This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Empire in World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of World War II on the British Empire, an expansion of the World War II section in the B.E. article. It's not meant to be a military history article per se. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article section Pre-war plans for imperial defence makes reference to a "Singapore strategy" as
"Defence of the Empire in the Far East and Australasia had centred around the " Singapore strategy" since 1923."
and then goes on to, roughly, provide a synopsis of the strategy with a single sentence and a citation:
"This made the assumption that Britain could send a fleet to its naval base in Singapore within two or three days of a Japanese attack, while relying on France to help defend the Mediterranean against Italy and to provide assistance in Asia via its colony in Indochina."<ref>[[#refLouis]] p. 315 </ref>
That is fine, and I have nothing to offer to improve on it. However, I would suggest that editors of this page consider adding a ===Singapore strategy=== subsection heading prior to that paragraph. If this were done, it would be possible to Wikilink "Singapore strategy" in other Wikipedia articles to come to this article and find out just what "Singapore strategy" means. If other editors have no problem with it, I'll make the change in a few weeks or so. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Re the page move: The British Empire up to, during, and after World War II. The Commonwealth as the term is currently understood, did not come into being until 1949. There were indeed Commonwealth Realms from 1931 when the Statute of Westminster granted legislative independence to the Dominions, but this is needlessly complicated for high-level articles. If we are generalising - as we have to - then it is better to say "British Empire" for this period to cover all the variations, partly because most of the constituent (modern) countries were part of the Empire, not the Commonwealth, and partly because that is how it was seen from outside. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 11:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had this conversation, or similar ones, so many times I am getting better and better at it.
1. As the Oxford History of the British Empire (p. 558) makes clear:
(i.) "Commonwealth" has been a synonym for the whole Empire since 1766, if not earlier;
(ii.) "British Commonwealth" was (quote) 'popularized' (unquote) during World War 1;
(iii.) "British Commonwealth of Nations" entered legal usage in the Irish Constitution of 1921 and;
(iv.) the
1926 Imperial Conference and
Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised both the "equality" of the Dominions with the UK and adopted the name "British Commonwealth of Nations".
2. British Commonwealth is the short form of the official name, as in:
British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (established 1939) and
British Commonwealth Occupation Force (1945).
3. While "British Empire" is unavoidable when it occurs in
proper names during 1926–49 (e.g.
British Empire Games), its use in relation to other things during 1926–49 is misleading, controversial and arrogant.
(v.) Because it implies that the Commonwealth was a coherent, unified political/military entity (it wasn't) and/or that the UK government oversaw everything that happened in the the whole Commonwealth (which was not the case).
(vi.) Because the name/s varied from country to country during 1926–49.
(vii.) Because there is an official name that is equally understood and recognisable, i.e. British Commonwealth;
4. The claim (by "Wiki-Ed") that "British Commonwealth" is "needlessly complicated" for a "high-level article".
(viii.) It isn't clear how or why "high-level" is being employed here, nor how this article qualifies for such a category.
(ix.) Wikipedia's rules regarding 'readability and accuracy apply equally to all articles.
(x.) Moreover, British Commonwealth is less "complicated" than terms that "Wiki-Ed" uses, such as "Empire and Commonwealth" [sic] or "British Empire and Commonwealth" [sic].
Unless someone can come up with a new and substantial consideration that overrides all of the above, I will de-revert the title, to "British Commonwealth in World War II".
Regardless of the title/location of the article, the simultaneous usage during the Second World War, of different names for the same entity is worthy of mention and needs to be addressed – whereas "Wiki-Ed" deleted my passage mentioning the adoption of the name Commonwealth in 1926.
Grant | Talk 05:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed: as a Wikipedia editor of 10 years standing and an admin for six years, I am well aware of my ability to request a page move. It isn't yet necessary, there are more commonsense options and I would rather show my respect for other editors, by asking them to justify their positions. Your claims that something – I'm not sure what – is "needlessly complicated", and that this is a "high-level article" still need to be justified. Your subsequent allegation of "revisionism" is a shallow one: as any professional historian, or anyone who has studied the subject at an advanced level knows, all historians and works of history integrate and "revise" past works. If they are doing their job.
Brigade Piron:
Grant | Talk 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II would solve the problem, since the Empire certainly existed, with holdings that are now British Overseas Territories, and Singapore and Hong Kong, which were not Commonwealth but Imperial possessions at the time of WWII. Alternately, we could just remove the mostly independent Dominion powers, but that would mean the article would remain as British Empire in World War II -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 06:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your comments. There are a few misconceptions at work in the above comments.
First, I am advocating a change to the name of the article, not the exclusion of discussion of the Dominions from the article.
Second, "British Commonwealth" was the short version of the official name of the whole entity from 1926, i.e. including the Indian Empire, the Crown Colonies, dependencies, and other overseas territories.
In other words, the Imperial Conference of 1926 effected two changes:
The dropping of "British" from the name followed in 1949, reflecting in part the granting of Dominion status to India etc. If anyone wants proof that "British Empire" was already regarded as archaic and obsolete during the Second World War, or that there is an ideological dimension to the insistence on "British Empire", "Empire & Commonwealth", "Commonwealth & Empire" etc., see this discussion of the matter, from a book published in 1962 by Ivor Jennings (then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge and constitutional lawyer):
Why the archaic and/or pedantic names for the post-1926 entity have lingered (or perhaps made a comeback) among lesser authorities and non-authorities is a mystery for someone else to solve.
I think the logic is inescapable.
Grant | Talk 05:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh gosh. Another of these utterly pointless, time-wasting Wikipedia arguments, for an article that I started but probably noone will ever finish or read. Anyway, I'm opposed to Grant65's page move - whenever a Wikipedia editor resorts to "logic" you know original research is involved, or shall we say, original logic. I'll defer to Volume IV, Chapter 13 of the Oxford History of the British Empire: "The Second World War marked the greatest and the ultimate 'revival' of the British Empire." Grant65, I used to waste my life getting involved in these types of arguments about headings and article names and maps and then I realised two things: (1) that these kinds of fights don't really contribute much to Wikipedia or help the user - how about working on expanding the article instead of arguing about its title? and more importantly (2) life is too short - go out and enjoy it! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
TOGETHER
Gnangarra/YKraps: in fact, we are dealing with three phases and three short, common names for one entity:
Wiki-Ed, I could find nine editors who agreed with me if I wanted. So what? As George Orwell said "sanity is not statistical". By the way, if want to persuade others of your opinion, it's better to defend it here you spent as much time here justifying your position, rather than scurrying to the talk pages of agreeable editors, "rallying the troops" to intercede here. It smacks of deliberate systemic bias
Since you raise "exceptional claims": there is nothing whatsoever novel or exceptional about the idea that the "British Empire" officially changed its name in 1926. Or that "British Commonwealth" was a common name. Or that British Commonwealth" was widely used "in preference" to British Empire. (By 1943, as Jennings points out, "British Commonwealth" was so widely used that even Churchill was complaining about it and calling for a return to the old name; see the Jennings quote above). If anything is "exceptional", Ed, it's your implication that British Commonwealth was virtually unknown/extremely rare or confusing to people in 1939&45.
For what it's worth, I think there is evidence that South Africa, Ireland, and Canada (which was the hub of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan from 1939) adopted "British Commonwealth" more quickly than Australia and New Zealand.
Regarding the significance of the Balfour Declaration: what I am saying is that (1) there was some usage of "British Commonwealth" for the whole empire long before 1926 and; (2) while Balfour extended equality with the UK only to the Dominions, the name "British Commonwealth" quickly became adopted as shorthand for the whole thing. (See the poster above.)
Pat Ferrick's point that it is sometimes acceptable to impose names on subjects from the past is a good one; however, it doesn't apply here, because in 1939–45, "British Commonwealth" was widely used and understood, even by those who didn't use it, as the new name of the Empire.
Grant | Talk 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ykraps: not exactly. The article already concerns the whole, heterogeneous entity (UK, Dominions, Indian Empire, Crown Colonies, dependencies etc) in 1939–45; I don't see a push to change that. If so, it then becomes a question of what we call the article. "British Empire", by 1939, was already a controversial name (as I have demonstrated above), (1) because of its historical baggage and (2) because it no longer technically applied to the Dominions. Which is why British Commonwealth is the best term for the title.
Wiki-Ed, you're a mass of self-contradictions. Earlier you disdained appeals to logic as "original research", which is certainly an original definition and has not stopped you attempting to use logic yourself. I also find it "exceptional" when you claim that the British Empire was not the official name of the thing before 1926 and, in almost your next breath insist that "the King" continued to use 'empire' and 'imperial'....for decades". In fact, King George VI had a quid each way. For instance, on May 24, 1940, he said: "One year ago today I spoke to the peoples of the Empire from Winnipeg in the heart of Canada. We were at peace. On that Empire Day I spoke of the ideals of freedom, justice and peace upon which our Commonwealth of free peoples is founded." Note the use of "Empire" and "Commonwealth" interchangeably. And as Jennings's quote of Churchill shows, usage of "Empire" exclusively, in preference to "Commonwealth" was already self-consciously archaic and recalcitrant. David Cannadine refers to "the 'British Commonwealth', that had lapsed in 1948" (Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire, p159). In other words, my claim is, in your terms, clearly far from "exceptional" and does not place "undue weight ... on a contradictory source". (Before today I had already cited several sources; you could easily find plenty more, if you were interested in seeing them.) I have demonstrated widespread usage of British Commonwealth in 1939–45 without "relying" at all "analysis of primary evidence". (For you to say this suggests that you do not understand what primary evidence or original research are.) And, to use your terms, British Commonwealth was a "common name". Merely repeating empty and unsubstantiated claims and allegations, Ed, does not validate the repeater. Why don't you try providing evidence for your position?
Red/Pat: I'm not sure what purpose an anecdote about someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the Gibraltar pound is supposed to serve. You, after all, are effectively saying that British Commonwealth did not mean the whole entity in 1939–45. But it did: as is shown by the "Together" series of propaganda posters, printed in Britain and distributed around the world. They demonstrate that the UK government during World War II used "British Commonwealth of Nations", in preference to "British Empire & Commonwealth", or any other formulations, for the whole entity. Your approach and that of Wiki-Ed reminds me of the editors who periodically moan about how Association football is not at Football – mind you, the same mindset used to moan even more when that article was at Football (soccer). A case that nicely illustrates the insularity of some cliques of editors and perfectly illustrates (first) how some common names are unsuitable, and (second) how consensus includes compromise. Don't worry; we have along way to go before we plumb the depths of some debates on Wikipedia.
Speaking of World War II propaganda posters from the UK, I also like this one, entitled The British Commonwealth. The IWM description says: "a map of the world, with countries that form part of the British Commonwealth coloured red". The text on the poster says:
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
The PEOPLES of the COMMONWEALTH
United Kingdom .......................................................................................... 47,387,000
Dominions .................................................................................................. 33,000,000
India and Burma ...................................................................................... 380,000,000
U.K. and Dominion Dependencies Protectorates and Mandated Territories 65,000,000
................................................................................................................. 525,387,000
KEY
Great Britain, Colonies, Dependencies and Protectorates
Self-governing Dominions and their Dependencies
India and Burma Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
British Mandated Territories
Dominion Mandated Territories
Printed in England by Fosh and Cross Ltd., London.
Grant | Talk 07:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Red/Pat, you clearly do not understand what original research is.
Brigade, as I've said before, I was hoping to resolve this without the formalities, but you're probably right in this instance.
Grant | Talk 11:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. You don't understand what constitutes primary and secondary sources. Hence your misconceptions of OR. Grant | Talk 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
From Requested Moves:
Without commenting on the merits of the argument - there's clearly no consensus for a move and neither side is presently convincing the other of their case. The conversation is also becoming unproductive and somewhat hostile. If proponents of the move still want it pursued they should take the formal step outlined above, and lodge it as a Requested Move. Euryalus ( talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the question has now arisen again, let me summarize this long and learned discussion so it doesn't get get lost. CW == Commonwealth or British Commonwealth. Hoping I have gotten the summary of everybody's position right.
Both User:Wiki-Ed and User:Grant65make the point that of the Five Virtues of WP:Article Titles, two -- Recognizability and Naturalness -- are better met by the familiar "British Empire" rather than "British Commonwealth". Various examples are given. The counter from User:Grant65 is Precision since CW is more correct and accurate.
Various other arguments and points were made at very great length mainly between two or three editors, and nobody really convinced anybody. By my reckoning the headcount was
And we can fold those results and the arguments above into any future WP:RM, once we figure out how this article interacts with Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War, which question I'll address below in a separate section. Herostratus ( talk) 02:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This article was initially almost exclusively about the British Empire military activity in the war. Content about the war was significantly expanded and a new topical article created in line with Wikipedia practices - Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War. An article on the British Empire in World War Two, may be usefully developed into one about the seminal trends and developments within the Empire during the period of the war, in areas such as politics, immigration, nationalism, colonialism, anti-colonialism, etc... I will endeavour to initiate new content as soon as possible. Robert Brukner ( talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War#Request for approval to merge Herostratus ( talk) 17:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move despite good arguments on both sides. Forking out a specific article on military events and expanding the coverage of this historical period in the British Empire would probably resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all parties involved. — JFG talk 03:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
British Empire in World War II →
Military History of the British Empire in World War II – This is probably going to be uncontested but I want to be sure, so let's take our time. Important note: this strictly about whether or not to prepend "Military history of..."; the Empire/Commonwealth thing is off the table, we will have a separate RM about that after this one. This article is a military history, and it is standard to prepend "Military history of..." to these articles (searching on "prefix:Military history" yields 100+ matches). This article is large already and shoehorning in non-military stuff would make it unwieldy. If someone wants to create an article on the political events, economic dislocation, and social unrest in the Empire/Commonwealth during WWII, that's a separate article; what the name of that article should be is a separate discussion.
Herostratus (
talk)
05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to expand on a point I made earlier... we have these 15 articles:
However some other articles just omit the "Military History of..." prefix:
and some done't fit either rubric, at least in the targets of their redirect:
I wouldn't count countries that weren't significant combatants; they would be expected to not have "Military history..." type articles. And most (not all) of the remaining non-"Military history..." titles are for countries that didn't really have an extensive battle history, such as Belgium and Norway and Yugoslavia, where most of their WWII history was being occupied or whatever. But you do have the Soviet Union and Romania and so on. So while most of the articles are "Military history of..." it's certainly not universal.
So anyway, looking at the Five Virtues of WP:Article titles, we have: Recognizability ("The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize") and Naturalness ("The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles") not clearly favoring either "Military history of the British Empire..." or just "British Empire..." in my personal opinion.
Precision ("The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects") clearly favors "Military History of..." since that is more precise, but then Conciseness ("The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects") clearly favors just "British Empire...".
So then the tie breaker would be Consistency ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles") which tends to favor "Military history of..." since we have 15 other articles with that title, and by fewer than than (of countries that fought major military campaigns) that don't have that title.
So there's a tendency for us to to go with "Military history of...", and if we're not going to do that, I'd like to see arguments along the lines of "Well, the article about the British Empire/Commonwealth in World War II is or should be sufficiently different from similar articles about France and Italy and Canada and so forth such that we should title it differently, because _______" and I'd like to see what would go in the blank. Maybe it's "because it's not a country" or something (although I'm not sure why that should matter). Or something else.
But absent that, I think the person closing the requested move is kind of bound to consider that the policy (consistency) tends to favor "Military history of..." at least a little, and that probably matters some. Herostratus ( talk) 00:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No Consensus to Move I am loath to rely on disjointed and isolated discussions (as was the case here) in making a move decision. There is just too much chaff in amongst the substance and no clear positions one way or the other. Although the current title may seem inappropriate given the complexity of British history, it clearly is not ambiguous nor does it give the reader any false leads. Comprehensive redirects and reconciling/clarifying content would be the better solution. All that said, if another RM is burning a hole in some editor’s pocket, then it should be conducted here with clear and concise Support/Oppose arguments based on a specifically recommended new title and not an endless rehash of the tit to tat discussions above. RM’s with no new title suggestions are like floating in the open ocean in a raft, no matter which way you go you will get somewhere, but no one knows where that will be. If a new RM is open, be specific with the new title recommendation. Mike Cline ( talk) 13:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
British Empire in World War II →
Something else – The new name could be:
or something else, or of course keeping the current name of just "British Empire in World War II", and let the closer decide which has the best argument and most support.
The arguments over changing or keeping are discussed exhaustively (and somewhat acerbically) above:
Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth, usefully summarized here IMO:
Talk:British Empire in World War II#Summary, where we see a strong majority favoring just "British Empire" (and the closer should peruse this section and count those voices, if they don't re-appear hear), but this was not formatted as a Requested Move so there was no final decision, so as promised I present this as such.
Just to point out, the question is for X in "X in World War II" where "X" is the name of political entity; the question of adding "Military history of..." or anything else of that nature has just been decided and is off the table.
Herostratus (
talk) 04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. —
Amakuru (
talk)
20:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The Five Virtues of WP:Article titles are:
"Conciseness" might militate a little bit against "British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II" since that is long, but only if its not more precise -- that is, more correctly describing the entity -- than just "British Empire..." or "British Commonwealth...". Other than that, we mostly want the WP:COMMONNAME, to find that name that people (nowadays, not people living in 1945) would most likely search for or write into a link ("Naturalness") and mostly like get what the article is about as soon as they see it ("Recognizability").
Data on what is the common name is hard to come by. this Ngram favors "British Empire" in an "armies of..." context, but then this one seems to favor "Commonwealth" in "armed forces..." context, and this is hard subject on which to form a decisive Ngram query it appears.
"Consistency" I also cannot seem to get useful data on... we have 15 articles that begin "British Empire..." 6 that begin "British Commonwealth...", but these are all official names of things, so that's no use. Herostratus ( talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If there are CONTRIBUTIONS to make please outline them or provide them. Deletion of material does not progress the communal development of material for this article, and is extremely hostile in the context of the recent debate. The lists provided in this article exist as a reference point to potential areas of development and information of value to those interested in further understanding the British Empire in the Second World War. Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
British Empire in World War II article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The purpose of this article is to examine the impact of World War II on the British Empire, an expansion of the World War II section in the B.E. article. It's not meant to be a military history article per se. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
The article section Pre-war plans for imperial defence makes reference to a "Singapore strategy" as
"Defence of the Empire in the Far East and Australasia had centred around the " Singapore strategy" since 1923."
and then goes on to, roughly, provide a synopsis of the strategy with a single sentence and a citation:
"This made the assumption that Britain could send a fleet to its naval base in Singapore within two or three days of a Japanese attack, while relying on France to help defend the Mediterranean against Italy and to provide assistance in Asia via its colony in Indochina."<ref>[[#refLouis]] p. 315 </ref>
That is fine, and I have nothing to offer to improve on it. However, I would suggest that editors of this page consider adding a ===Singapore strategy=== subsection heading prior to that paragraph. If this were done, it would be possible to Wikilink "Singapore strategy" in other Wikipedia articles to come to this article and find out just what "Singapore strategy" means. If other editors have no problem with it, I'll make the change in a few weeks or so. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 14:52, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Re the page move: The British Empire up to, during, and after World War II. The Commonwealth as the term is currently understood, did not come into being until 1949. There were indeed Commonwealth Realms from 1931 when the Statute of Westminster granted legislative independence to the Dominions, but this is needlessly complicated for high-level articles. If we are generalising - as we have to - then it is better to say "British Empire" for this period to cover all the variations, partly because most of the constituent (modern) countries were part of the Empire, not the Commonwealth, and partly because that is how it was seen from outside. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 11:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I have had this conversation, or similar ones, so many times I am getting better and better at it.
1. As the Oxford History of the British Empire (p. 558) makes clear:
(i.) "Commonwealth" has been a synonym for the whole Empire since 1766, if not earlier;
(ii.) "British Commonwealth" was (quote) 'popularized' (unquote) during World War 1;
(iii.) "British Commonwealth of Nations" entered legal usage in the Irish Constitution of 1921 and;
(iv.) the
1926 Imperial Conference and
Balfour Declaration of 1926 recognised both the "equality" of the Dominions with the UK and adopted the name "British Commonwealth of Nations".
2. British Commonwealth is the short form of the official name, as in:
British Commonwealth Air Training Plan (established 1939) and
British Commonwealth Occupation Force (1945).
3. While "British Empire" is unavoidable when it occurs in
proper names during 1926–49 (e.g.
British Empire Games), its use in relation to other things during 1926–49 is misleading, controversial and arrogant.
(v.) Because it implies that the Commonwealth was a coherent, unified political/military entity (it wasn't) and/or that the UK government oversaw everything that happened in the the whole Commonwealth (which was not the case).
(vi.) Because the name/s varied from country to country during 1926–49.
(vii.) Because there is an official name that is equally understood and recognisable, i.e. British Commonwealth;
4. The claim (by "Wiki-Ed") that "British Commonwealth" is "needlessly complicated" for a "high-level article".
(viii.) It isn't clear how or why "high-level" is being employed here, nor how this article qualifies for such a category.
(ix.) Wikipedia's rules regarding 'readability and accuracy apply equally to all articles.
(x.) Moreover, British Commonwealth is less "complicated" than terms that "Wiki-Ed" uses, such as "Empire and Commonwealth" [sic] or "British Empire and Commonwealth" [sic].
Unless someone can come up with a new and substantial consideration that overrides all of the above, I will de-revert the title, to "British Commonwealth in World War II".
Regardless of the title/location of the article, the simultaneous usage during the Second World War, of different names for the same entity is worthy of mention and needs to be addressed – whereas "Wiki-Ed" deleted my passage mentioning the adoption of the name Commonwealth in 1926.
Grant | Talk 05:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed: as a Wikipedia editor of 10 years standing and an admin for six years, I am well aware of my ability to request a page move. It isn't yet necessary, there are more commonsense options and I would rather show my respect for other editors, by asking them to justify their positions. Your claims that something – I'm not sure what – is "needlessly complicated", and that this is a "high-level article" still need to be justified. Your subsequent allegation of "revisionism" is a shallow one: as any professional historian, or anyone who has studied the subject at an advanced level knows, all historians and works of history integrate and "revise" past works. If they are doing their job.
Brigade Piron:
Grant | Talk 03:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
British Empire and Commonwealth in World War II would solve the problem, since the Empire certainly existed, with holdings that are now British Overseas Territories, and Singapore and Hong Kong, which were not Commonwealth but Imperial possessions at the time of WWII. Alternately, we could just remove the mostly independent Dominion powers, but that would mean the article would remain as British Empire in World War II -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 06:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your comments. There are a few misconceptions at work in the above comments.
First, I am advocating a change to the name of the article, not the exclusion of discussion of the Dominions from the article.
Second, "British Commonwealth" was the short version of the official name of the whole entity from 1926, i.e. including the Indian Empire, the Crown Colonies, dependencies, and other overseas territories.
In other words, the Imperial Conference of 1926 effected two changes:
The dropping of "British" from the name followed in 1949, reflecting in part the granting of Dominion status to India etc. If anyone wants proof that "British Empire" was already regarded as archaic and obsolete during the Second World War, or that there is an ideological dimension to the insistence on "British Empire", "Empire & Commonwealth", "Commonwealth & Empire" etc., see this discussion of the matter, from a book published in 1962 by Ivor Jennings (then Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge and constitutional lawyer):
Why the archaic and/or pedantic names for the post-1926 entity have lingered (or perhaps made a comeback) among lesser authorities and non-authorities is a mystery for someone else to solve.
I think the logic is inescapable.
Grant | Talk 05:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh gosh. Another of these utterly pointless, time-wasting Wikipedia arguments, for an article that I started but probably noone will ever finish or read. Anyway, I'm opposed to Grant65's page move - whenever a Wikipedia editor resorts to "logic" you know original research is involved, or shall we say, original logic. I'll defer to Volume IV, Chapter 13 of the Oxford History of the British Empire: "The Second World War marked the greatest and the ultimate 'revival' of the British Empire." Grant65, I used to waste my life getting involved in these types of arguments about headings and article names and maps and then I realised two things: (1) that these kinds of fights don't really contribute much to Wikipedia or help the user - how about working on expanding the article instead of arguing about its title? and more importantly (2) life is too short - go out and enjoy it! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH OF NATIONS
TOGETHER
Gnangarra/YKraps: in fact, we are dealing with three phases and three short, common names for one entity:
Wiki-Ed, I could find nine editors who agreed with me if I wanted. So what? As George Orwell said "sanity is not statistical". By the way, if want to persuade others of your opinion, it's better to defend it here you spent as much time here justifying your position, rather than scurrying to the talk pages of agreeable editors, "rallying the troops" to intercede here. It smacks of deliberate systemic bias
Since you raise "exceptional claims": there is nothing whatsoever novel or exceptional about the idea that the "British Empire" officially changed its name in 1926. Or that "British Commonwealth" was a common name. Or that British Commonwealth" was widely used "in preference" to British Empire. (By 1943, as Jennings points out, "British Commonwealth" was so widely used that even Churchill was complaining about it and calling for a return to the old name; see the Jennings quote above). If anything is "exceptional", Ed, it's your implication that British Commonwealth was virtually unknown/extremely rare or confusing to people in 1939&45.
For what it's worth, I think there is evidence that South Africa, Ireland, and Canada (which was the hub of the British Commonwealth Air Training Plan from 1939) adopted "British Commonwealth" more quickly than Australia and New Zealand.
Regarding the significance of the Balfour Declaration: what I am saying is that (1) there was some usage of "British Commonwealth" for the whole empire long before 1926 and; (2) while Balfour extended equality with the UK only to the Dominions, the name "British Commonwealth" quickly became adopted as shorthand for the whole thing. (See the poster above.)
Pat Ferrick's point that it is sometimes acceptable to impose names on subjects from the past is a good one; however, it doesn't apply here, because in 1939–45, "British Commonwealth" was widely used and understood, even by those who didn't use it, as the new name of the Empire.
Grant | Talk 04:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Ykraps: not exactly. The article already concerns the whole, heterogeneous entity (UK, Dominions, Indian Empire, Crown Colonies, dependencies etc) in 1939–45; I don't see a push to change that. If so, it then becomes a question of what we call the article. "British Empire", by 1939, was already a controversial name (as I have demonstrated above), (1) because of its historical baggage and (2) because it no longer technically applied to the Dominions. Which is why British Commonwealth is the best term for the title.
Wiki-Ed, you're a mass of self-contradictions. Earlier you disdained appeals to logic as "original research", which is certainly an original definition and has not stopped you attempting to use logic yourself. I also find it "exceptional" when you claim that the British Empire was not the official name of the thing before 1926 and, in almost your next breath insist that "the King" continued to use 'empire' and 'imperial'....for decades". In fact, King George VI had a quid each way. For instance, on May 24, 1940, he said: "One year ago today I spoke to the peoples of the Empire from Winnipeg in the heart of Canada. We were at peace. On that Empire Day I spoke of the ideals of freedom, justice and peace upon which our Commonwealth of free peoples is founded." Note the use of "Empire" and "Commonwealth" interchangeably. And as Jennings's quote of Churchill shows, usage of "Empire" exclusively, in preference to "Commonwealth" was already self-consciously archaic and recalcitrant. David Cannadine refers to "the 'British Commonwealth', that had lapsed in 1948" (Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire, p159). In other words, my claim is, in your terms, clearly far from "exceptional" and does not place "undue weight ... on a contradictory source". (Before today I had already cited several sources; you could easily find plenty more, if you were interested in seeing them.) I have demonstrated widespread usage of British Commonwealth in 1939–45 without "relying" at all "analysis of primary evidence". (For you to say this suggests that you do not understand what primary evidence or original research are.) And, to use your terms, British Commonwealth was a "common name". Merely repeating empty and unsubstantiated claims and allegations, Ed, does not validate the repeater. Why don't you try providing evidence for your position?
Red/Pat: I'm not sure what purpose an anecdote about someone who doesn't believe in the existence of the Gibraltar pound is supposed to serve. You, after all, are effectively saying that British Commonwealth did not mean the whole entity in 1939–45. But it did: as is shown by the "Together" series of propaganda posters, printed in Britain and distributed around the world. They demonstrate that the UK government during World War II used "British Commonwealth of Nations", in preference to "British Empire & Commonwealth", or any other formulations, for the whole entity. Your approach and that of Wiki-Ed reminds me of the editors who periodically moan about how Association football is not at Football – mind you, the same mindset used to moan even more when that article was at Football (soccer). A case that nicely illustrates the insularity of some cliques of editors and perfectly illustrates (first) how some common names are unsuitable, and (second) how consensus includes compromise. Don't worry; we have along way to go before we plumb the depths of some debates on Wikipedia.
Speaking of World War II propaganda posters from the UK, I also like this one, entitled The British Commonwealth. The IWM description says: "a map of the world, with countries that form part of the British Commonwealth coloured red". The text on the poster says:
THE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH
The PEOPLES of the COMMONWEALTH
United Kingdom .......................................................................................... 47,387,000
Dominions .................................................................................................. 33,000,000
India and Burma ...................................................................................... 380,000,000
U.K. and Dominion Dependencies Protectorates and Mandated Territories 65,000,000
................................................................................................................. 525,387,000
KEY
Great Britain, Colonies, Dependencies and Protectorates
Self-governing Dominions and their Dependencies
India and Burma Anglo-Egyptian Sudan
British Mandated Territories
Dominion Mandated Territories
Printed in England by Fosh and Cross Ltd., London.
Grant | Talk 07:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Red/Pat, you clearly do not understand what original research is.
Brigade, as I've said before, I was hoping to resolve this without the formalities, but you're probably right in this instance.
Grant | Talk 11:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. You don't understand what constitutes primary and secondary sources. Hence your misconceptions of OR. Grant | Talk 01:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
From Requested Moves:
Without commenting on the merits of the argument - there's clearly no consensus for a move and neither side is presently convincing the other of their case. The conversation is also becoming unproductive and somewhat hostile. If proponents of the move still want it pursued they should take the formal step outlined above, and lodge it as a Requested Move. Euryalus ( talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Since the question has now arisen again, let me summarize this long and learned discussion so it doesn't get get lost. CW == Commonwealth or British Commonwealth. Hoping I have gotten the summary of everybody's position right.
Both User:Wiki-Ed and User:Grant65make the point that of the Five Virtues of WP:Article Titles, two -- Recognizability and Naturalness -- are better met by the familiar "British Empire" rather than "British Commonwealth". Various examples are given. The counter from User:Grant65 is Precision since CW is more correct and accurate.
Various other arguments and points were made at very great length mainly between two or three editors, and nobody really convinced anybody. By my reckoning the headcount was
And we can fold those results and the arguments above into any future WP:RM, once we figure out how this article interacts with Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War, which question I'll address below in a separate section. Herostratus ( talk) 02:57, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
This article was initially almost exclusively about the British Empire military activity in the war. Content about the war was significantly expanded and a new topical article created in line with Wikipedia practices - Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War. An article on the British Empire in World War Two, may be usefully developed into one about the seminal trends and developments within the Empire during the period of the war, in areas such as politics, immigration, nationalism, colonialism, anti-colonialism, etc... I will endeavour to initiate new content as soon as possible. Robert Brukner ( talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War#Request for approval to merge Herostratus ( talk) 17:53, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move despite good arguments on both sides. Forking out a specific article on military events and expanding the coverage of this historical period in the British Empire would probably resolve the issue to the satisfaction of all parties involved. — JFG talk 03:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
British Empire in World War II →
Military History of the British Empire in World War II – This is probably going to be uncontested but I want to be sure, so let's take our time. Important note: this strictly about whether or not to prepend "Military history of..."; the Empire/Commonwealth thing is off the table, we will have a separate RM about that after this one. This article is a military history, and it is standard to prepend "Military history of..." to these articles (searching on "prefix:Military history" yields 100+ matches). This article is large already and shoehorning in non-military stuff would make it unwieldy. If someone wants to create an article on the political events, economic dislocation, and social unrest in the Empire/Commonwealth during WWII, that's a separate article; what the name of that article should be is a separate discussion.
Herostratus (
talk)
05:42, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Just to expand on a point I made earlier... we have these 15 articles:
However some other articles just omit the "Military History of..." prefix:
and some done't fit either rubric, at least in the targets of their redirect:
I wouldn't count countries that weren't significant combatants; they would be expected to not have "Military history..." type articles. And most (not all) of the remaining non-"Military history..." titles are for countries that didn't really have an extensive battle history, such as Belgium and Norway and Yugoslavia, where most of their WWII history was being occupied or whatever. But you do have the Soviet Union and Romania and so on. So while most of the articles are "Military history of..." it's certainly not universal.
So anyway, looking at the Five Virtues of WP:Article titles, we have: Recognizability ("The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize") and Naturalness ("The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles") not clearly favoring either "Military history of the British Empire..." or just "British Empire..." in my personal opinion.
Precision ("The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects") clearly favors "Military History of..." since that is more precise, but then Conciseness ("The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects") clearly favors just "British Empire...".
So then the tie breaker would be Consistency ("The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles") which tends to favor "Military history of..." since we have 15 other articles with that title, and by fewer than than (of countries that fought major military campaigns) that don't have that title.
So there's a tendency for us to to go with "Military history of...", and if we're not going to do that, I'd like to see arguments along the lines of "Well, the article about the British Empire/Commonwealth in World War II is or should be sufficiently different from similar articles about France and Italy and Canada and so forth such that we should title it differently, because _______" and I'd like to see what would go in the blank. Maybe it's "because it's not a country" or something (although I'm not sure why that should matter). Or something else.
But absent that, I think the person closing the requested move is kind of bound to consider that the policy (consistency) tends to favor "Military history of..." at least a little, and that probably matters some. Herostratus ( talk) 00:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No Consensus to Move I am loath to rely on disjointed and isolated discussions (as was the case here) in making a move decision. There is just too much chaff in amongst the substance and no clear positions one way or the other. Although the current title may seem inappropriate given the complexity of British history, it clearly is not ambiguous nor does it give the reader any false leads. Comprehensive redirects and reconciling/clarifying content would be the better solution. All that said, if another RM is burning a hole in some editor’s pocket, then it should be conducted here with clear and concise Support/Oppose arguments based on a specifically recommended new title and not an endless rehash of the tit to tat discussions above. RM’s with no new title suggestions are like floating in the open ocean in a raft, no matter which way you go you will get somewhere, but no one knows where that will be. If a new RM is open, be specific with the new title recommendation. Mike Cline ( talk) 13:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
British Empire in World War II →
Something else – The new name could be:
or something else, or of course keeping the current name of just "British Empire in World War II", and let the closer decide which has the best argument and most support.
The arguments over changing or keeping are discussed exhaustively (and somewhat acerbically) above:
Talk:British Empire in World War II#Empire or Commonwealth, usefully summarized here IMO:
Talk:British Empire in World War II#Summary, where we see a strong majority favoring just "British Empire" (and the closer should peruse this section and count those voices, if they don't re-appear hear), but this was not formatted as a Requested Move so there was no final decision, so as promised I present this as such.
Just to point out, the question is for X in "X in World War II" where "X" is the name of political entity; the question of adding "Military history of..." or anything else of that nature has just been decided and is off the table.
Herostratus (
talk) 04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. —
Amakuru (
talk)
20:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
The Five Virtues of WP:Article titles are:
"Conciseness" might militate a little bit against "British Commonwealth and Empire in World War II" since that is long, but only if its not more precise -- that is, more correctly describing the entity -- than just "British Empire..." or "British Commonwealth...". Other than that, we mostly want the WP:COMMONNAME, to find that name that people (nowadays, not people living in 1945) would most likely search for or write into a link ("Naturalness") and mostly like get what the article is about as soon as they see it ("Recognizability").
Data on what is the common name is hard to come by. this Ngram favors "British Empire" in an "armies of..." context, but then this one seems to favor "Commonwealth" in "armed forces..." context, and this is hard subject on which to form a decisive Ngram query it appears.
"Consistency" I also cannot seem to get useful data on... we have 15 articles that begin "British Empire..." 6 that begin "British Commonwealth...", but these are all official names of things, so that's no use. Herostratus ( talk) 05:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If there are CONTRIBUTIONS to make please outline them or provide them. Deletion of material does not progress the communal development of material for this article, and is extremely hostile in the context of the recent debate. The lists provided in this article exist as a reference point to potential areas of development and information of value to those interested in further understanding the British Empire in the Second World War. Robert Brukner ( talk) 03:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)