This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the United Kingdom didn't exist until 1707, your statement is a bit odd. As I recall -- and it is about twenty years since I last read it -- it was mostly a spoof on British history until the formation of England, followed by English history. History of the other countries of the UK was scarcely touched upon. -- Derek Ross
my copy says "first published 1930 by Methuen" -- which would imply that it was serialized in Punch earlier than the 1930s. -- Tarquin
didn't it mention the Second World War? -Adrian Hobbs
No. Even if Sellars and Yeatman had been clairvoyant, when America becomes Top Nation (end of WWI) history comes to a . - Bth
What is the context of the paragraph that starts with "in English schools"? It seems just stuck in there at random, moreso because it's in a box. Is it a quote from something, or is there some other reason for it being boxed and having serious grammatical errors? I would gladly turn it into a normal paragraph, but I want to be sure that the boxing isn't intentional... -- LostLeviathan 22:05, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Amazon.com lists this book's authors as W. C. Sellar, R. J. Reatman, and Frank Muir as a contributor. Link However, other sources I've found list it as Yeatman. This recently came up in a crossword clue, so I'm wondering if anyone knows which is correct. -- Psyk0 10:09, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The cartoons are memorable. Are they out of copyright? -- Townmouse 13:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there,
This article's Fukuyama reference, while apt, has the potential for confusion due to its phrasing, which I feel implies (states?) Fukuama argues the USA will attain domenence, and history will end.
As the End of History Wikipedia article states, Fukuyama did not argue that American democratic ideals would cover the world, but rather: liberal-democratic ideals, combined with liberal economic policies, have been/are the only robust ideology, and in the long-term the sole surviving ideology. Also, he seems to believe the ideals from the French Revolution are the epitomee of human philosophical development, but his comments led me to suspect that he feels the current application of these ideals is not, well, ideal.
Further, while Sellar and Yeatman were before Fukuyama, they did not forsee or predict Fukuyama's work (though the similarity is amusing)
Currently:
As such, Sellar and Yeatman anticipated Francis Fukuyama by six decades.
Perhaps:
Interestingly [or similarly non-commital adjective], this conclusion resembles some interpretations of Francis Fukuyama's "The End of History", published six decades later.
Anyway, thanks for listening to my little spiel,
Max Way (Renaissance College student, currently analyzing Fukuyama) Max Way 21:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nameunknown - my comment on TSSAAT on the 'End of History' page is still there as a footnote, with a little editing by the maintainer to show that he doesn't agree (but at least sees the funny side). 'The End' was also possibly parodied in one of the Star Trek movies (Star Trek IV : when Kirk states “Some people think the future means the end of history...")
Should we mention Non Campus Mentis? It's the non-fiction version (so to speak), and mentioned 1066 as a predecesor. - 67.180.56.14 06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Re this extract from the article:
Positing that 54 and 56 BC are the two unmemorable dates mentioned in the intro seems to be an illogical bit of original research by the editor. My guess, for what its worth is that the two rejected dates are 43 AD - the date of next invasion of Britain by the Romans and 1666 - the date of the Great Fire of London. Colin4C ( talk) 20:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not really. But I know there's an original buck-boarded copy of this article left somewhere. Along with Jhams and Jhelhies. 68Kustom ( talk) 06:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC) (Aegrot, Oxon.)
Too much (i.e. "some") of this article is written as if it was part of the book (mentions of Broody Mary and Venemous Bead, etc.). The article needs to be written in an encyclopedic style. I'd like to simply remove all the fictional or humorous bits, but because the article is interspersed with in-jokes from the book and other unnecessary fluff, I would likely remove the good with the bad. I'm actually prepared to do that, and will do it if someone knowledgeable about the topic doesn't trim this into shape; I'd rather have a stub than this mess. Matt Deres ( talk) 20:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just found this article and I don't think it is too bad. Could still use a bit of improving, but it is far from urgent. Cheers Greglo ( talk) 06:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I read that this phrase (a rendering of "vini, vidi, vici") was a dig at the contemporary manner of speaking Latin in England/the UK, and contributed to a change in usage. Is this correct? Jackiespeel ( talk) 18:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there a typo in the article? 222.152.75.119 ( talk) 06:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone has neverthelesss changed it to 'Bloody Mary', and linked to the article on that Monarch (Mary I)! For anyone knowing a little about Tudor history, 'Broody Mary' is not just a weak pun but a good if rather tasteless joke: Mary died without an heir after a prolonged false pregnancy. 109.158.45.254 ( talk) 23:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I just removed the link accompanying the name Malcolm Knox, author of a 1066-style book on Australia. The link was to another Malcolm Knox altogether. But I don't know anything about the right one, so anyone who knows could perhaps fill the gap...? 121.214.33.51 ( talk) 09:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Would (something like) this be interesting/useful, on precursors in the genre of mock & mixed-up history?: The History of England ... by a partial, prejudiced and ignorant historian was written by Jane Austen at the age of 15 in 1791. Her sister Cassandra illustrated it. The first joke (after the title) is: 'NB: there will be very few dates in this history.' Just a thought ... Hackneymartian ( talk) 17:29, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
In the paragraph describing Richard Armour's book, I changed the reference to a biological egg, to refer instead to the "Columbus Egg Trick", which apparently is the point of the joke. PoisonCat1 ( talk) 13:30, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if Philomena Cunk has read 1066aAT, but the spirit and style are similar (albeit a much brighter blue and even less PC). (BC, 27/12/19) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.11.233 ( talk) 21:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
The overview section seems to have a bit of POV issues, which is a bother, since this book seems to be influential in the culture of the era. I removed the most obvious NPOV statement ( Revision ID 1127650193), but there still seems to be more work done. Explodicator7331 ( talk) 22:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
This Wiki review sounds like an overwritten A level mock. 2A01:4C8:1422:65FC:1:2:FD1F:B76E ( talk) 09:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)