![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
![]() | This
edit request to
British Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi i am writing to request a change on the British Empire page. I am asking if you could edit the page so it has a box where it tells us the years of existence; under the title of 'British Empire' above the map, at the top of the page. This is seen in other empires' pages. I am also requesting that this will look like this: '1603 - Present' as the British Empire has never actually officially ended and is historically incorrect to say it has ended as of the current date. Doing this would help educate people and give the correct form of history. Thank You! My reference is from the BBC --- http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnmtfr#zymdq6f The BBC quote to backup my reasoning and evidence of my proposal - "It may not be the colossal world power it once was but technically the Empire is still in existence. As of 2015, 14 territories, outside the British Isles, still remain under British rule. Many of the former territories of the Empire are now gathered under the loose association of the Commonwealth of Nations with the Queen as its current Head." Thank you! I hope I have helped on this topic!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done There have been repeated requests for this edit and I suggest you go through the archives. It is generally accepted that the hand over of Hong Kong in 1997 marked the end of Empire. The 14 BOT that now exist are not colonies in the traditional sense. Three are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel; the remaining eleven are self-governing to varying degrees and are reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. This is all explained in the article.
W
C
M
email
09:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
DBig
Xrayᗙ
10:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)I have looked at the other requests for this and I can give references to back up what I've proposed. No matter what is 'genrally accepted', fact is fact and thus must be implemented to relative articles, books, whenever and as often as possible, to get the correct version of history without it being smudged. This is why I requested this change. I hope you will decide differently on your previous decision hence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit ( talk • contribs)
One of your own articles backs up the 'solitary' reference -(scroll down to British Empire)- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_empires&gettingStartedReturn=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter Please note, I may be wrong but this sounds awfully like the long term disruptive editor HarveyCarter. W C M email 10:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it needs to be made clearer that the British Empire was not an empire in the same sense as the Roman or other unitary empires - most notably, it was not a state. Here is a suggestion for a paragraph in the opening section.
"The term "British Empire" was widely used but was never formally defined. This was because the British Empire was never a state, or a constitutional or legal entity of any kind. In this it contrasts with other empires such as the Roman Empire or the Russian Empire, which were unitary states ruled by an emperor. The British Empire was an aggregation of territories which had a wide variety of relationships to the British Crown and/or United Kingdom. Some, such as the Princely States in India, were technically independent. Others, such as Egypt and Hong Kong, were technically possessions of other empires. Others, such as Papua, were administered on Britain's behalf by the settlement colonies. The Empire had no head of state,* no imperial government or legislature, no imperial legal code, no imperial armed forces and no imperial currency. Attempts to make the Empire a genuine federation or a free trade zone, or to create an imperial legislature, were successfully resisted by the self-governing colonies and the colonial governors. The British Parliament and Cabinet did not directly govern the Empire. Imperial rule was carried out governors who enjoyed considerable autonomy. In India, the Viceroy acted virtually as an independent sovereign - even imposing tariffs on British imports. The settlement colonies such as Canada and Australia soon acquired their own legislatures and internal self-government. The British Army and Royal Navy were deployed as needed to various parts of the Empire but were funded by British taxpayers and were always controlled by British ministers. Virtually the only Empire-wide institution was the court system, which in most parts of the Empire applied English common law alongside local law codes and allowed appeals to the Privy Council.
* The British monarch held the title Emperor of India from 1876 to 1948, but this was not a title applying to the Empire as a whole."
Constant Pedant ( talk) 07:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
British Empire | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15th century–1997 | |||||||||
![]() All areas of the world that were ever part of the British Empire. Current
British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red. | |||||||||
Status | Colonial empire | ||||||||
Capital | London | ||||||||
Hanover Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Windsor | |||||||||
History | |||||||||
• Established | 15th century | ||||||||
1997 | |||||||||
Area | |||||||||
1920 | 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi) | ||||||||
Currency | Pound and various other currencies | ||||||||
ISO 3166 code | GB | ||||||||
|
How about this? Is that good or needs improvements? RainbowSilver2ndBackup ( talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harvey Carter Editors on this page may wish to comment on this SPI filed today. W C M email 12:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath The case was brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you have read that section, in case you didn't, I will provide the link: British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath. This is so that you see that nothing is invented or unsourced, everything has been already written, it's all right there in the very article.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Now the user AlbionJack has just reverted a completely sourced edition of mine, I request the help of the users Snowded, Dmol and Hzh.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 23:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The user AlbionJack has just deleted a message that was left in his talk page by the user Hzh, who said that AlbionJack was censoring Wikipedia.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I was asked to put sources in my text and I complied. I gave the sources (which wasn't hard at all, since they are already there in the article). That is the proof that I never invented anything, nor put opinionated textes. Everything I wrote has been written already by someone else. Are there really any reasons to continue deleting the mention of the Suez crisis in the intro?-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You know that in every article, the intro briefly mentions an issue, and then the body of the article explains in greater detail that issue, right? That is the case with the mention of the Suez crisis.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Your conclusion is ridiculous. By your premise, we should then delete everything in the intro because the rest of the article explains all of those topics in greater detail. And what's more: we would have to delete all the intros in all the articles, because "they don't belong in there".-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 02:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If the article doesn't need the same information twice then let's delete all the mentions in the intro about the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, the independence movements... because the body of the article already has "so well explained" (like you say) info about those topics. And why stop there, why not delete the whole intro? After all, Hzh is right in that you are a censor in Wikipedia and you want to delete relevant topics.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK.
Slatersteven (
talk)
17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hzh is far from correct, I removed the word Muslim from one of his favourite articles due to no citation, and then opted to simply clarify if instead, not a censor at all you’ll find, not that this changed your lack of ability to critical think. The article has existed quite well even as a featured article without your needless addition, there is no need. But of course Diablo I don’t expect you to understand again what I said. AlbionJack ( talk) 17:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the article has been a featured article for some time doesn't mean that it isn't subject to changes and additions. In fact, in this very page it says at the top "British Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Moreover, the fact that the Suez crisis was a crucial milestone in the decline of British power (and, on the other hand, in the rise of USA and USSR as the 2 sole superpowers in the post-WWII scenario) makes it relevant enough to have a mention in the intro along with the other historical milestones.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
All the factors you mentioned were a continuation of a trend where Britain was already the leading power. With Suez, instead, it became clear that Britain was no longer the leading power in the world scene and that it would have to take the back seat, with USA and USSR in charge of world affairs. Until Suez, it wasn't so clear that after WWII Britain had entered a steep decline, that's why it shocked the international community when it happened.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 21:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You have made a crucial mistake. You have said that the Napoleonic wars, though important to explain the British rise in the global scene, are never mentioned in the intro. In fact, they're indeed properly mentioned there, it says: "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century.[8] Unchallenged at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace")..." Besides, it would be a glaring omission if the intro indeed didn't mention such an important event.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Now you want to fix your mistakes by going into technicalities, but one should use common sense instead of getting lost in differences of forms that have the same meaning, and the truth is that the intro does say that Britain emerged as the leading power in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, or the defeat of Napoleon, which are one and the same. The fact is that Napoleon is referred tacitly by mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, after all the name of those wars refers to him and not Sun Tzu. So there's no need to mention the man himself after mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, it is redundant. Besides, is there any need to mention his deeds, or explain why he is important, in the intro of an article called "British Empire"? (how many of them would have to be mentioned, anyway?).-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Those 2 phrases you mention refer to the context in the early 20th century when the first symptoms of the end of the British monopoly certainly started to be showing, yet Britain still wasn't completely phased out as a superpower. After Suez, though, the process was completed; it was exposed to the whole world that drastic changes in the balance of power had happened and that the USA and the USSR had become the only 2 superpowers.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 02:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I also noticed that you didn't know.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you guys think this bitching session is helpful, I notice you've ignored the outside comment from other editors. You either stop now and focus on content not each other, or I will be heading off to ANI and request your conduct is reviewed by admin. If you continue in the same vein I wouldn't be surprised if you were both topic banned. W C M email 08:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Focusing on content is what I've been doing since the start.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've taken into account your suggestions, now tell me what do you think about this:
"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's limitations to assert its dominance in the post-World War II scene, and that the United States and the Soviet Union had taken the leading roles in global affairs as the sole two superpowers. [1] [2] [3]"
As you can see, it is brief and I reduced the citations.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 16:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well you say that intros usually don't require citations, yet they are almost mandatory (almost all articles in Wikipedia have citations in their intros). In fact I counted and this article has 20 citations in its intro.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
An article called "British Empire" is bound to be controversial and arise debates (like this), so it needs to have citations.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well when I first put my additions the first objection you had was that it was unsourced, now that you have the references you are saying that they aren't necessary?-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven said "It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK." on 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC); and Hzh said "I would however suggest only a brief mention in the lede (and please don't overcite)". That means there's support for my additions.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's decline in the post-World War II scene with USA and USSR now as the only two superpowers."
Is it ok?-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The use of "superpower" (reffering to Britain) is correct and as a term it isn't modern at all, it has been used for nearly 80 years. The article Superpower says: "The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. (...) A year later, in 1944, William T. R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book «The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace» (...) According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union". And about WP:WEIGHT, there's plenty of historians and authors that attribute great importance to the Suez crisis, with plenty of references to support it as you can see in the article, otherwhise the part in the Suez crisis section that says "The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage and its end as a superpower[200][201][202], demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.[203][204][205]" would have been eliminated long ago.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
80 years is not modern at all, plenty of things have happened, entire borders changed, some countries ceased to exist, others have been born. And your definitions of what a superpower is or isn't are original research, while everything I affirm is supported by references.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to debate you can refrain from doing it, Snowded. You have been repeatedly making comments that show your lack of interest in having a debate. We are following the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolutions. Let those who are indeed interested in having a debate continue doing it.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 03:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Still original research, not a single source by an author, historian or political analyst has been given. PS: I am I, stop confusing me with other people.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If you are tired and say this is repetitive then why are you in this debate? This debate should be for the ones interested in discussing the topic. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution says: "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus (...) Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. (...) Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute."-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Still waiting for the sources for your original research.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
When things don't go your way you toss aside Wikipedia's principles of dialogue, consensus and good faith, and use force to eliminate dissent, right? I never tried to silence you, even if you gave lots of flawed and contradicting arguments (the unsourced-overcited contradiction one of the most glaring examples of bureaucracy gone mad), and by an illegal user (sock) nonetheless. That's because I believe in Wikipedia's policies and I've been contributing on the site for more than 10 years. Save your efforts, you won't find anything, because I'm not a sock, I'm a legit user.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments essentially say that the whole Superpower article is wrong, every single of their references is moot and potentially it should be eliminated from Wikipedia. Curiously, there's no objections on that article's talk page about the uses of superpower, something that validates my position. Anyway, let's say you want to delete that article because you think it misuses the definition of "superpower", you would need to back up those arguments with references that argue against it. You haven't presented even a single one of them. And even if you presented one, per WP:NPOV all the differents points of view and approaches towards a topic would be included. So, in any case the use of "superpower" to refer to Britain is always valid and will always be included in Wikipedia.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of backup and support I presented in my affirmations, where are yours? The fact is the pot calls the kettle black, you've failed to provide a single one reference. Why don't you object to the article "superpower"? The fact is the article stands to this day, so your objections don't have any grounds. If Wikipedia isn't a place for indulgence of solitary editors, why do you lurk in the shadows, waiting to boycott contributions of other users, twisting Wikipedia's policies in a contradictory way like I showed with the unsourced-overcited argument? Why do you object to additions with topic-relevant, brief and sourced content? The fact is that two or three persons with a bee in their bonnet can't disrupt Wikipedia's normal course of flowing ideas, knowledge and contributions.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You know, there's an ironic thing about this. A couple of comments ago you Snowded said "this is an unnecessary storm in a tea cup". Well, you're the ones that are making a storm out of a tea cup. If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth, it would have been another of the millions of ordinary edits in Wikipedia, and we would have skipped all this argument. You are the ones that made this more complicated and dragged the thing to the Talk section but, alas, once you are in the Talk section you don't endure the Talk procedural and groan with comments like "No one is interesting". Which makes me wonder why do you lurk zealously in this article anyway. If you can't stand a discussion whenever there's a content-dispute why are you here in the first place.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 04:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I have two questions: 1. Have Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan been a British protectorate? 2. Was Egypt independent of the United Kingdom from 1922 to 1952? -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Are the LoN mandates part of the British Empire? (e.g., Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq.) -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
But were the mandates not directly administered by the League of Nations? -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And the Saar Basin and Danzig? Were they directly administered by the League of Nations? -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
"The League of Nations Mandate territories (Iraq, Palestine, Tanganyika etc) were not part of the British Empire. They were trust territories administered by Britain on behalf of the League." Constant Pedant -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Very, very, very, very, very strongly! I agree with you. Thank you, but you did not talk about the Saar Basin and Danzig. -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 20:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but you did not talk about the Saar Basin and Danzig. -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Was the Kingdom of Egypt independent from the United Kingdom? In the list of sovereign states in English, it is listed as a sovereign state. Already in the Dutch version, it is listed as a vassal state of the United Kingdom. -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
And one more thing: Both the English and the Dutch versions show Nepal as British protectorate from 1816 to 1923, Afghanistan from 1879 to 1919 and Bhutan from 1910 to 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
My edit today was, not surprisingly, reverted. As an entity with no direct authority, power, government, κτλ, the empire could only have held sway over 400,000 people in a far from well defined feeling of collective unity, something that was not there. It was Britain that held sway over its empire, not the empire over the people within the empire. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Another reason for removing the term is its slightly archaic nature that conveys self importance. I cannot improve on Charles01 when he said in a recent edit summary on the main page: "held sway" is a phrase from several generations back that carries an awful lot of baggage. Whether you think the British empire was (1) a good thing or (2) a bad thing or (3) both, maybe we should be going for a less heavily burdened (and less old-fashioned) phrase in the intro for a serious encyclopaedic contribution on a complicated topic. Or...? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 12:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
My main point, which has been sidelined, is that the BE was not an entity capable of holding sway over anything. I note in the BBC reference 2 above that the first sentence confirms my very point by saying: The power and influence of the British Empire once held its grip on the four corners of the globe. 'Controlled' is not quite right (contolled the Burmese jungle tribes or the Antarctic glaciers??) but I agree that 'contained' doesn't flow easily off the tongue either. I am fairly even on these two words, but without an alternative I lean slightly towards 'contained'. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that this section was removed - it was too long - but a bit knee jerk. I think we should encourage the editor to rework the material. This is an important episode in the history of the British Empire, frequently overlooked even though the Caribbean was considerably more economically important than the 13 colonies (at that time). It also shows that the 'rise' phase was not consistent - there were major set backs along the way. So, I think there's scope for a single, well sourced paragraph of approximately the same length as the preceding paragraph about the Dutch and Asia (or maybe a bit longer, but not as long as Global Conflicts with France, which were somewhat more notable!). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've read a few academic articles and books about the British Empire and I'm surprised to see that there is no general link to any postcolonial discourse, not even under "see also". Racial ideas for justifying the Empire and motives/ideology have been studied for quite some time now... also generally, the article reads rather one-sided (c.f. the legacy section). But maybe that's just me? In that case, don't mind me and move on... -- Doskey412 ( talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The above line from the intro seems wrong in part. Industrially, perhaps the USA had bypassed Britain by 1919, but militarily Britain actually still WAS the worlds preeminent military power. Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans had been disarmed, Russia was in chaos, the USA still had a tiny military in early 1917, and demobbed their many conscripts immediately after WW1 and went back to a small military for the next 20 years, and Britain was stronger than France, Italy and Japan. It was actually the mid to late 1930's and the massive rearming of Nazi Germany, followed by the USSR and USA in the 40's that ended Britain's position as no 1 militarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 ( talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I do think that Britain and it's empire were, in a military sense at least, in a stronger position in 1919 than in 1914 in comparison to it's rivals. Yes it is true that they scaled back (demobbed) after the war, but so too did France and Italy. The USA never was a military power before 1917 and in reality was not so much a true power in 1917-18 either, industrially yes, militarily no. And of course Germany, Austro-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey were destroyed as empires and largely disarmed. Russia was divided and at war with itself, Japan was ambotious, but not seen as a realistic rival after WW1 and during the 1920's. I will look into finding some valid references to back up my points. I certainly agree that Britain had been surpassed by the USA industrially by 1919, but militarily, many of Britains rivals were no more, and others were not as strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 ( talk) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger Yes, you are correct that the 1923 Washington Treaty effectively created a parity between the Navies of the UK and USA, however this was only with regard to Capital Ships, Destroyers and other types were not included, and from the info I can find on Wiki, Britain had more of these than the USA and built more during the 20's and 30's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The included map omits Tangier which according to Wikipedia itself /info/en/?search=English_Tangier had been controlled by England from from 1661 to 1684 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.214.182 ( talk) 23:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
English Tangier is suitably covered in English overseas possessions, and this article does not need to duplicate all of that. Tangier was never British. Moonraker ( talk) 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Afghanistan was NEVER a colony of British empire. The map that have been recently changed (vandalized) should be restored to previous map. It seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:c8ec:0:3839:7ff5:aacd:40e0 ( talk) 22:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This article was promoted in 2009, when standards were a lot easier than they are today.
This article omits mentioning entire sections of the literature regarding the racial ideology of the empire. For example:
Of course, there are books on the British Empire that don't go into much detail about genocide or racism. However, the article neglects to mention that many sources do. -- Quality posts here ( talk) 02:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Correct if I'm wrong, but another issue seems to be the sourcing layout. Surely the "further reading" section should not include sources that are cited throughout? I thought MOS dictated that there should be a "sources" section and then a "further reading" section, but right now the two seemed to be mixed together. Aza24 ( talk) 04:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Joserchm: You are edit warring on the main page and making no attempt to communicate, please stop and keep the status quo until the dispute is resolved. @ Wiki-Ed: please use this section to communicate your concerns. — Czello 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Researching this to answer a casual question from my kids, I was startled to read that some considered the independence of Hong Kong to mark the end of the Empire. As a Briton born in the early 1960s (and a stamp collector!) I always considered the Empire as a matter of past history that had long been replaced by the Commonwealth. There is no exact point of cessation, but the two key events are the independence of India in 1947, at which point the monarch relinquished the title of Emperor, and the establishment of the modern Commonwealth in 1949. Myopic Bookworm ( talk) 09:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here ( talk) 20:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. As you may see, there is no mention to the deaths - directly or indirectly - caused by the British Empire in the article. I want to add this to the article in a new section, but I need help. Can anyone help me? I need good sources. Thank you. Aryzad ( talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Aryzad:, some good sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] -- Tobby72 ( talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
@
Aryzad: if you're still around. Look at the comments above; its a mish mash of uninformed opinions, kernels of truth, invective and misinformation. There is a good level of bureaucratic gatekeeping prevalent in Wikipedia [
see denial of infobox requests]. Also, there is a {{
WikiProject Colonialism}} maybe you could get something going with them?
Its exhausting you are working against a generation of active propaganda and suppression of the blatant truth. Barbara Tuchman said it best:
... Whatever the fiasco, aplomb is unbroken. Mistakes, failures, stupidities and other causes of disaster mysteriously vanish. Disasters are recorded with care and pride and become transmuted into things of beauty. Official histories record every move in monumental and infinite detail but the details serve to obscure.
Under British rule absolutely the closest to the minimum was done to provide food so from 1765–1947 60 million people died. British administrators were very concerned with the cost. After 1857 the British perfected the fiction of Indian Government, the Rupee was a currency after all, Indians were in the civil service and provincial governments. But exports from India were paid for in Pounds Sterling in London not in India. The British gained from these unpaid exports for 150 years. During WWI secret Home Charges of up to £100 million were charged and paid for by India that's £10.3 billion in 2020. Linlithgow committed India to WWII with no prior consultation with Indian politicians. He then went on to obstruct and oversee the death of 3 million people when food exports continued during a famine. Wavell came in and instituted food aid in an organized way.
Study what the British did to the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Americans (payment for French-Indian wars, press-gangs, Transportation and Navigation Acts) and you will see that the Indian case is all of those but much much worse because it lasted for 200 years. And they perfected their colonial practices over time. Good luck!
Germsteel ( talk) 04:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why we capitalise 'Empire'? I notice this practice extends to other empires on WP as well. I recently read a section of Gibbon who referered to the 'Roman empire', which to me seems more correct. My guess is that this is a habit that has crept in over time for no particular reason other than trying to magnify the importance and grandeur of any given empire. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all. A collective proper noun, or adjective preceding a noun? Can someone show me where and how the British empire is/was afunctional independent entity? Where's the constitution? Legislation? etc. I have also noted in infoboxes the desciption of the British Empire as a belligerant, when what is meant is Britain, with the empire forces joining in in a hotch-potch way (because each part of the empire was legally different). The comparison with the United States of America is incorrect because that obvious is a name. If RSS's capitalise Empire then so be it, but they should be a high quality and properly interpreted, and not the usual low grade stuff that often gets used. I am sorry, but all I see is mild attempts at jingoism. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of those are constitutionally different, hence capitalisation would be appropriate because 'empire' forms part of the name of a formal entity. I think 'Das Deutsches Reich' would be an example. It did after all have an emperor, as did Rome. Where was the British empire's emperor? Oh yes, India. Not quite the whole empire though? I still wait to be convinced. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
So far this article seems to concentrate a lot on the linear history of the British Empire, while many articles on other empires (see Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire) have sections dealing with other topics (like a wikipedia article on a country) Would adding further sections be a good idea? Krs1208 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP, user:94.54.255.43 has been making unexplained changes to the infobox that appear to contradict previous consensus. I began reverting but cross-edits occured resulting in a messy situation, hence opening this talk page section. Someone might want to sort out what has happened? IP, please talk here and stop your edits. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I've put a "citation needed" tag after this statement: in the "Patriation movement" section: "Although no longer able to pass any laws that would apply as Australian Commonwealth law,..." The reason for this is that the British Parliament did have that power after the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931 and its adoption by Australia in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster provided that the British Parliament could legislate for a "dominion", provided the dominion requested and consented to the British legislation. The notes to the official publication of the Statute of Westminster Act 1942 indicate that the Australian Parliament twice requested that the British Parliament legislate for Australia, which the British Parliament did in acts passed in 1955 and 1958. As well, section 12 of the Australia Act, repealed s. 4 and other sections of the Statute of Westminster, "insofar as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth..." All of that suggests that the British Parliament still could legislate for Australia at the Commonwealth level, unless I'm missing something? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 18:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, in fact it is as simple as that. The Balfour Declaration only confirmed the existing reality and it was codified by the Statute of Westminster and the Adoption Acts. Note the wording: "we refer to the group of selfgoverning communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." When was the last time Westminster legislated for the dominions over their objections? TFD ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 09:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
British Empire →
History of the British Empire – At its featured article review, there was discussion on what the title of this article should be. Those who support renaming the article to "History of the British Empire" state that the existing text focuses on the empire's historical events and lacks information on other aspects, such as its governance or legal structure. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's focus. Those who support "British Empire" state that governance structures, laws, and culture differed between colonies and changed over time. Explaining each variation would make the article extremely large; they believe this information belongs in existing articles about the history of countries that were part of the empire.
Z1720 (
talk)
00:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The should be the same as it is. Marvelouseditor6651 ( talk) 00:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
British Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Antarctica Area as a seprarate one [ around 8.100.000 square km[ RussianSoul385 ( talk) 12:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I want to make a change on the British Empire wikipedia page, as i personally believe the wording is inaccurate.
The current beginning of the British Empire page states "The British Empire was composed of". was implies that the empire doesnt exist anymore, which it does with the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies. i suggest to change it from "is an empire comprising of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. It was formerly composed of".
I believe this would be more accurate than what is currently up on that page, as the wording is incorrect (in my opinion)
Thanks for reading, Bullhuss5 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
that is a valid point, but i'd like to show a contradiction in the British Empires and the British Overseas Territories wikipedia pages. In the British Empire page, it uses past tense by saying that the empire "WAS comprised of" which implies it has ended, but it has not exactly ended. the "end of the empire" was a claimed statement by some people once Britain lost control of Hong Kong. However, the British Overseas Territories claims that the BOTs are "remnants of the british empire", making these two pages contradictory. hence, why i thought to edit the British Empire. Bullhuss5 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
it was used as an adjective which in that context means remaining. Bullhuss5 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
My mistake. Bullhuss5 ( talk) 07:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 23 |
![]() | This
edit request to
British Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hi i am writing to request a change on the British Empire page. I am asking if you could edit the page so it has a box where it tells us the years of existence; under the title of 'British Empire' above the map, at the top of the page. This is seen in other empires' pages. I am also requesting that this will look like this: '1603 - Present' as the British Empire has never actually officially ended and is historically incorrect to say it has ended as of the current date. Doing this would help educate people and give the correct form of history. Thank You! My reference is from the BBC --- http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnmtfr#zymdq6f The BBC quote to backup my reasoning and evidence of my proposal - "It may not be the colossal world power it once was but technically the Empire is still in existence. As of 2015, 14 territories, outside the British Isles, still remain under British rule. Many of the former territories of the Empire are now gathered under the loose association of the Commonwealth of Nations with the Queen as its current Head." Thank you! I hope I have helped on this topic!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit ( talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Not done There have been repeated requests for this edit and I suggest you go through the archives. It is generally accepted that the hand over of Hong Kong in 1997 marked the end of Empire. The 14 BOT that now exist are not colonies in the traditional sense. Three are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel; the remaining eleven are self-governing to varying degrees and are reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. This is all explained in the article.
W
C
M
email
09:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
DBig
Xrayᗙ
10:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)I have looked at the other requests for this and I can give references to back up what I've proposed. No matter what is 'genrally accepted', fact is fact and thus must be implemented to relative articles, books, whenever and as often as possible, to get the correct version of history without it being smudged. This is why I requested this change. I hope you will decide differently on your previous decision hence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit ( talk • contribs)
One of your own articles backs up the 'solitary' reference -(scroll down to British Empire)- https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_empires&gettingStartedReturn=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter Please note, I may be wrong but this sounds awfully like the long term disruptive editor HarveyCarter. W C M email 10:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I think it needs to be made clearer that the British Empire was not an empire in the same sense as the Roman or other unitary empires - most notably, it was not a state. Here is a suggestion for a paragraph in the opening section.
"The term "British Empire" was widely used but was never formally defined. This was because the British Empire was never a state, or a constitutional or legal entity of any kind. In this it contrasts with other empires such as the Roman Empire or the Russian Empire, which were unitary states ruled by an emperor. The British Empire was an aggregation of territories which had a wide variety of relationships to the British Crown and/or United Kingdom. Some, such as the Princely States in India, were technically independent. Others, such as Egypt and Hong Kong, were technically possessions of other empires. Others, such as Papua, were administered on Britain's behalf by the settlement colonies. The Empire had no head of state,* no imperial government or legislature, no imperial legal code, no imperial armed forces and no imperial currency. Attempts to make the Empire a genuine federation or a free trade zone, or to create an imperial legislature, were successfully resisted by the self-governing colonies and the colonial governors. The British Parliament and Cabinet did not directly govern the Empire. Imperial rule was carried out governors who enjoyed considerable autonomy. In India, the Viceroy acted virtually as an independent sovereign - even imposing tariffs on British imports. The settlement colonies such as Canada and Australia soon acquired their own legislatures and internal self-government. The British Army and Royal Navy were deployed as needed to various parts of the Empire but were funded by British taxpayers and were always controlled by British ministers. Virtually the only Empire-wide institution was the court system, which in most parts of the Empire applied English common law alongside local law codes and allowed appeals to the Privy Council.
* The British monarch held the title Emperor of India from 1876 to 1948, but this was not a title applying to the Empire as a whole."
Constant Pedant ( talk) 07:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
British Empire | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
15th century–1997 | |||||||||
![]() All areas of the world that were ever part of the British Empire. Current
British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red. | |||||||||
Status | Colonial empire | ||||||||
Capital | London | ||||||||
Hanover Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Windsor | |||||||||
History | |||||||||
• Established | 15th century | ||||||||
1997 | |||||||||
Area | |||||||||
1920 | 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi) | ||||||||
Currency | Pound and various other currencies | ||||||||
ISO 3166 code | GB | ||||||||
|
How about this? Is that good or needs improvements? RainbowSilver2ndBackup ( talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harvey Carter Editors on this page may wish to comment on this SPI filed today. W C M email 12:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath The case was brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if you have read that section, in case you didn't, I will provide the link: British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath. This is so that you see that nothing is invented or unsourced, everything has been already written, it's all right there in the very article.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Now the user AlbionJack has just reverted a completely sourced edition of mine, I request the help of the users Snowded, Dmol and Hzh.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 23:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The user AlbionJack has just deleted a message that was left in his talk page by the user Hzh, who said that AlbionJack was censoring Wikipedia.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
I was asked to put sources in my text and I complied. I gave the sources (which wasn't hard at all, since they are already there in the article). That is the proof that I never invented anything, nor put opinionated textes. Everything I wrote has been written already by someone else. Are there really any reasons to continue deleting the mention of the Suez crisis in the intro?-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You know that in every article, the intro briefly mentions an issue, and then the body of the article explains in greater detail that issue, right? That is the case with the mention of the Suez crisis.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Your conclusion is ridiculous. By your premise, we should then delete everything in the intro because the rest of the article explains all of those topics in greater detail. And what's more: we would have to delete all the intros in all the articles, because "they don't belong in there".-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 02:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If the article doesn't need the same information twice then let's delete all the mentions in the intro about the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, the independence movements... because the body of the article already has "so well explained" (like you say) info about those topics. And why stop there, why not delete the whole intro? After all, Hzh is right in that you are a censor in Wikipedia and you want to delete relevant topics.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK.
Slatersteven (
talk)
17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hzh is far from correct, I removed the word Muslim from one of his favourite articles due to no citation, and then opted to simply clarify if instead, not a censor at all you’ll find, not that this changed your lack of ability to critical think. The article has existed quite well even as a featured article without your needless addition, there is no need. But of course Diablo I don’t expect you to understand again what I said. AlbionJack ( talk) 17:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The fact that the article has been a featured article for some time doesn't mean that it isn't subject to changes and additions. In fact, in this very page it says at the top "British Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Moreover, the fact that the Suez crisis was a crucial milestone in the decline of British power (and, on the other hand, in the rise of USA and USSR as the 2 sole superpowers in the post-WWII scenario) makes it relevant enough to have a mention in the intro along with the other historical milestones.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
All the factors you mentioned were a continuation of a trend where Britain was already the leading power. With Suez, instead, it became clear that Britain was no longer the leading power in the world scene and that it would have to take the back seat, with USA and USSR in charge of world affairs. Until Suez, it wasn't so clear that after WWII Britain had entered a steep decline, that's why it shocked the international community when it happened.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 21:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
You have made a crucial mistake. You have said that the Napoleonic wars, though important to explain the British rise in the global scene, are never mentioned in the intro. In fact, they're indeed properly mentioned there, it says: "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century.[8] Unchallenged at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace")..." Besides, it would be a glaring omission if the intro indeed didn't mention such an important event.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Now you want to fix your mistakes by going into technicalities, but one should use common sense instead of getting lost in differences of forms that have the same meaning, and the truth is that the intro does say that Britain emerged as the leading power in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, or the defeat of Napoleon, which are one and the same. The fact is that Napoleon is referred tacitly by mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, after all the name of those wars refers to him and not Sun Tzu. So there's no need to mention the man himself after mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, it is redundant. Besides, is there any need to mention his deeds, or explain why he is important, in the intro of an article called "British Empire"? (how many of them would have to be mentioned, anyway?).-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Those 2 phrases you mention refer to the context in the early 20th century when the first symptoms of the end of the British monopoly certainly started to be showing, yet Britain still wasn't completely phased out as a superpower. After Suez, though, the process was completed; it was exposed to the whole world that drastic changes in the balance of power had happened and that the USA and the USSR had become the only 2 superpowers.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 02:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I also noticed that you didn't know.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure you guys think this bitching session is helpful, I notice you've ignored the outside comment from other editors. You either stop now and focus on content not each other, or I will be heading off to ANI and request your conduct is reviewed by admin. If you continue in the same vein I wouldn't be surprised if you were both topic banned. W C M email 08:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Focusing on content is what I've been doing since the start.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I've taken into account your suggestions, now tell me what do you think about this:
"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's limitations to assert its dominance in the post-World War II scene, and that the United States and the Soviet Union had taken the leading roles in global affairs as the sole two superpowers. [1] [2] [3]"
As you can see, it is brief and I reduced the citations.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 16:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well you say that intros usually don't require citations, yet they are almost mandatory (almost all articles in Wikipedia have citations in their intros). In fact I counted and this article has 20 citations in its intro.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
An article called "British Empire" is bound to be controversial and arise debates (like this), so it needs to have citations.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Well when I first put my additions the first objection you had was that it was unsourced, now that you have the references you are saying that they aren't necessary?-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Slatersteven said "It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK." on 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC); and Hzh said "I would however suggest only a brief mention in the lede (and please don't overcite)". That means there's support for my additions.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's decline in the post-World War II scene with USA and USSR now as the only two superpowers."
Is it ok?-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 18:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The use of "superpower" (reffering to Britain) is correct and as a term it isn't modern at all, it has been used for nearly 80 years. The article Superpower says: "The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. (...) A year later, in 1944, William T. R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book «The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace» (...) According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union". And about WP:WEIGHT, there's plenty of historians and authors that attribute great importance to the Suez crisis, with plenty of references to support it as you can see in the article, otherwhise the part in the Suez crisis section that says "The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage and its end as a superpower[200][201][202], demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.[203][204][205]" would have been eliminated long ago.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
80 years is not modern at all, plenty of things have happened, entire borders changed, some countries ceased to exist, others have been born. And your definitions of what a superpower is or isn't are original research, while everything I affirm is supported by references.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If you don't want to debate you can refrain from doing it, Snowded. You have been repeatedly making comments that show your lack of interest in having a debate. We are following the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolutions. Let those who are indeed interested in having a debate continue doing it.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 03:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Still original research, not a single source by an author, historian or political analyst has been given. PS: I am I, stop confusing me with other people.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
If you are tired and say this is repetitive then why are you in this debate? This debate should be for the ones interested in discussing the topic. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution says: "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus (...) Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. (...) Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute."-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Still waiting for the sources for your original research.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
When things don't go your way you toss aside Wikipedia's principles of dialogue, consensus and good faith, and use force to eliminate dissent, right? I never tried to silence you, even if you gave lots of flawed and contradicting arguments (the unsourced-overcited contradiction one of the most glaring examples of bureaucracy gone mad), and by an illegal user (sock) nonetheless. That's because I believe in Wikipedia's policies and I've been contributing on the site for more than 10 years. Save your efforts, you won't find anything, because I'm not a sock, I'm a legit user.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 17:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Your arguments essentially say that the whole Superpower article is wrong, every single of their references is moot and potentially it should be eliminated from Wikipedia. Curiously, there's no objections on that article's talk page about the uses of superpower, something that validates my position. Anyway, let's say you want to delete that article because you think it misuses the definition of "superpower", you would need to back up those arguments with references that argue against it. You haven't presented even a single one of them. And even if you presented one, per WP:NPOV all the differents points of view and approaches towards a topic would be included. So, in any case the use of "superpower" to refer to Britain is always valid and will always be included in Wikipedia.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 01:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of backup and support I presented in my affirmations, where are yours? The fact is the pot calls the kettle black, you've failed to provide a single one reference. Why don't you object to the article "superpower"? The fact is the article stands to this day, so your objections don't have any grounds. If Wikipedia isn't a place for indulgence of solitary editors, why do you lurk in the shadows, waiting to boycott contributions of other users, twisting Wikipedia's policies in a contradictory way like I showed with the unsourced-overcited argument? Why do you object to additions with topic-relevant, brief and sourced content? The fact is that two or three persons with a bee in their bonnet can't disrupt Wikipedia's normal course of flowing ideas, knowledge and contributions.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
You know, there's an ironic thing about this. A couple of comments ago you Snowded said "this is an unnecessary storm in a tea cup". Well, you're the ones that are making a storm out of a tea cup. If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth, it would have been another of the millions of ordinary edits in Wikipedia, and we would have skipped all this argument. You are the ones that made this more complicated and dragged the thing to the Talk section but, alas, once you are in the Talk section you don't endure the Talk procedural and groan with comments like "No one is interesting". Which makes me wonder why do you lurk zealously in this article anyway. If you can't stand a discussion whenever there's a content-dispute why are you here in the first place.-- Diablo del Oeste ( talk) 04:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I have two questions: 1. Have Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan been a British protectorate? 2. Was Egypt independent of the United Kingdom from 1922 to 1952? -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Are the LoN mandates part of the British Empire? (e.g., Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq.) -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
But were the mandates not directly administered by the League of Nations? -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
And the Saar Basin and Danzig? Were they directly administered by the League of Nations? -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
"The League of Nations Mandate territories (Iraq, Palestine, Tanganyika etc) were not part of the British Empire. They were trust territories administered by Britain on behalf of the League." Constant Pedant -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 22:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Very, very, very, very, very strongly! I agree with you. Thank you, but you did not talk about the Saar Basin and Danzig. -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 20:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but you did not talk about the Saar Basin and Danzig. -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Was the Kingdom of Egypt independent from the United Kingdom? In the list of sovereign states in English, it is listed as a sovereign state. Already in the Dutch version, it is listed as a vassal state of the United Kingdom. -- Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk) 21:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
And one more thing: Both the English and the Dutch versions show Nepal as British protectorate from 1816 to 1923, Afghanistan from 1879 to 1919 and Bhutan from 1910 to 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davi Gamer 2017 ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
My edit today was, not surprisingly, reverted. As an entity with no direct authority, power, government, κτλ, the empire could only have held sway over 400,000 people in a far from well defined feeling of collective unity, something that was not there. It was Britain that held sway over its empire, not the empire over the people within the empire. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 11:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Another reason for removing the term is its slightly archaic nature that conveys self importance. I cannot improve on Charles01 when he said in a recent edit summary on the main page: "held sway" is a phrase from several generations back that carries an awful lot of baggage. Whether you think the British empire was (1) a good thing or (2) a bad thing or (3) both, maybe we should be going for a less heavily burdened (and less old-fashioned) phrase in the intro for a serious encyclopaedic contribution on a complicated topic. Or...? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 12:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
My main point, which has been sidelined, is that the BE was not an entity capable of holding sway over anything. I note in the BBC reference 2 above that the first sentence confirms my very point by saying: The power and influence of the British Empire once held its grip on the four corners of the globe. 'Controlled' is not quite right (contolled the Burmese jungle tribes or the Antarctic glaciers??) but I agree that 'contained' doesn't flow easily off the tongue either. I am fairly even on these two words, but without an alternative I lean slightly towards 'contained'. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 09:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm not surprised that this section was removed - it was too long - but a bit knee jerk. I think we should encourage the editor to rework the material. This is an important episode in the history of the British Empire, frequently overlooked even though the Caribbean was considerably more economically important than the 13 colonies (at that time). It also shows that the 'rise' phase was not consistent - there were major set backs along the way. So, I think there's scope for a single, well sourced paragraph of approximately the same length as the preceding paragraph about the Dutch and Asia (or maybe a bit longer, but not as long as Global Conflicts with France, which were somewhat more notable!). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
I've read a few academic articles and books about the British Empire and I'm surprised to see that there is no general link to any postcolonial discourse, not even under "see also". Racial ideas for justifying the Empire and motives/ideology have been studied for quite some time now... also generally, the article reads rather one-sided (c.f. the legacy section). But maybe that's just me? In that case, don't mind me and move on... -- Doskey412 ( talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The above line from the intro seems wrong in part. Industrially, perhaps the USA had bypassed Britain by 1919, but militarily Britain actually still WAS the worlds preeminent military power. Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans had been disarmed, Russia was in chaos, the USA still had a tiny military in early 1917, and demobbed their many conscripts immediately after WW1 and went back to a small military for the next 20 years, and Britain was stronger than France, Italy and Japan. It was actually the mid to late 1930's and the massive rearming of Nazi Germany, followed by the USSR and USA in the 40's that ended Britain's position as no 1 militarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 ( talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
I do think that Britain and it's empire were, in a military sense at least, in a stronger position in 1919 than in 1914 in comparison to it's rivals. Yes it is true that they scaled back (demobbed) after the war, but so too did France and Italy. The USA never was a military power before 1917 and in reality was not so much a true power in 1917-18 either, industrially yes, militarily no. And of course Germany, Austro-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey were destroyed as empires and largely disarmed. Russia was divided and at war with itself, Japan was ambotious, but not seen as a realistic rival after WW1 and during the 1920's. I will look into finding some valid references to back up my points. I certainly agree that Britain had been surpassed by the USA industrially by 1919, but militarily, many of Britains rivals were no more, and others were not as strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 ( talk) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger Yes, you are correct that the 1923 Washington Treaty effectively created a parity between the Navies of the UK and USA, however this was only with regard to Capital Ships, Destroyers and other types were not included, and from the info I can find on Wiki, Britain had more of these than the USA and built more during the 20's and 30's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
The included map omits Tangier which according to Wikipedia itself /info/en/?search=English_Tangier had been controlled by England from from 1661 to 1684 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.214.182 ( talk) 23:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
English Tangier is suitably covered in English overseas possessions, and this article does not need to duplicate all of that. Tangier was never British. Moonraker ( talk) 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Afghanistan was NEVER a colony of British empire. The map that have been recently changed (vandalized) should be restored to previous map. It seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:c8ec:0:3839:7ff5:aacd:40e0 ( talk) 22:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
This article was promoted in 2009, when standards were a lot easier than they are today.
This article omits mentioning entire sections of the literature regarding the racial ideology of the empire. For example:
Of course, there are books on the British Empire that don't go into much detail about genocide or racism. However, the article neglects to mention that many sources do. -- Quality posts here ( talk) 02:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
Correct if I'm wrong, but another issue seems to be the sourcing layout. Surely the "further reading" section should not include sources that are cited throughout? I thought MOS dictated that there should be a "sources" section and then a "further reading" section, but right now the two seemed to be mixed together. Aza24 ( talk) 04:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Joserchm: You are edit warring on the main page and making no attempt to communicate, please stop and keep the status quo until the dispute is resolved. @ Wiki-Ed: please use this section to communicate your concerns. — Czello 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Researching this to answer a casual question from my kids, I was startled to read that some considered the independence of Hong Kong to mark the end of the Empire. As a Briton born in the early 1960s (and a stamp collector!) I always considered the Empire as a matter of past history that had long been replaced by the Commonwealth. There is no exact point of cessation, but the two key events are the independence of India in 1947, at which point the monarch relinquished the title of Emperor, and the establishment of the modern Commonwealth in 1949. Myopic Bookworm ( talk) 09:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here ( talk) 20:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi there. As you may see, there is no mention to the deaths - directly or indirectly - caused by the British Empire in the article. I want to add this to the article in a new section, but I need help. Can anyone help me? I need good sources. Thank you. Aryzad ( talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@ Aryzad:, some good sources: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] -- Tobby72 ( talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
@
Aryzad: if you're still around. Look at the comments above; its a mish mash of uninformed opinions, kernels of truth, invective and misinformation. There is a good level of bureaucratic gatekeeping prevalent in Wikipedia [
see denial of infobox requests]. Also, there is a {{
WikiProject Colonialism}} maybe you could get something going with them?
Its exhausting you are working against a generation of active propaganda and suppression of the blatant truth. Barbara Tuchman said it best:
... Whatever the fiasco, aplomb is unbroken. Mistakes, failures, stupidities and other causes of disaster mysteriously vanish. Disasters are recorded with care and pride and become transmuted into things of beauty. Official histories record every move in monumental and infinite detail but the details serve to obscure.
Under British rule absolutely the closest to the minimum was done to provide food so from 1765–1947 60 million people died. British administrators were very concerned with the cost. After 1857 the British perfected the fiction of Indian Government, the Rupee was a currency after all, Indians were in the civil service and provincial governments. But exports from India were paid for in Pounds Sterling in London not in India. The British gained from these unpaid exports for 150 years. During WWI secret Home Charges of up to £100 million were charged and paid for by India that's £10.3 billion in 2020. Linlithgow committed India to WWII with no prior consultation with Indian politicians. He then went on to obstruct and oversee the death of 3 million people when food exports continued during a famine. Wavell came in and instituted food aid in an organized way.
Study what the British did to the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Americans (payment for French-Indian wars, press-gangs, Transportation and Navigation Acts) and you will see that the Indian case is all of those but much much worse because it lasted for 200 years. And they perfected their colonial practices over time. Good luck!
Germsteel ( talk) 04:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
Is there a particular reason why we capitalise 'Empire'? I notice this practice extends to other empires on WP as well. I recently read a section of Gibbon who referered to the 'Roman empire', which to me seems more correct. My guess is that this is a habit that has crept in over time for no particular reason other than trying to magnify the importance and grandeur of any given empire. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 07:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all. A collective proper noun, or adjective preceding a noun? Can someone show me where and how the British empire is/was afunctional independent entity? Where's the constitution? Legislation? etc. I have also noted in infoboxes the desciption of the British Empire as a belligerant, when what is meant is Britain, with the empire forces joining in in a hotch-potch way (because each part of the empire was legally different). The comparison with the United States of America is incorrect because that obvious is a name. If RSS's capitalise Empire then so be it, but they should be a high quality and properly interpreted, and not the usual low grade stuff that often gets used. I am sorry, but all I see is mild attempts at jingoism. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Some of those are constitutionally different, hence capitalisation would be appropriate because 'empire' forms part of the name of a formal entity. I think 'Das Deutsches Reich' would be an example. It did after all have an emperor, as did Rome. Where was the British empire's emperor? Oh yes, India. Not quite the whole empire though? I still wait to be convinced. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
So far this article seems to concentrate a lot on the linear history of the British Empire, while many articles on other empires (see Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire) have sections dealing with other topics (like a wikipedia article on a country) Would adding further sections be a good idea? Krs1208 ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
An IP, user:94.54.255.43 has been making unexplained changes to the infobox that appear to contradict previous consensus. I began reverting but cross-edits occured resulting in a messy situation, hence opening this talk page section. Someone might want to sort out what has happened? IP, please talk here and stop your edits. Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
I've put a "citation needed" tag after this statement: in the "Patriation movement" section: "Although no longer able to pass any laws that would apply as Australian Commonwealth law,..." The reason for this is that the British Parliament did have that power after the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931 and its adoption by Australia in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster provided that the British Parliament could legislate for a "dominion", provided the dominion requested and consented to the British legislation. The notes to the official publication of the Statute of Westminster Act 1942 indicate that the Australian Parliament twice requested that the British Parliament legislate for Australia, which the British Parliament did in acts passed in 1955 and 1958. As well, section 12 of the Australia Act, repealed s. 4 and other sections of the Statute of Westminster, "insofar as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth..." All of that suggests that the British Parliament still could legislate for Australia at the Commonwealth level, unless I'm missing something? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz ( talk) 18:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, in fact it is as simple as that. The Balfour Declaration only confirmed the existing reality and it was codified by the Statute of Westminster and the Adoption Acts. Note the wording: "we refer to the group of selfgoverning communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." When was the last time Westminster legislated for the dominions over their objections? TFD ( talk) 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Elli ( talk | contribs) 09:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
British Empire →
History of the British Empire – At its featured article review, there was discussion on what the title of this article should be. Those who support renaming the article to "History of the British Empire" state that the existing text focuses on the empire's historical events and lacks information on other aspects, such as its governance or legal structure. They believe "History of" more accurately describes the article's focus. Those who support "British Empire" state that governance structures, laws, and culture differed between colonies and changed over time. Explaining each variation would make the article extremely large; they believe this information belongs in existing articles about the history of countries that were part of the empire.
Z1720 (
talk)
00:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The should be the same as it is. Marvelouseditor6651 ( talk) 00:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
British Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Antarctica Area as a seprarate one [ around 8.100.000 square km[ RussianSoul385 ( talk) 12:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I want to make a change on the British Empire wikipedia page, as i personally believe the wording is inaccurate.
The current beginning of the British Empire page states "The British Empire was composed of". was implies that the empire doesnt exist anymore, which it does with the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies. i suggest to change it from "is an empire comprising of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. It was formerly composed of".
I believe this would be more accurate than what is currently up on that page, as the wording is incorrect (in my opinion)
Thanks for reading, Bullhuss5 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
that is a valid point, but i'd like to show a contradiction in the British Empires and the British Overseas Territories wikipedia pages. In the British Empire page, it uses past tense by saying that the empire "WAS comprised of" which implies it has ended, but it has not exactly ended. the "end of the empire" was a claimed statement by some people once Britain lost control of Hong Kong. However, the British Overseas Territories claims that the BOTs are "remnants of the british empire", making these two pages contradictory. hence, why i thought to edit the British Empire. Bullhuss5 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
it was used as an adjective which in that context means remaining. Bullhuss5 ( talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
My mistake. Bullhuss5 ( talk) 07:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)