anglo-Saxon period" and then divide in 1. Early Anglo-Saxon England, 2. Viking Raids and settlement, 3. Late Anglo-Saxon England. Or any other sub-subtitles. Michel van der Hoek 03:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection.Nick Gardner 05:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * By the by, whoever added that phrase "As far as I am aware the term "Great Britain" is a pedantic version of "Britain", used in official documents etc." in my earlier comment, is not playing by the rules. I have deleted that comment as it was not mine. Please refrain from editing inside of other people's comments. 03:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It was my answer to your question.Nick Gardner 05:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that we actually have such a "rule", but I agree that it can get confusing to intersperse comments within others because it disrupts the signature and date feature. D. Matt Innis 03:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I did implement the discussed reorganization of the Anglo-Saxon period since no-one objected. I'm not sure the subheadings work, especially because the first one makes the TOC rather awkward. Feel free to rename etc. Some of the material might need to be shifted between the sections to make the cut-offs work better (closing the seams of my "surgery"). (BTW: I did sign my previous post and immediately noticed my name did not appear and was somewhat confused but too lazy to fix it...) Michel van der Hoek 20:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This article should be renamed to reflect the history of the country, rather than specifically an island of that country. I note that there is an article on the history of Canada, as opposed to an article on the history of North America. The article appears to be about the country, and even states "country" in the title, even though it names that country incorrectly. I will attempt to make improvements until such time as the article name itself is changed. --Mal McKee 18:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No sensible reader will be in any doubt as to the identity of the country that is the subject of this article, so I am reluctant to devote time to debating alternative choices of title. But to use "The United Kingdom" to refer to the country as it  was before that term came into use is absurd, and  cannot be allowed to stand.   I suggest that if there is to be a change to its former wording, the opening sentence should read  "The history of "Britain", as presented in this article, is an account of some of the happenings that have contributed to the creation of the country now known formally as the "United Kingdom of Great  Britain and Northern Ireland". However, I am not a professional historian, so I intend to refrain from implementing that suggestion until  the matter is resolved by a ruling by a professional history editor  Nick Gardner 22:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You suggest that no "sensible reader" would be confused, but let me tell you that I am personally aquainted with a medical practitioner in the USA who is quite confused by many of the names and terms used in relation to the United Kingdom.


 * I don't see that it would be absurd to refer to the history of the region or territory of the country in its various states before it became the country it is now. It is equally absurd to refer to the country solely by the name of one of its major landmasses.


 * What I propose is no different from the concept of the articles on the histories of France or the Netherlands - both of which, as they now stand, describe the influence of such peoples as the Franks and both start with pre-history of the region and will undoubtedly included the changing territory that belonged to the countries as the nation states (and the very concept thereof) developed. The article we are discussing also goes into pre-history - into a time before the terms "Britain" or "Great Britain" came into use.


 * Commonly (mis)used terms are fair enough but an encyclopedia should be clear and unambiguous. "Britain" is an ambiguous term; "United Kingdom" (a less formal, but still common term) is less so. Equally, "Holland" is a common term, but the Netherlands is the more precise and unambiguous name. I honestly can't see any rational objection to changing the name of the article to "History of the United Kingdom" or "United Kingdom, history", or whatever the convention ends up being in Citizendium. --Mal McKee 23:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not going to suggest myself what name should be used, but I *would* like to point out that names do change as time passes. Nick, I believe, doesn't think "United Kingdom" could be used to describe the history of an area before that name actually existed.  But let's take as an example the United States Open (tennis) in tennis. Right now we don't have our own article on this, but Wikipedia does -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Open_(tennis).  Open tennis didn't begin until 1968, a long time ago, to be sure, but for geezers like me, who grew up with tennis *before* that date, the Open championships will always be "Forest Hills", the "West Side Club," or, their official name for 80 years or so, the United States National Championship.  What Wikipedia has done, and I imagine that CZ eventually will do the same thing, is to simply conflate the two, with, of course, many redirects.  So that WP can write something like, "Bill Tilden won the U.S. Open six times," when, of course, what Tilden was winning was the U.S. National Championship.  I myself, I *think* have written phrases like, "Bill Tilden won the U.S. Open six times, when it was known by its original name of so-and-so." Or "Bill Tilden won the U.S. National Championship, now known as the U.S. Open, six times."  More precise, but really quite pedantic.  I'm sure, with a little thought, that you can think of many similar examples.  So I myself would not rule out, out of hand, calling the article "United Kingdom whatever"....
 * Well, I think there is a difference between a simple change of name, and more substantial changes. There will always be a difference between the history of a region, and the history of various countries occupying parts of the region. In the end there should be articles on History of the British Isles (telling the common history and summing up how history split up later). There certainly should be an article on History of the United Kingdom (briefly mentioning the prehistory and then concentrating how this Kingdom evolved). There should also be separate articles on History of England and History of Scotland (and on Wales?), and on History of Ireland, as well as articles on History of Northern Ireland and History of the Republic of Ireland. I do not know where History of Britain fits in, but the present article looks like History of the British Isles (not yet complete). In any case, it should be "History of *", not "*, History". Peter Schmitt 00:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that last part, Peter. I'm open to logical suggestions as to why the ",history" convention should be kept though. Perhaps it was created with respect to alphabetical listing or something.


 * I don't see the need to create a separate article on "Britain" or "Great Britain" or the history therein - it would just be repeating information several times. Histories of the various states and sub-states is certainly understandable - although it would be repeating information, articles on the histories of the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man etc could all go into more specific and greater detail. Articles on Britain/Great Britain, Ireland and the British Isles should all probably be more geographical in nature and concise, with direction (links) to the various other articles. I don't see the need for articles on the histories of these geographical regions as the histories will already be included in the country articles, Republic of Ireland and United Kingdom. The article on North America is a geographical one, which includes concise information on the countries which exist there.


 * Hayford, your logic mirrors my own thinking on the subject. --Mal McKee 01:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a field in Metadata for alphabeticla order, introduced to be able to avoid titles like "Britain, History". As to repeating content: Since all these histories are rather involved, telling it from different viewpoints (territory, state(s)), and splitting it up helps to understand the structure of the development and to see the context. All on one page would make this page too long and too complicated. Peter Schmitt 01:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I had thought, Peter (re alphabetising).. but perhaps some people aren't aware of that functionality.

I see the sense in your suggestion, but I think the main articles on the countries and the histories thereof should probably take priority, and the other articles (British Isles, Ireland, (Great) Britain) confined mainly to geographical info. --Mal McKee 01:27, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree: It is up to the authors in what order topics are developed. However, to me (as a non-British outsider) this page, as it is, looks more like a summary of the development of the Isles (with some missing parts) than a treatment of (Great) Britain/United Kingdom. Peter Schmitt 01:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's probably because the history of the development of the isles into nation states is entwined and inseparable. You can't write an article about the history of the Republic of Ireland without mentioning some of the history of the United Kingdom, and vice-versa. It will probably become clearer once the article has been developed a lot more though. In the same sense, it would be hard to write a history of the USA without mentioning the United Kingdom of Great Britain. --Mal McKee 03:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When I took over the drafting of this article, I did not question the choice of title, because I took it to be accepted practice since it had been adopted by an editor who had been a  Professor of History. I did not feel qualified to question whether it was in fact accepted practice and I do not now feel qualified to debate the issue. I am convinced, in any case, that it is a waste of time to make it a subject of debate. Since the ex-professor is no longer available, I suggest that we seek and accept professional advice as to what is accepted practice from a history editor.Nick Gardner 10:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to see agreement among the active authors of this article about what the name should be. I initiated this thread because I think the term "Britain" is inexact.  I agree with Peter's logic above that there should be articles on both a geographical region as well as the political divisions within that region.  (Nick earlier rejected my suggestion of an article on the history of the English-speaking peoples.)  Nick, this article was not named by a Professor of history but by a student at Trinity College.  And we do seem to be reaching a meeting of the minds that this article needs a rename.


 * However, as Mal pointed out, we're running into the clunky naming convention. I also do not agree with the use of parenthetical modifiers ("comma History" or "comma Geography").  It is too old fashioned and does not use the technology to the best advantage.  I would prefer "History of Great Britain," History of the United Kingdom," or "History of the British Isles" to "Britain, History," or "Great Britain, History"  Since CZ has neither a master index nor a master table of contents such a naming convention is not needed.


 * However, debate on the naming convention was long and contentious on both the CZ talk pages and in the forum, and I have consented to let the convention rest pending a new Editorial Council. Any universal change in naming convention may well require the sanction of the EC.  But I will say this, you will not find resistance from me regarding a name change to any of the discussed "History of ..."'s.  Russell D. Jones 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Russell, were you here a couple of years ago when, as you say, the discussion was both long *and* contentious about naming conventions. On the one side, as I recall, was Professor Jensen. who both had his own ideas *and* was the leading contributor to "history" articles, so he was the one was initially naming most of them.  On the other side was Larry and just about everyone else.  Larry prevailed, as I recall, but by making a flat declaration that henceforth, at least in certain instances, title would be "thus and thus" and not "so and so."  I can't remember if that single decision was what impelled Prof. Jensen to pack up and leave, but he certainly took his departure around that time.  If we *do* decide to argue this again, before we do, let's see if someone can't go through the archives and find all the previous discussion -- it might save us a lot of time. Hayford Peirce 16:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hayford, if I was here, I was not very vocal in the debate. I'm under the impression that it was Jensen who advocated for the "Topic, subtopic" format.  But, you're right, research of the debate would refresh for us the nature of the decision.  Russell D. Jones 16:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See CZ:Naming Conventions. The third paragraph addresses this case explicitly.  See also the Typographical and stylistic rules which also bear on this.  CZ policy is to eschew punctuation in article titles unless required by the name of the topic (e.g., Absalom, Absalom!).  Russell D. Jones 17:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, I guess I'm not advocating a change in the naming conventions, and advocating a name change. Russell D. Jones 17:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As I recall, the final, major argument came when Prof. Jensen was campaigning for Gettysburg, Campaign of or some such, and everyone else wanted Battle of Gettysburg. The latter prevailed, but Prof. Jensen departed. Hayford Peirce 17:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there should be articles on both the Gettysburg Campaign and the Battle of Gettysburg.  Russell D. Jones 18:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Renamed
I renamed the article to be consistent with CZ:Naming conventions. Russell D. Jones 17:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)