Talk:Stuart Restoration

Much-loathed sfn

From the history of the aricle:

• 18:11, 26 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (reverted most of the last edit, standardised citations removed {{Periods in English History}})
• 18:49, 26 April 2012‎ Johnbod (revert undiscussed change of citation style to the much-loathed sfn)
• 10:24, 27 April 2012‎ Philip Baird Shearer (There is no need to discuss it; naked urls and inconsistency in citation style is contrary to the advise in the guideline. But to make you feel better about it use replaced {{sfn}} with <ref>{{harvnb}}</ref>) (undo)

What does "much-loathed sfn" mean? -- PBS (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

"Much-loathed sfn" is a good example of a formation in passive voice, begging the question, loathed much by whom? (Also, no idea what it is.) Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Introductione

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The usage of the word "restored"..

"The Restoration of the English monarchy took place in the Stuart period. It began in 1660 when the English, Scottish and Irish monarchies were all restored under King Charles II. This followed the Interregnum, also called the Protectorate, that followed the Wars of the Three Kingdoms."

..is circular, because the word "restore" is already in the title. (Italics mine).-Inowen (nlfte) 23:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

@Inowen:It isn't circular due to the political nature of the Britain at the time; it's two different things. The Protectorate (the political state that Cromwell ruled) centralised and unified the British isles under one government (Cromwell). When the monarchy was restored, not only were the Stuarts restored to the throne(s) but the separate kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland were restored as political institutions. Alssa1 (talk) 00:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

They (England, Scotland, and Ireland) weren't "restored as political institutions." They weren't the things being "restored." The thing being restored was aristocratic government/monarchy and the name "Restoration" is the monarchy's own name for its own reclamation of power. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland were abolished when The Protectorate was created. Are you denying this? Alssa1 (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The nations of England, Scotland, and Ireland were not abolished, only the governments; "kingdoms" as you for some reason are calling them. Are you denying this? -Inowen (nlfte) 21:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I am denying what you say. The concept of nation did not really exist until long after the events of the civil war. The separate Kingdoms (although ruled by the same monarch) were the only manifestation of any independence between each at this time. This notional independence disappeared with the creation of Cromwell's Protectorate which, as I have said earlier "centralised and unified the British isles under one government". It is for this reason why the term "Restoration" has two meanings; the restoration of the Stuart dynasty to power and the restoration of the separate Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland the nominal independence they enjoyed. Alssa1 (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Its impossible to talk to someone like you, as you name nations and eras by the monarch of the time (we in democratic countries use nation names and universal dates), and you say that they "enjoyed" some "nominal independence" under some old autocratic monarch or other. The question I have is are you of "nominal independence" enough to criticize monarchy as a form of government, and the British monarchy specifically? If you can't criticize negatively, then all your edits about Britain and monarchy will be positive and therefore biased. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Restoration (and merge)

From the history of the article:

• 23:28, 13 March 2019‎ user:Srnec moved page Restoration (England) to The Restoration: has always redirected here anyway
• [snip]
• 16:17, 18 July 2019‎ user:PBS moved page The Restoration to Restoration (England) over redirect: revert recent move. Also see WP:AT#Avoid definite and indefinite articles the is not usually capitalised in sentence case involving "the Restoration"

I have also undone the merge that user:Srnec made between Restoration (1660) and this article (Restoration (England))

I see the article Restoration (1660) as a Summary style article with three more detailed articles about each of the politically separate kingdoms (and the English colonies):

• Restoration (1660) ~10k
  • Restoration (England) ~23k
  • Restoration in the English colonies ~5k
  • Restoration (Ireland) ~13k
  • Restoration (Scotland) ~50k

user:Srnec if you think merging is still a good idea then lets discuss it and see if there is a consensus to do so. -- PBS (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

"I have also undone the merge that user:Srnec made between Restoration (1660) and this article (Restoration (England))". Why on earth did you do that??? A clear fork. Then you raise it for discussion! Certainly they should be remerged. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Restoration (1660) is a summary article about the restoration in four distinct jurisdictions. What sort of content fork do you think it is? And if it is, then why not include Restoration (Scotland) as well -- as Scotland was to be the first kingdom to be amalgamated with England in 1707? -- PBS (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

It was more a restoration of four jurisdictions than in them. It's a content fork because it's a singular event. You cannot write of the things that took place without simply duplicating and it is indicative that nobody has tried, leaving Restoration (1660) just a glorified dab page. Of course, I support reverting both the page move and the de-merger. Srnec (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Indeed. I would also support merging Restoration in the English colonies back to the main article. The title should perhaps be English Restoration. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

@User:Johnbod The English were not subject to restoration the English monarchy was the subject of the restoration: hence the name Restoration (England) it could be "Restoration of the English monarchy" but that is usually shortened to "Restoration". -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually "English Restoration" is an entirely normal term and the one normally used by historians writing for international audiences, where "The Restoration" is used for domestic ones. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

@Srnec I think that you miss the point. There were three separate realms which happen to be in a personal union. For example each realm had to deal with different problems in their own way, eg all three Parliaments had to acknowledge the restoration in their realm, and they each had to pass acts of general pardon. Each differed in substance, eg only the English had to deal with regicides, and the after affects of the Civil Wars differed substancially in each realm. The largest article is the Restoration (Scotland) why would you want to place all of that text into an article along with the events that took place in England? It seems to me that you mindset is one of the English Civil War with periphery events in the other two realms, rather than the more modern Wars of the Three Kingdoms approach. A summary article in the form of Restoration (1660) is in concept similar to the article Wars of the Three Kingdoms with the details for each of the three realms separate (as is done with the war articles). -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

PBS, I think you are the one missing the point. The three kingdoms deserve their own articles. What we don't need is the "glorified dab page". The short paras on Scotland & Ireland should go here instead. Johnbod (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Major-General Thomas Harrison (General) in Cromwell's Army.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 8 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 18:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

---

The Restoration → Stuart Restoration – We need to distinguish from other restorations mentioned in Restoration#History. Stuart Restoration is just a suggestion, I'd be happy to support other title that is more precise than the current one. Vpab15 (talk) 17:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. Having recently had a couple of articles promoted in which the Restoration featured I am unaware of any reliable sources using "Stuart Restoration", could you give them. "Restoration" seems to be the consensus in the sources, in which case we should continue to emulate them. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • There are quite a lot of sources that use it (see [1]). Another alternative could be Restoration of the Stuart monarchy. Vpab15 (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• If it is going to be changed, then Restoration of the Stuart monarchy seems to me to be clearer, flow better, and fit better with the way other restorations are handled. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• I oppose that format based on WP:CONCISE and WP:CONSISTENT since the other monarch restoration articles use the format of "House Restoration" (Bourbon Restoration, Meiji Restoration, Manchu Restoration, Kenmu Restoration). Rreagan007 (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support per WP:NATURALDISAMBIG. There are a number of other "restoration" articles, and this is a good way to disambiguate, seeing as it is an alternative term that is used in reliable sources. It's also generally discouraged to start an article title with "The" (see WP:THE), so this move will solve both problems with the current title. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed addition of "Stuart" to the title. This event is commonly referenced by historians writing in English simply as "The Restoration." I would not object to a parenthetical clarification such as "The Restoration (1660)." A related consideration is that "The Restoration" references both this political event and the following cultural period from 1660 to 1689 in England. It seems to me that the cultural period deserves a separate article, perhaps titled "The Restoration (era)." The connection between these could be handled in a disambiguation note. Ftjrwrites (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The Restoration (1660) is less recognizable than using Stuart in the title. The Restoration (era) has the same lack of precision as the current title. Vpab15 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Disambiguating this title by date is a terrible idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Move (per nominator) to Restoration of the Stuart Monarchy or [The] English Restoration, provided that the lead clarifies that the more vague, but more common, terms "The Restoration" and "The Restoration of the Monarchy" are more common in actual usage. I would prefer one of the suggested titles as the phrase 'Stuart Monarchy' is clearer than 'Stuart restoration', but if we want a short name English does fine instead. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. Current setup is fine. Srnec (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The French refer to Both their restorations as 'The restoration', with a numeral; the Spanish refer their restoratation as 'the restoration', etc. Yes, the current title is fine for England and probably is the most common name for the topic; it's sort of the point of disambiguation that multiple subjects share a common title. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 14:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Support doesn't seem to be the primary topic or the most common name outside of contexts where English history is the implied topic. On Google Scholar search, I see English Restoration, Stuart Restoration, and Restoration of Charles II all in use. Based on n-grams [2] my first vote is Restoration of Charles II, but all three are an improvement. 75.162.124.147 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support. The current title is far too vague. At the very least, a parenthetical should be added to help disambiguate the article.--Woko Sapien (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Rreagan007. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:47, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.