This article was nominated for deletion on 28 October 2012. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Scotland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Wales Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WalesWikipedia:WikiProject WalesTemplate:WikiProject WalesWales articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Ireland Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Invasions of the British Isles received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

A fact from Invasions of the British Isles appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 October 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that England was invaded by the French in 1216? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/October.

I moved "Invasions of the British Isles" to "Invasions of the British Isles (2,000 BC-AD 1560)" because the page only covers invasions up to that year. DCI2026 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Medieval invasions of Britain
• Medieval invasions of the British Isles
• Invasions of the British Isles —Preceding unsigned comment added by DCI2026 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Invasions of the British Isles (2,000 BC-AD 1560) - current name DCI2026 (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why Anglo-Scottish conflict or the Wars of the Roses count as "invasions of Britain"? Invasion implies attack from outside. If it were invasions of England then the Anglo-Scottish wars would count. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Roses count because of the Tudor (re)invasion in the 1480-5 period, I guess. Not so sure about the Anglo-Scottish wars, presumably because of the Auld alliance? *shrug* - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 18:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I included the Anglo-Scottish wars part because both the English (Battle of Bannockburn, for example) and the Scottish (William Wallace; James IV at Flodden) invaded territories of each other. Thanks for inquiring. DCI2026 (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, Bannockburn was part of an invasion of Scotland, while Flodden was part of an invasion of England. But neither were invasions of Britain, which is what the article title is. I don't think the Anglo-Scottish wars should be included on this list. You could possibly add the Siege of Leith, which involved French troops, although they initially arrived at the behest of the Scots. So they weren't strictly speaking invading troops, but by the time of the siege they were treated as if they were. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also been puzzled by the inclusion of Wales & Scotland as powers that invaded the British Isles. Unless my geography is completely wrong, all three nations -- Wales, Scotland & the English -- are all on the same island. Which means none of them could invade the British Islands (with the exception of Ireland) any more than I could invade my house by walking from the bedroom to the living room. Anyone care to point out the mistake in my thinking here? -- llywrch (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title should be read as "of" in the sense of "Mountains of the British Isles" or "Castles of the British Isles"Monstrelet (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was the initial point I was making above. Monstrelet if I understand you right, you are saying that the title implies "Invasions within the British Isles". But I think this goes against the accepted meaning of "invasion" - surely as llywrch points out you can't invade Britain (or the British Isles) from within. The only way I can see to allow inclusion of Anglo-Scottish wars is to call the article "Medieval invasions of countries within the British Isles". Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 08:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a longer title is perhaps slightly more correct (but compare, Nazi Germany invaded Europe), I think I marginally prefer the brevity of the current arrangement. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not "Medieval invasions of Great Britain"? That way the article is clear it omits Ireland. And removing the sections about the Anglo-Welsh & Anglo-Scots wars would simply make it more compact. (And avoid the tar pit of arguing over which boundaries of Wales & Scotland to use: these fluctuated over the centuries, enough to attract unwanted nationalistic POV-pushers.) -- llywrch (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure boundaries is an issue here - an invasion is an invasion, it's all to do with perception. Would your proposed therefore include France->England; Viking->England and Scotland; Danish->England; presumably some mention of Tudor's reinvasion? Is that right? And nothing on Wales<->England, Scotland<->England or Anything<->Ireland? - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that actually matters what you mean by "of" (though I wasn't intending within) because what you are trying to get is a compact title to cover the various countries within the British Isles, rather than a long explanatory sentence. Great Britain is a political entity with no real relevance to the Middle Ages - it did exist as a concept but never an actuality - and I think the geographical term is preferable (and certainly more neutral). We did discuss whether the problem could be solved by separate articles on the different nations but the original requested article was to put them all together, so that is what currently exists. If it were to develop sufficient content, it could be split at a later date.Monstrelet (talk) 06:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the examples appear to be invasions of England. Given that Britain is only a geographical term at this time (the political entity being much later), is it better to entitle it Invasions of England? Failing that, to have separate sections on England, Scotland and Wales? Monstrelet (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To prevent the need to catalogue every raid, the article could do with a working definition of an invasion. I would suggest that an invasion has a strategic objective (conquest, regime change, annex territory) and involves significant forces which stay (or intend to stay) in Britain for a length of time (months, years, permanently). This would, for example, exclude many Anglo-Scottish raids, French raids on the English coast, Scandinavian raids on the Scottish coast and so on. Monstrelet (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support the attempt to define "invasions". However, I see very little easy way of cutting this cake. Invasions of England (and Wales?) in the period 1066-1485 I could understand - incorporating Wales when appropriate. Other articles are too washy to stand on their own I fear. But I forsee few arguments determining invasions of England/Wales in that period, if we agree that they must want to stay around for a while (conquer). - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with changing name. I named it "Medieval invasions of Britain" because it was on the list for articles to be created on the medieval warfare task force page. Maybe "Medieval invasions of England, Scotland, and Wales"? Although a little lengthy, more historically correct, I would think.DCI2026 (talk) 01:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Invasions of the British Isles would sound better, with major sections on England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. However, there could then be a question about whether it should be four separate articles. It might be a place to start though. A lot depends on how much folks are willing to put in to fleshing the sections out. Monstrelet (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval Invasions of the British Isles is fine with me.DCI2026 (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article lead defines Medieval for the purpose of the article as 793 - 1513. Artificial but you've got to have some way of dealing with woolly things like "Medieval". However, we now have content on the Rough Wooing, which is 1540s. Question : extend the date range or remove the section?Monstrelet (talk) 06:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, this may be my mistake as I didn't read the date range in the lead before adding the Rough Wooing. Apologies. I don't mind if the section is removed. Alternatively the date could be extended to 1603, the Union of the Crowns, which put an end to Anglo-Scottish warfare. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 07:16, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once we have the scope issues worked out, I would support changing this article to 1485, and having "Early modern invasions..." or somesuch as 1486 to 1707, perhaps. Just a thought. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 16:28, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps renaming the article yet again to "Invasions of Britain?" Long date range, but there are few invasions outside of this period with the exception of the Romans, Germanic tribes (Angles, Saxons, Jutes), Williamites, and the Jacobites. This would eliminate the many date range difficulties there have been so far.DCI2026 (talk) 00:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be fine with making a "parent" page titled Invasions of the British Isles and turning this article into one of many smaller articles. In that case, "medieval" could be defined as 1066-1485, and earlier invasions could be classified under "Dark Ages invasions" or "Ancient invasions." Anything from 1485 to the late 1700s-especially Jacobite or Scottish wars and the English invasions of Ireland-could go under "Early modern invasions."DCI2026 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any range is rather artificial. 1066 is useful for the Normans but cuts them off from the Anglo-Danish context. 1485 gives you Bosworth but misses Stoke in 1487, which is these days regarded as the last battle of Wars of the Roses and was, of course, an invasion. If you take it to 1497 you can deal with the Perkin Warbeck invasions of that year, which finally secure the Tudors. How about 1000-1500 in round figures?Monstrelet (talk) 06:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to be bold and expand it to all and any Invasions. Then, when it gets too long, we can do summary style and split bits off. Fell free to revert and discuss if you do not agree, but in the meantime, I think it's a useful starting point. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added sections about ancient invasions of England. Here are some sections I think are needed:

English Civil War
Jacobite invasions
English invasions of Ireland
Attempted French invasion of Ireland
Napoleonic Wars invasion "scares" DCI2026 (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly a bold edit. Just putting in the appropriate headings and main page redirects would be a sizeable article and, if it does get the editorial attention it deserves, it may yet prove to be too big to have approapriate quality control over. However, I will now flag it on the MILHIST main page, asking for input.Monstrelet (talk) 08:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, we're well placed to split bits off as and when required :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 13:13, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A recent edit has removed the date range from the lead paragraph. Is this the way people want to go? At present the only item beyond the date range of the end of the 17th century was a heading for the Battle of Fishguard. We would need much more extensive discussions of the Williamite wars and the Napoleonic French in Ireland and the Jacobite period in Scotland, all of which are more militarily significant and could mean considerable work. Or should we revert back to the older range and remove Fishguard? Is there someone willing to do the work? Monstrelet (talk) 09:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to add a large section about the Scottish Civil Wars, which included Irish and English invasions of Scotland, but the site I used as a reference, tagate.com, was blocked and my changes were not saved. I'm not sure why, but, if anyone is willing, could I please have a good reference on this topic? 65.26.67.222 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2010 (UTC) (in case an IP address shows up, I am the same as User:DCI2026)[reply]

Not sure why it was blocked, but it doesn't look like a particularly reliable source. I was going to say, check the article on Scotland in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms and sources quoted there, but there are only two, so that's not so much help as I had hoped. You might try Google Books [1] Thanks, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the page back to its more general title. My thinking is thus (please feel free to critique):

• Summary style involves having one general page, with increasing specific subdivisions
• There is no general page at the moment
• It doesn't matter that this page is incomplete, we have all day
• Therefore this page should be the fledgling general page, and can be split off at a later date. New sections (empty or sparse) can be added.

Regards, - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 19:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be grateful if we could stick with a generic title. Constantly switching titles with date ranges was making my head spin. 1560 wasn't a good cut off point for Ireland, with the significant Elizabethan invasions followed by the Spanish intervention to come before the end of the 16th. century. Monstrelet (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to "the insane emperor Caligula". The supposed insanity of Caligula has not been reliably confirmed. (See here.) tehblooguy (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inter alia, the repeated Irish invasions of Wales from (at least) the fall of Rome to (per the Brut) Iago ab Idwal and Einion ab Owain's joint 966 campaign against them and their Viking allies. (Yes, I could add that sentence, but hopefully some of you have more sources and could flesh it out some.) — LlywelynII 13:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Fishguard claims to be an invasion of Wales by the French; further, it has a redirect from Last Invasion of Britain. Similarly Teignmouth also claims to be the site of the last invasion of England. Should these, with their "last invasion of X" claims, be added to this article? Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:41, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of later items that would need to be added if the article is ever extended beyond 1560. The English Civil War has a number of examples, as do the Jacobite Wars. In terms of this article, the last invasion is probably the French invasion of Ireland in 1798.Monstrelet (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be pointed out, again, that the term "British Isles is not appropriate for this - or any - article featuring the histories of Ireland or Britain. There is no academic or logical justification for bundling both island's histories together as the islands that form the archipelago on the northern European continental shelf are clearly not one unit. It is wilfully misleading to suggest they somehow experienced historical events as one unit. Indeed, many of the invasions experienced by the diverse indigenous populations living within the archipelago occurred when the peoples living on one island invaded the other.

Congratulations to all our British nationalist editors who have patriotically renamed this from its original 'Medieval invasions of Britain' to 'Invasions of the British Isles'. Great to see the British still never miss an opportunity to discard historical truth and claim other people's lands as their own by using a term which only exists in the English language since an imperialist tract by John Dee claiming Ireland was written in 1577. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 13:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. Since Ireland is included in the article invasions of Britain would be incorrect and British Isles correct. Canterbury Tail talk 14:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Western European Isles" - You are from Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Netherlands & France. Plus the "Orginal Britons" The Celts (Kelti) and the people before them. Slán. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.157.170.90 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles is the correct geographical term, as was discussed here long ago. Britain would need a definition of which political entity we were talking about (which varies through time), which seems pointless.Monstrelet (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles" - This term is not formally recognised in Ireland. Overlooking the offence this term causes is not helpfulThere is no need to lump the invasions of Ireland in with the invasions of Britain. Is there an article on the invasions of France and Spain all lumped together? The "British Isles" is not a "territory". Finally, "The British Isles" is not a geographical term used in Ireland - it is not the correct term to use in any sense unless you are from Britain (and seem to think you own the world).

Ignoring the blatant POV, if the article is to be maintained as is, a viable, common use, alternative to the term "British isles" is needed. As I suspect there may not be one (the wikipedia British Isles suggests some but they're not really common use), perhaps the answer is to look at what the value of a single article on invasions into this geographical entity is. Articles on different modern nations within the archepelago might resolve some of the issues.Monstrelet (talk) 09:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@‎Monstrelet: To call the Celtic arrival in Britain an invasion is very questionable, as we do not know (1) how the Celts arrived, (2) if there were previous peoples there, or (3) how those arriving interacted with any previous inhabitants. Indeed, it appears that on WP there is already an agreement to call this a settlement: the "see also" template links to an article titled Celtic settlement of Great Britain and Ireland, not Celtic invasion.... Clean Copy^talk 16:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can be sure that there were people in the British isles before the Celts came. Where I do agree with you is the how and when parts. While there are clear cultural links in some parts of pre-Roman Britain with the continent (e.g. the chariot burials in Yorkshire relating to the Arras culture, the Belgic links mentioned by Caesar), to speak of these as invasions is on dodgy ground. Irish mythology does speak of waves of invaders, which could be referenced here, but by and large, it's all so hazy if it was up to me I'd just start with the Romans because we know where we are with them. However, at the moment we are stuck with a start point which insists we start with the Celts. I'd certainly support a new version where a Celtic background is summarised in a para and then into the first properly recorded invasions of the Romans.Monstrelet (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find a neutral wording in the sense of what you propose here. Clean Copy^talk 16:02, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sets the scene and deals with the uncertainties well. Thanks. Monstrelet (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viking invasions were conducted by what today qualifies as Danes and Norwegians. Individual Swedes may well have participated but you will be hard pressed to verify the existence of invasion forces from Sweden. Today's southern Sweden was at the time Danish land, populated by Danes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxthedog (talk • contribs) 10:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact evidence pointing towards the opposite of what you claim, that not only did individual Swedes participate in raids organized by Danish and Norwegian leaders, but there were Swedes setting out east on their own as well. See http://vsnrweb-publications.org.uk/Swedish%20Vikings%20in%20England.pdf. TylerBurden (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd that there's no mention in this article of 1715 or 1745. Both might be termed rebellions or civil wars - but if we're including Bolinbroke's rebellion or the Wars of the Roses, why not the Jacobites?

We're also missing mention of Anglo-Scottish invasions of the English civil wars (and the Bishops' Wars that preceded them). Chuntuk (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's because the original page only went up to the 16th century. An editor decided to extend this into the 18th century but then only added a couple of English items. So The Jacobites are missing, as are 17th century wars (Anglo-Scottish, Spanish in Ireland, Cromwell in Ireland, William III in Ireland) and the French Invasion of Ireland in 1798. Please add any you feel you have the knowledge/sources for. Monstrelet (talk) 12:09, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

conspicuously absent

Not a single mention of the Irish invasions and raids, especially of Scotland (named after Irish invaders), e.g. the establishment of Gaellic and the clan system. Or their capture of the young St Patrick to be. Or the predation of the Cornish by Irish raiders. Golly, what an comprehensive page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.37.240 (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some far-right nutters think that immigrants and asylum seekers coming to Britain is a bit like a military invasion, however The Guardian (along with all sensible people) think that this is bollocks.

OH COME ON NOW! Eradicate this crap from the article immediately!  Tewdar  19:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouting doesn't make for the most convincing arguments. TylerBurden (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My arguments:

(1) Not an invasion

(2) Only far-right nut jobs call this an invasion

(3) Source used says its not an invasion

(4) Not an invasion

(5) Nobody sensible will agree that this counts as an invasion

(6) Totally WP:UNDUE and highly dubious connection to article

(7) Not an invasion  Tewdar  19:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying it actually is an invasion, apart from the people you mentioned. That's why it is in a seperate section away from the actual invasions. The concept has been covered by a reliable source, so I don't see the issue with including it in this manner. TylerBurden (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let's have an accursed RfC then, and we'll see how many people agree with you that this ridiculous section is due for inclusion here, rather than at, say, Great Replacement.  Tewdar  19:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If that's want you want to do after two talk page messages, sure. TylerBurden (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't agree that this section should not be there, I honestly don't know what else to say to you.  Tewdar  19:30, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Start the "accursed RfC then", because that is what you brought up as soon as I offered a counter-argument. TylerBurden (talk) 19:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You want us to include something that you concede is not an actual invasion, in an article that's supposed to be about invasions, and call that a "counter-argument"?!?! And it's not in its own section anyway, it just follows on chronologically from the rest of the actual invasions. Why would anyone want to include this in the article?  Tewdar  19:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look! Tim Hortons, after announcing plans of an invasion, now has 25 restaurants in the UK! Quick, someone add it to the article! 😜  Tewdar  19:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is simply called "Invasions of the British Isles", I fail to see how that excludes concepts and would only focus on actual, historical invasions. This just seems like a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TylerBurden (talk) 19:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made particularly obvious by your absurd entrance into this dispute. TylerBurden (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There, I started an RfC. Now, we are going to be inundated by right-wing loons voting to remove it, and left-wing loons voting to keep it, in a shitty interminable debate that will last weeks and probably go nowhere, all for badly-worded content that nobody sensible would have added in the first place.  Tewdar  20:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very optimistic! I guess we'll see. TylerBurden (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I might be wrong -perhaps the fascists will want to keep it in...  Tewdar  20:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should this section, which consists solely of the following content:

Some far right and hate groups have attempted to conflate immigration and asylum seekers to a hostile military invasion in order to weaponise these issues and push for tougher more isolationist policies. This comparison does not stand up to scrutiny however and have been widely debunked.

Be included in this article?  Tewdar  20:02, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong no - content has nothing to do with this article, as it is not an invasion.  Tewdar  20:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - Relevant section and concept covered by reliable source, could also be expanded with other contemporary content. This article is not called ″Historical invasions of the British Isles″, it is simply called ″Invasions of the British Isles″. That is broad enough of a title for such content to be included. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong no - see Wikipedia:SOAPBOX. Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I have no doubt it may well be true, And no, this is about military invasions as I do not see anything about wallabies or Eastern gray squirrels. Or (come to that) any other wave of immigrants. Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it's a WP:COATRACK, supported only by an opinion article that correctly points out it is not an invasion. BilledMammal (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No Too fringe: Wikipedia:SOAPBOX and WP:COATRACK and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Certainly not consistent with the spirit and intent of the article. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No. The only source is an opinion piece (and an opinion piece that dismisses the idea, to boot!) All else aside, we can't use opinion pieces for statements of fact in the article voice. --Aquillion (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No-It should at least not appear in anything close to the manner in which it is written here. The sample provided is extremely partisan and completely out of conformity with WP:NPOV. Display name 99 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No - not an actual invasion.PrisonerB (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Rephrase ? - it may be an invasion in the sense of this article lists migrations beyond just military actions, i.e. neolithic, Bell beaker, Celtic, and Anglo-Saxon. But the separate section and phrasing here is just to insert a soapbox denial. If there is non-hyperbolic references to it as a mass migration or invasion, then neutral phrasing might fit. But not a section just to deny hyperbolic speeches. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not that it is 'contemporary'. The problem is that it isn't an invasion.  Tewdar  20:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it is discussed as the concept of an invasion, hence the reference, which also does a good job of making it clear that these thoughts are debunked. TylerBurden (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if we're including imaginary invasions, then, what prevents us from including the Tim Hortons invasion? I think we should stick to actual invasions, instead of imaginary ones.  Tewdar  20:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we both understand that those are two vastly different concepts. One is a controversial concept based on large amounts of immigration counting as "invasion", the other is a business expansion being reported on by "Food Business Views". Let's not be ridiculous. TylerBurden (talk) 21:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are trying to include a phenomenon, that no reliable source describes as an invasion, in an article about invasions! Now that is ridiculous!  Tewdar  21:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself, and am frankly tired of doing so. I'd rather let others weigh in on this than continuing this with you now that the RfC has been started. TylerBurden (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm not intruding on a private argument but "In contemporary culture" isn't really an adequate way of tackling the issue, as , if you want to go down this line, it really needs to be in a section on something like "invasion scares", covering various fears of invasion and public responses, rather than an uncontextualised statement. You might include pre-WWI invasion literature or WWII invasion myths. Alternatively, a tighter definition of invasion to mean a military action would remove the need for this section. And, a final technical point, if you chose to keep the text, can it be properly cited? - the current sentence could easily be removed by an over zealous editor as uncited. Monstrelet (talk) 09:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...intruding on a private argument... - heaven forfend, the more the merrier!

You might include pre-WWI invasion literature or WWII invasion myths -sounds great, in the new article Fictional, rhetorical, and hypothetical invasions of the British Isles!

Alternatively, a tighter definition of invasion to mean a military action would remove the need for this section - now, that sounds sensible. Perhaps some of the prehistory would need to be removed, but I could live with that.  Tewdar  11:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the same logic, your minimalist approach to this article would be a better fit for Historical invasions of the British Isles. TylerBurden (talk) 13:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank the gods, other editors have arrived who also disagree with your, erm, "non-minimalist" approach.  Tewdar  14:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So not the "right-wing loons and left-wing loons" you were expecting? :p TylerBurden (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will SNOW close before Reddit communities are aware of this ridiculous RfC.  Tewdar  14:35, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why worry about some redditor dorks? Either way, unless other people weigh in soon who can also see the point of the inclusion the consensus is rather clearly to not include it and instead have this article focused solely on actual historical invasions. I would ping the editor who added it in the first place to see their own reasoning for including it, but that would require digging through the history. TylerBurden (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was Nutme Nayme. Please, do the honours, I can hardly wait to hear the rationale behind this... 🍿  Tewdar  19:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nutme Nayme: Since it is content that you added that is being discussed, feel free to weigh in on the discussion and explain why you added the content to the article. TylerBurden (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you what - I'll change my !vote if we can add a section on the Eastern gray squirrels invasion.  Tewdar  22:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be against renaming the section to something else. TylerBurden (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah. Well, I'm deleting it now. Someone close the RfC.  Tewdar  18:28, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article introduction claims the British Isles were invaded by the Dutch but this never happened. (Medway doesn't count because it was a raid not an invasion and William III was invited over.) Can I suggest we change this.Firestar47 (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]