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.
British Empire is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
@
Wiki-Ed,
Slatersteven, and
Rjensen: An editor, @
Wisest fool in Christendom:, who seems to be newish, has created a stub
British possession, which at the time of my intervention this morning was cited to one secondary source and four or five primary sources. The editor has been (in my judgment) spamming a large number of Wikipedia articles by Wikilinking the term "British possession" occurring in them (found no doubt by a Google search) to the stub. A quick look at the stub, told me that the Wikilinking was premature, especially when the definition cited to two Acts (1978, 1869) is being applied to
Company rule in India which ended in 1858. I'm posting here, as I think you folks are better prepared to judge the product and its widespread Wikilinking, that is at this stage of its development. I did post on their user talk page, but to little effect.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Simply because a "British possession" is formally defined in 1889 (not 1869 as Fowler&fowler erroneously claims) does not mean it did not have legal or commonplace meaning before that time. The
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, for example, used this title. Fowler&fowler's "quick look" was quick enough to allow them to form several inaccurate opinions on both the subject and the article, but clearly not long enough either to investigate the sources nor to construct any meaningful criticism to justify their opposition to its existence and to the existence of links to it. For example, Fowler&fowler claimed that the article was based mostly on primary sources, whereas in truth the article is based entirely on secondary sources, the primary source citations being there merely for further reference. I asked for Fowler&fowler to substantiate their claim that "the term is variously interpreted", but they failed to do so.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
See "Seditious Publications Ordinance was passed in Hong Kong in 1914. ... According to section 2, seditous matter referred to ... by inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor, implication or otherwise — to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty, or the Government established by law in the United Kingdom or in this Colony or in any British possession or in British India or the administration of justice in any of such places or any class ..." (
here) So, was British India a British possession? If so, why is it mentioned separately above; if not, why have you wiki-linked "British possessions in the
Presidencies and provinces of British India to it"
here?
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
You've added a couple more (secondary sources) after I objected. Originally, there was just one. Spamming other articles with the barest of stubs that is being improved on the fly, I'm afraid, is not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Generally, in the heyday of the empire, the term "British possession" was applied to what did not fit in the descending categories of constitutional recognition, starting with the highest: a) United Kingdom, (b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland), (c) India and (d) British crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon).
So, Aden, a British possession, which was administratively a part of
British India's
Bombay presidency, was the kind of outpost of the empire the term was generally applied to.
Please don't make it sound like some battle between you and me. Offer examples such as I have, not what I said and what you said. This is about knowledge, not behavior.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
No, this is incorrect. The dominions are always considered British possessions, as are the colonies. The UK as such never is. As I have shown, you have conspicuously failed to produce anything but your own opinions despite repeated challenges. I don't see any reason why your example of Aden proves anything, and I don't see any reason why your claims, if they were valid, could not be found in reliable sources, something you have apparently failed to do.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
For that reason when you search among books published in the 21st century, for
"British possession of Canada", you only get examples in which "possession" is used in the meaning of "the act or condition of having in or taking into one's control or holding at one's disposal <the enemy's possession of the town>"
But when you do a search for
"British possession of Aden" among books published in the 21st century, you get examples in which the term is used mostly (i.e. in 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...) in the meaning of, "c: a territory subject to a ruler or government or d: an area subject to a government but not fully integrated into the nation to which the government belongs"
Definitions is not what WP is about. Ultimately, transferred meaning in usage is more important, and that your stub misses enturely.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
But it very much was for outposts of the empire such as Aden:
Examples:
"... Ali had marched an expedition force to Mocha with the intention of attacking Sana'a in October 1838, and continuing further south to the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The British possission of Aden, however, succeeded in halting Ali's advance." (see
in book published by Oxford University Press in 2017)
"... for the export of illegal ivory from East Africa in the 1920s was via Italian Somaliland through the British possession of Aden, where, as long as 1909, ..." (see
in book published by Routledge
"export of illegal ivory from East Africa in the 1920s was via Italian Somaliland through the British possession of Aden, where, as long ago as 1909, ..." (See
in book published by Routledge in 2004)
"... the forces of the Imam Al-Badr, who had been overthrown by a coup that threatend the British possession of Aden, the last remaining outpost controlling access to the Mediterranean after the loss of Suez." (See
in book published by Rowman & Littlefield
I don't especially object to the article existing, but in the few examples I looked at of the very large number of articles now linking to it, I thought it was either a distraction or potential source of confusion to the reader. For example,
there must be better links that could be used here.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for replying Johnbod. I don't object to the article existing either, but the term is used in a large number of contexts, it seems, (see the HK Seditious Publications Ordinance 1914 cited above (pages 222–223) where British India is distinguished from any British possession. My objection was simply to the hurried Wikilinking especially at this stage of the stub's development.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
As I have proved above Fowler&fowler's interpretations of primary sources leave much to be desired - in the Hong Kong case Fowler&fowler refers to, there is no contradiction. Fowler&fowler has yet to provide any evidence of the grand claims so hastily made.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 18:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Whatever! What we are talking about is, or should be, whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned. The article itself says "while "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare"", which is certainly true, and we should follow that.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Wisest Fool in Christendom says: "accusing others of "spamming" without due cause is, as you might say, "not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia"." I went to your contribution page, and the first 250 entries, all today, are inserting wikilinks to "British possessions". That is clearly spamming, applying a wikilink to a technical article everytime it appears.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 20:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Johnbod It's its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century. Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself". Why shouldn't we make links to it where appropriate?
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Johnbod's comment: "whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned". The stub article only considers the meaning of "British possession" under British law. But British statutes do not apply to contries like Canada and Australia. Assuming that the British legal term "British possessions" has the same meaning anywhere in the world is legally incorrect. If the term is used in Canadian law, or Australian law, for instance, then its meaning is defined by Canadian or Australian law. It is not good practice to assume a British legal term has uniform application.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Laws made before the 20th century certainly do apply in Canada and Australia. Laws made before those countries' legislative independence will still be on the statute book in those countries unless removed by subsequent legislation. As "British possession" was legally defined in the time of Queen Victoria, and it still has relevance in the former dominions, just as it does in the former colonies, whether or not they are still Overseas Territories. It was, for example a matter of relevance for the Australian tax authorities as recently as 1993
[1]. Equally, the words "British possession" was removed from the Indian
Official Secrets Act 1923 in 1967
[2], but it remains on the Indian statute book in the Reciprocity Act 1943
[3].
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wisest fool in Christendom says: "its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century." That is legally incorrect. There no longer are dominions, and the British Parliament has no power to legislate for Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. It's not just "rare" in the 21st century; it's non-existent.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wisest fool in Christendom also says: "Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself" ". The article is discussing a legal term in British law. It is completely silent as to the meaning of that term, if any, in the laws of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Until that article is updated to provide reliable sources that indicate the meaning, if any, of "British possession" in the law of Canada, Australisa, NZ, etc, then it is not appropriate to do wholesale links to the term in 250+ articles, without any real consideration of whether that specific legal term is meant or applies in each article. Legal terms by their nature can be technical, and the scope of their application is an important factor to consider before applying them.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
But the basic point is that the term "British possession" is not defined now for Canada, Australia, etc., by British statutes. If the term is still in use in a Canadian, Australian, etc., statute, it takes its meaning from Canadian or Australian law. You can't assume that "British possession" has the same meaning in all those countries, after more than a century of legislation. The British possession article only cites to British statutes and British legal texts. It does not address the issue of the meaning of the term, if any, in Canada, Australia, etc. It therefore is not appropriate to do a mass linking to an article that talks solely about British law. For example, the Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978. Citing to the Interpretation Act 1889 is therefore irrelevant in determining the meaning of "British possession" now. As well, the Interpretation Act 1978 is a British statute which only applies to British law; it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster: there is no indication that any of those countries requested and consented to 1978 Act applying to them, so it does not. The two legal texts cited in the article do not appear to appreciate this fundamental significance, because from the quotations in the article, they appear to assume that the 1978 definition of "British possession" continues to include Canada, Australia, etc. It doesn't, because of the Statute of Westminster. This is what I meant when I said that legal definitions of this sort are very technical, and in my opinion cannot simply be assumed to apply to every use of the term "British possession" in 250+ articles in Wikipedia.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories. It is entirely false to claim "it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster". The 1889 definition of "British possession" is in force, today, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and doubtless elsewhere. I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state. It would obviously be inappropirate to add such a link where possessions of Britons were being spoken of. The vast majority of usage on Wikipedia, however, deals with its normal meaning, which is not complex or technical at all.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm trying to avoid making a time consuming trip to one of the AN boards.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The wisest fool in Christendom said: "The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories."
(1) The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978, s. 25, and Schedule 3:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/contents. Citing the 1889 Act is therefore irrelevant, as it no longer exists. (2) The Statute of Westminster 1931, s. 4, provides that a British statute passed after December 11, 1931, will not apply to the law of a dominion unless the statute expressly states that the "Dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof":
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/contents (3) The Interpretation Act 1978 does not contain any express statement that Canada, Australia, NZ etc have requested that the Act apply to them, and consents to the enactment of the Act. (4) The Interpretation Act 1978 therefore does not apply to the Commonwealth realms, and the definition of "British possession" in the 1978 Act is not part of the law of any of the Commonwealth realms. (5) All of which shows that determining the legal meaning of a statutory term is not a simple matter, and we as Wikipedia editors cannot just say that a British legal term is part of the laws of any other country, without a reliable source saying so. Which the "British possession" article does not have.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I was just going to add that the Statute of Westminster applied to the original six dominions, but not India. However, we get to the same point for India by looking at s. 6(4) of the Independence of India Act 1947: "6(4) No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf The 1978 Act therefore does not apply to India either.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Just noticed this comment from The wisest fool in Christendom: "Aden and Canada were both British possessions. Canada still is. The term appears in the Constitution Act, 1982." Citation, please.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 01:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The wisest fool in Christendom also said: "I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state." Well, then, why did you add a link to "British possessions" when it was used in a statute passed by the Congress of the United States? Were you suggesting that the Congress of the United States was incorporating a British statutory term in an American statute? I removed it, by the way.
/info/en/?search=Montana_Territory#Original_boundariesMr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 01:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz you are mistaken. I have not edited the article to which you link. The US Congress is simply using the term to mean what it has always meant. Since the border of the Montana territory refers to the edge of to British North America, the link would be correct. This is why I added it to the article
History of Montana[4]. You mistakenly removed the link
[5], apparently under the misapprehension that the term "British possession" means something different in American law to what it means in British law. It does not.
The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed in the UK. As Mr Serjeant Buzfuz correctly points out, the
Statute of Westminster means that the 1978 repeal does not apply (automatically) to the Dominions/Commonwealth realms. As such, it is the 1889 Act that remains in force in these countries. This is immaterial, since the definition of "British possession" is identical in each. It is incorrect to claim, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz does, that the 1889 Act "no longer exists".
The Statute of Westminster actually uses the term "British possession". That alone establishes its relevance well beyond 1931.
In the Canadian constitution, the expression "British possessions" appears in number 8 of the Schedule to the
Constitution Act, 1982.
[6] In British legislation, this is part of the
Canada Act 1982[7]. As will be noted, the definition of "British possession" will either be that of the 1889 Act or the 1978 Act, but either way, it will make no difference. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's changes
here,
here,
here and
here are all therefore unhelpful and the purported justification "Canada is not a British possession" is simply wrong, especially as all these instances deal with 19th-century history, at which period no-one could question the fact that Canada was part of the British Empire. The more so that Mr Serjeant Buzfuz removed the link in some instances while leaving the existing statement intact, a strange thing to do if, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz claims, "Canada is not a British possession".
In Australian legislation, the expression "British possession" appears, most recently, in Schedule 2, number 456 of the
Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011[8], which amended the
Crimes Act 1914. Again, the definition is the same, excepting that the words "the Sovereign's" replaces "Her Majesty's". There is no material difference with the definition of 1978, or of 1889, or of earlier definitions not explicitly defined in law, which were similarly broad.
In New Zealand's legislation, the term is still part of acts in force today (
British Settlements Act 1887[9],
Prize Courts Act 1894[10],
Prize Act 1939)
[11], but in legal interpretation, it was successfully argued in court in 1976 that the term as used in the British
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 no longer applied to New Zealand (in New Zealand's law) as a result of New Zealand's
Constitution Amendment Act 1973. The lawyer that argued this,
David Lange, having made himself prime minister, passed the
Constitution Act 1986, which taking effect from 1987, ended the power of the British Parliament to legislate for New Zealand. Up until 1973 therefore, New Zealand was a "British possession" in New Zealand law
[12]; according to British law, it still is.
Although the 1978 act does not apply to India, that is irrelevant, since the term and its definition of 1889 was in use long before partition and independence, and as such forms part of the post-independence law in both India and Pakistan. I hope
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is not trying to claim that the Independence of India Act 1947 somehow nullified all previous legislation, or is seeking to prove that the British parliament in 1978 somehow modified the laws in India? If not, then I hope Mr Serjeant Buzfuz will agree with the fact the the term "British possession", where it appears in legislation in force in India today, has the same definition it had in 1889, which, not by coincidence, is the same definition which obtains everywhere else, including the UK, where the definition under the 1978 act is the same as in India under the 1889 act.
You may wax on for ever, but the bottom line is that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," where "possession" has the meaning of territory, but they do speak of the "British possession of Aden" as I've already indicated, or
"British possession of Gibraltar". The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire: a) United Kingdom; b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland); c) India, i.e.
British Raj; (d) Crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon or Trinidad and Tobago). It can be easily checked that history text-books employ that usage.
So, per usage in text books and per
WP:TERTIARY, which states:
Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate
due weight.
Also, per
WP:PARITY, the POV being promoted and spammed by user:The wisest fool in Christendom is FRINGE and detracts from the encyclopedic reliability of Wikipedia, such as it is. I don't believe there is any point engaging this
WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It is best for area specialists to be aware of the spamming. Pinging @
Kautilya3,
TrangaBellam,
DaxServer, and
Fylindfotberserk: for Raj-related content. I see that Kautilya3 has already reverted several attempted Wikilinks. All the best,
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fowler&fowler You appear to be inventing your own definition of "British possession" ("The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire") which explicitly disagrees with the numerous secondary and tertiary sources I have quoted (the Longman Dictionary of Law being one such). This is textbook
WP:original research, as well as a fringe belief. To cite yet another clutch of sources that contradict your tendentious claims:
Wright, Barry; Tucker, Eric; Binnie, Susan (2015).
Canadian State Trials, Volume IV. University of Toronto Press. p. 79.
ISBN978-1-4426-3108-3. The imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 confirmed the existing practice of enabling the government of any British possession, which included the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, …
This is just the result of the most shallow research. There are dozens and dozens of others. Please, Fowler&fowler, accept the reality. Your claim that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," is just obviously false and proven false by even the small selection of examples above. Further, evidence, if further evidence were necessary, is found in the legal documents of the Victorian era:
I cannot see how anyone can claim that Canada was not a British possession, when modern historians say so, and historical documents agree.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Your examples are all historical examples, i.e. refer to Canada of old, of the 19th-century, as it had existed before the Acts (you make your kingpins) had been enacted. They are not text-books, but monographs (found by cherry picking sources). No widely used textbook refers to Canada during the 1950s or 60s a British possession. But they do call Aden, Gibraltar, Malta, or Diego Garcia British possessions. You are wasting you time attempting to argue with me. More importantly you are wasting my time. I can tell by your writing that you are unable to argue using heuristics. You don't present digested knowledge. During the last 17 years, I've seen many like you come and go without making any substantive contributions to Wikipedia. I am done.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm taking this page off my watchlist for a while.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fowler&fowler It seems you are unable to engage on anything substantial. Will be undoing your unjustified reverts? Will you be recognizing that your claims have been false?
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Is it? British subject has 65 cites British possession has 9. In addition, one covers a period of 400 years, the other less than 200. o, I do not see them as similar in importance.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British subject has existed as an article for years.
British possession was created much more recently, and only I have worked on it. The term "British subject", according to that article, "was codified in statute law for the first time by the
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914". The term "British possession" was codified in statute law for the first time by the
Interpretation Act 1889. As your comment indicates, the concept of a British subject is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1914 act. The concept of a British possession is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1889 act. By your own definition, British possession is at least as relevant as British subject. It follows, indeed, that there can hardly be British subjects beyond the UK itself without British possessions beyond the UK itself.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
All very interesting but where are the sources that confirm its notability? Acts of parliament do not count. There are some sources on the British Possession article but they are not specific so we cannot check them. Can you supply quotes, in context. Snippets don't count. British Subjects should not be used as a comparison. It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Roger 8 Roger I'm sorry I don't understand. What do you mean by "they are not specific so we cannot check them"? I think I have put the references in a very full format. What would you like me to quote? What do you mean by "It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone"?
British subject and
British possession are both articles on Wikipedia.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I meant not having page numbers although I can now see that some do have. Anyway, I am not sure the term "British Possession" is notable enough. Being defined in a statute from the 1880's is not being notable. What we need is something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media. It seems that all your references are statutes or text books about statutes. I had a look at John Wilson, a good but amateur historian, in his explanation for the NZ parliament that you use twice, the only mention of 'British Possession' is in the sub-notes. I quote:
"In 1976 David Lange, acting as a lawyer for a defendant, successfully argued that New Zealand, for the purposes of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (UK) under which his client was charged, was not “part of Her Majesty’s dominions” or a “British possession”. While noting the significance of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, Wilson J unequivocally stated that the last bonds of dependence on the United Kingdom were severed with the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973, by which New Zealand established itself in law as an independent sovereign state. In his summation, Wilson J reluctantly concluded that
a statute that is still technically part of the law of New Zealand is now ineffective to confer that jurisdiction for which it was originally designed…[and] still subsists like an unburied corpse which I have been compelled to refuse to convert into a zombie. [37]
The judgment is significant because it drew attention to the residual power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for New Zealand – a significance apparently not lost on Mr Lange when he saw the need to pass the Constitution Act 1986 during his tenure as Prime Minister of New Zealand."
An interestingly humorous summary by Justice Wilson (not related), but hardly noteworthy. In fact he confirms what I had thought before seeing this judgement, that you are also inserting original research by deciding what the 1888 statute means. I might be wrong, but the 1888 term British dominion is quite different from British Dominion as we know it today. The monarch of the UK is not the monarch of Australia, Canada and NZ anyway. The monarch of Australia for example is the King of Australia, not the King of the UK. (Wilson J refers to this indirectly for NZ in his summary)
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 06:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at the stub in question, it is a basic definition with the article bloated by reference to a couple of court cases. I would suggest removal and will shortly be nominating for deletion. WCMemail 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Roger 8 Roger "something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media" is exactly what is described by
W. P. M. Kennedy in his article entitled "British possessions" in the University of Toronto Law Journal. I quoted it in the article already. You yourself quote the judgement in re Ashman. Where is the "original research" you allege? Absolutely nothing in the article is not based on secondary or tertiary sources. What is the 1888 statute you are referring to? Could it be the Interpretation Act 1889 or the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881?
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
For those wishing to comment, the deletion discussion can be found
here. WCMemail 14:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Those who commented in the AfD may wish to comment in a related discussion currently at
Talk:British possession. WCMemail 15:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Enslaved person" v "Slave"
I'm not Ethel Del, but my understanding of the issue is that the terminology of "enslaved person" is a recognition of their status as human beings, while "slave" is terminology which reduces them to objects, bought and sold, like chattels. Here's a short outline of the position from the Underground Railroad History Project:
The Vocabulary of Freedom:
"Also important to reevaluate is the use of “master” and “slave” in our lexicon. With the word “slave,” we deny the humanity of the enslaved person; with “enslaved person,” we recognize their enslaved state as imposed on them and not intrinsic to their identity as a human being."
We must be careful not to get into PC reasoning. The term 'slave' is extremely common and understood in RSSs.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd agree as well - Wikipedia shouldn't be virtue signalling - if the consensus among historians changes then we can change the wording, but for now I'm pretty sure 'slave' is the commmonly used term. For what it's worth, I'd read 'enslaved person' as a softer term which disguises the inhumanity.
Wiki-Ed (
talk) 11:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Is is an odd way of putting it, and no I do not see it as "dehumanizing" them". As they were "bought and sold, like chattels" that was (and is) the whole point. As per Wiki-Ed if anything it is the other way round, it whitewashes what slavery was by implying it was just a form of employment.
Slatersteven (
talk) 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The claim that "slave" is dehumanizing, or somehow less dehumanizing than "enslaved" is preposterous. Slaves are by definition human, and the word "enslaved" anyway contains the word "slave". "Slavery" is no more or less dehumanizing than "enslavement". There is no reason under the sun to prefer "enslaved" to "slave". The difference is like that between "circled" and "encircled" – there isn't one. Something circled is no more or less dehumanized than something encircled. I do not see what relevance or authority the "Underground Railroad History Project" can possibly have, least of all in an article dealing with the British Empire.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
While there are valid arguments on both sides, the terminology debate hinges on perspectives. The "enslaved person" term emphasizes recognition of their humanity, while "slave" highlights their status as property. It's a matter of interpretation. 🤷♂️
207.96.13.213 (
talk) 19:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Revert
Why was
this edit reverted? It includes a more broad summery of conquests. This also states the British were the dominant power.
SKAG123 (
talk) 17:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Did its dominance end in 1849? According to whom? In fact Brtian was more powerful after the Second Anglo-Sikh War, and in fact survived a Muinty about a decade later.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It was referring to the conquests. It should have been worded better.
Does this sound better?
”Britain became a dominant power in the Indian subcontinent through various conquests the 18th and 19th centuries starting in Bengal in 1757 and ending in Punjab in 1849.”
SKAG123 (
talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No, as conquests did not end in 1849 either, this is a bizarre endpoint that seems far to arbitrary.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Could we remove the last part and only add “ Britain became a dominant power in the Indian subcontinent through various conquests the 18th and 19th centuries”
SKAG123 (
talk) 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Becasue it adds words for no good purpose?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to expand the section on the Scottish attempts to expand to include the colonisation of Nova Scotia and the Plantation of Ulster.
MiloThatch 98 (
talk) 01:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Jamedeus (
talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Those sources are simply carelessly written personal opinion that are being misused by you as well.
"Our research finds that Britain’s exploitative policies were associated with approximately 100 million excess deaths during the 1881-1920 period"
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 21:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article fails incredulously to mention the atrocities against Indians.
Hear me out. Britain, through its colonial satellites sponsored the killing of 100 million[1] Indians within the span of 40 years. India was reduced to poverty under Britain, who strategically fostered ethnic and religious divisions[2] through
Divide and Rule. This article severely downplayed the effects of the
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and does not include the casualties of it or any other massacre. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of unbiased information, not a vessel for rosy-eyed
British imperialism. So I request that the information be corrected immediately with reliable sources, and/or the biased template be added. Thank you,
Ayunipear (
talk) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Those sources are poorly written personal opinion and are misinterpreted by you as well. They cannot be used as reliable independent secondary sources. They are an interesting magazine read while someone is sitting in the dentist's waiting room but they are not serious encyclopedia material.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
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.
British Empire is a
former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check
the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Commonwealth of Nations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
British Overseas Territories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British Overseas TerritoriesWikipedia:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesTemplate:WikiProject British Overseas TerritoriesBritish Overseas Territories articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please
join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles
@
Wiki-Ed,
Slatersteven, and
Rjensen: An editor, @
Wisest fool in Christendom:, who seems to be newish, has created a stub
British possession, which at the time of my intervention this morning was cited to one secondary source and four or five primary sources. The editor has been (in my judgment) spamming a large number of Wikipedia articles by Wikilinking the term "British possession" occurring in them (found no doubt by a Google search) to the stub. A quick look at the stub, told me that the Wikilinking was premature, especially when the definition cited to two Acts (1978, 1869) is being applied to
Company rule in India which ended in 1858. I'm posting here, as I think you folks are better prepared to judge the product and its widespread Wikilinking, that is at this stage of its development. I did post on their user talk page, but to little effect.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Simply because a "British possession" is formally defined in 1889 (not 1869 as Fowler&fowler erroneously claims) does not mean it did not have legal or commonplace meaning before that time. The
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, for example, used this title. Fowler&fowler's "quick look" was quick enough to allow them to form several inaccurate opinions on both the subject and the article, but clearly not long enough either to investigate the sources nor to construct any meaningful criticism to justify their opposition to its existence and to the existence of links to it. For example, Fowler&fowler claimed that the article was based mostly on primary sources, whereas in truth the article is based entirely on secondary sources, the primary source citations being there merely for further reference. I asked for Fowler&fowler to substantiate their claim that "the term is variously interpreted", but they failed to do so.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
See "Seditious Publications Ordinance was passed in Hong Kong in 1914. ... According to section 2, seditous matter referred to ... by inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor, implication or otherwise — to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty, or the Government established by law in the United Kingdom or in this Colony or in any British possession or in British India or the administration of justice in any of such places or any class ..." (
here) So, was British India a British possession? If so, why is it mentioned separately above; if not, why have you wiki-linked "British possessions in the
Presidencies and provinces of British India to it"
here?
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
You've added a couple more (secondary sources) after I objected. Originally, there was just one. Spamming other articles with the barest of stubs that is being improved on the fly, I'm afraid, is not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Generally, in the heyday of the empire, the term "British possession" was applied to what did not fit in the descending categories of constitutional recognition, starting with the highest: a) United Kingdom, (b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland), (c) India and (d) British crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon).
So, Aden, a British possession, which was administratively a part of
British India's
Bombay presidency, was the kind of outpost of the empire the term was generally applied to.
Please don't make it sound like some battle between you and me. Offer examples such as I have, not what I said and what you said. This is about knowledge, not behavior.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
No, this is incorrect. The dominions are always considered British possessions, as are the colonies. The UK as such never is. As I have shown, you have conspicuously failed to produce anything but your own opinions despite repeated challenges. I don't see any reason why your example of Aden proves anything, and I don't see any reason why your claims, if they were valid, could not be found in reliable sources, something you have apparently failed to do.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
For that reason when you search among books published in the 21st century, for
"British possession of Canada", you only get examples in which "possession" is used in the meaning of "the act or condition of having in or taking into one's control or holding at one's disposal <the enemy's possession of the town>"
But when you do a search for
"British possession of Aden" among books published in the 21st century, you get examples in which the term is used mostly (i.e. in 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...) in the meaning of, "c: a territory subject to a ruler or government or d: an area subject to a government but not fully integrated into the nation to which the government belongs"
Definitions is not what WP is about. Ultimately, transferred meaning in usage is more important, and that your stub misses enturely.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
But it very much was for outposts of the empire such as Aden:
Examples:
"... Ali had marched an expedition force to Mocha with the intention of attacking Sana'a in October 1838, and continuing further south to the tip of the Arabian Peninsula. The British possission of Aden, however, succeeded in halting Ali's advance." (see
in book published by Oxford University Press in 2017)
"... for the export of illegal ivory from East Africa in the 1920s was via Italian Somaliland through the British possession of Aden, where, as long as 1909, ..." (see
in book published by Routledge
"export of illegal ivory from East Africa in the 1920s was via Italian Somaliland through the British possession of Aden, where, as long ago as 1909, ..." (See
in book published by Routledge in 2004)
"... the forces of the Imam Al-Badr, who had been overthrown by a coup that threatend the British possession of Aden, the last remaining outpost controlling access to the Mediterranean after the loss of Suez." (See
in book published by Rowman & Littlefield
I don't especially object to the article existing, but in the few examples I looked at of the very large number of articles now linking to it, I thought it was either a distraction or potential source of confusion to the reader. For example,
there must be better links that could be used here.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for replying Johnbod. I don't object to the article existing either, but the term is used in a large number of contexts, it seems, (see the HK Seditious Publications Ordinance 1914 cited above (pages 222–223) where British India is distinguished from any British possession. My objection was simply to the hurried Wikilinking especially at this stage of the stub's development.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
As I have proved above Fowler&fowler's interpretations of primary sources leave much to be desired - in the Hong Kong case Fowler&fowler refers to, there is no contradiction. Fowler&fowler has yet to provide any evidence of the grand claims so hastily made.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 18:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Whatever! What we are talking about is, or should be, whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned. The article itself says "while "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare"", which is certainly true, and we should follow that.
Johnbod (
talk) 20:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Wisest Fool in Christendom says: "accusing others of "spamming" without due cause is, as you might say, "not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia"." I went to your contribution page, and the first 250 entries, all today, are inserting wikilinks to "British possessions". That is clearly spamming, applying a wikilink to a technical article everytime it appears.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 20:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Johnbod It's its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century. Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself". Why shouldn't we make links to it where appropriate?
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree with Johnbod's comment: "whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned". The stub article only considers the meaning of "British possession" under British law. But British statutes do not apply to contries like Canada and Australia. Assuming that the British legal term "British possessions" has the same meaning anywhere in the world is legally incorrect. If the term is used in Canadian law, or Australian law, for instance, then its meaning is defined by Canadian or Australian law. It is not good practice to assume a British legal term has uniform application.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Laws made before the 20th century certainly do apply in Canada and Australia. Laws made before those countries' legislative independence will still be on the statute book in those countries unless removed by subsequent legislation. As "British possession" was legally defined in the time of Queen Victoria, and it still has relevance in the former dominions, just as it does in the former colonies, whether or not they are still Overseas Territories. It was, for example a matter of relevance for the Australian tax authorities as recently as 1993
[1]. Equally, the words "British possession" was removed from the Indian
Official Secrets Act 1923 in 1967
[2], but it remains on the Indian statute book in the Reciprocity Act 1943
[3].
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wisest fool in Christendom says: "its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century." That is legally incorrect. There no longer are dominions, and the British Parliament has no power to legislate for Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. It's not just "rare" in the 21st century; it's non-existent.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Wisest fool in Christendom also says: "Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself" ". The article is discussing a legal term in British law. It is completely silent as to the meaning of that term, if any, in the laws of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Until that article is updated to provide reliable sources that indicate the meaning, if any, of "British possession" in the law of Canada, Australisa, NZ, etc, then it is not appropriate to do wholesale links to the term in 250+ articles, without any real consideration of whether that specific legal term is meant or applies in each article. Legal terms by their nature can be technical, and the scope of their application is an important factor to consider before applying them.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
But the basic point is that the term "British possession" is not defined now for Canada, Australia, etc., by British statutes. If the term is still in use in a Canadian, Australian, etc., statute, it takes its meaning from Canadian or Australian law. You can't assume that "British possession" has the same meaning in all those countries, after more than a century of legislation. The British possession article only cites to British statutes and British legal texts. It does not address the issue of the meaning of the term, if any, in Canada, Australia, etc. It therefore is not appropriate to do a mass linking to an article that talks solely about British law. For example, the Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978. Citing to the Interpretation Act 1889 is therefore irrelevant in determining the meaning of "British possession" now. As well, the Interpretation Act 1978 is a British statute which only applies to British law; it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster: there is no indication that any of those countries requested and consented to 1978 Act applying to them, so it does not. The two legal texts cited in the article do not appear to appreciate this fundamental significance, because from the quotations in the article, they appear to assume that the 1978 definition of "British possession" continues to include Canada, Australia, etc. It doesn't, because of the Statute of Westminster. This is what I meant when I said that legal definitions of this sort are very technical, and in my opinion cannot simply be assumed to apply to every use of the term "British possession" in 250+ articles in Wikipedia.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories. It is entirely false to claim "it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster". The 1889 definition of "British possession" is in force, today, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and doubtless elsewhere. I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state. It would obviously be inappropirate to add such a link where possessions of Britons were being spoken of. The vast majority of usage on Wikipedia, however, deals with its normal meaning, which is not complex or technical at all.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm trying to avoid making a time consuming trip to one of the AN boards.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The wisest fool in Christendom said: "The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories."
(1) The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978, s. 25, and Schedule 3:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/contents. Citing the 1889 Act is therefore irrelevant, as it no longer exists. (2) The Statute of Westminster 1931, s. 4, provides that a British statute passed after December 11, 1931, will not apply to the law of a dominion unless the statute expressly states that the "Dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof":
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/contents (3) The Interpretation Act 1978 does not contain any express statement that Canada, Australia, NZ etc have requested that the Act apply to them, and consents to the enactment of the Act. (4) The Interpretation Act 1978 therefore does not apply to the Commonwealth realms, and the definition of "British possession" in the 1978 Act is not part of the law of any of the Commonwealth realms. (5) All of which shows that determining the legal meaning of a statutory term is not a simple matter, and we as Wikipedia editors cannot just say that a British legal term is part of the laws of any other country, without a reliable source saying so. Which the "British possession" article does not have.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you. I was just going to add that the Statute of Westminster applied to the original six dominions, but not India. However, we get to the same point for India by looking at s. 6(4) of the Independence of India Act 1947: "6(4) No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf The 1978 Act therefore does not apply to India either.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Just noticed this comment from The wisest fool in Christendom: "Aden and Canada were both British possessions. Canada still is. The term appears in the Constitution Act, 1982." Citation, please.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 01:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The wisest fool in Christendom also said: "I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state." Well, then, why did you add a link to "British possessions" when it was used in a statute passed by the Congress of the United States? Were you suggesting that the Congress of the United States was incorporating a British statutory term in an American statute? I removed it, by the way.
/info/en/?search=Montana_Territory#Original_boundariesMr Serjeant Buzfuz (
talk) 01:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz you are mistaken. I have not edited the article to which you link. The US Congress is simply using the term to mean what it has always meant. Since the border of the Montana territory refers to the edge of to British North America, the link would be correct. This is why I added it to the article
History of Montana[4]. You mistakenly removed the link
[5], apparently under the misapprehension that the term "British possession" means something different in American law to what it means in British law. It does not.
The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed in the UK. As Mr Serjeant Buzfuz correctly points out, the
Statute of Westminster means that the 1978 repeal does not apply (automatically) to the Dominions/Commonwealth realms. As such, it is the 1889 Act that remains in force in these countries. This is immaterial, since the definition of "British possession" is identical in each. It is incorrect to claim, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz does, that the 1889 Act "no longer exists".
The Statute of Westminster actually uses the term "British possession". That alone establishes its relevance well beyond 1931.
In the Canadian constitution, the expression "British possessions" appears in number 8 of the Schedule to the
Constitution Act, 1982.
[6] In British legislation, this is part of the
Canada Act 1982[7]. As will be noted, the definition of "British possession" will either be that of the 1889 Act or the 1978 Act, but either way, it will make no difference. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's changes
here,
here,
here and
here are all therefore unhelpful and the purported justification "Canada is not a British possession" is simply wrong, especially as all these instances deal with 19th-century history, at which period no-one could question the fact that Canada was part of the British Empire. The more so that Mr Serjeant Buzfuz removed the link in some instances while leaving the existing statement intact, a strange thing to do if, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz claims, "Canada is not a British possession".
In Australian legislation, the expression "British possession" appears, most recently, in Schedule 2, number 456 of the
Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011[8], which amended the
Crimes Act 1914. Again, the definition is the same, excepting that the words "the Sovereign's" replaces "Her Majesty's". There is no material difference with the definition of 1978, or of 1889, or of earlier definitions not explicitly defined in law, which were similarly broad.
In New Zealand's legislation, the term is still part of acts in force today (
British Settlements Act 1887[9],
Prize Courts Act 1894[10],
Prize Act 1939)
[11], but in legal interpretation, it was successfully argued in court in 1976 that the term as used in the British
Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 no longer applied to New Zealand (in New Zealand's law) as a result of New Zealand's
Constitution Amendment Act 1973. The lawyer that argued this,
David Lange, having made himself prime minister, passed the
Constitution Act 1986, which taking effect from 1987, ended the power of the British Parliament to legislate for New Zealand. Up until 1973 therefore, New Zealand was a "British possession" in New Zealand law
[12]; according to British law, it still is.
Although the 1978 act does not apply to India, that is irrelevant, since the term and its definition of 1889 was in use long before partition and independence, and as such forms part of the post-independence law in both India and Pakistan. I hope
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is not trying to claim that the Independence of India Act 1947 somehow nullified all previous legislation, or is seeking to prove that the British parliament in 1978 somehow modified the laws in India? If not, then I hope Mr Serjeant Buzfuz will agree with the fact the the term "British possession", where it appears in legislation in force in India today, has the same definition it had in 1889, which, not by coincidence, is the same definition which obtains everywhere else, including the UK, where the definition under the 1978 act is the same as in India under the 1889 act.
You may wax on for ever, but the bottom line is that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," where "possession" has the meaning of territory, but they do speak of the "British possession of Aden" as I've already indicated, or
"British possession of Gibraltar". The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire: a) United Kingdom; b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland); c) India, i.e.
British Raj; (d) Crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon or Trinidad and Tobago). It can be easily checked that history text-books employ that usage.
So, per usage in text books and per
WP:TERTIARY, which states:
Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate
due weight.
Also, per
WP:PARITY, the POV being promoted and spammed by user:The wisest fool in Christendom is FRINGE and detracts from the encyclopedic reliability of Wikipedia, such as it is. I don't believe there is any point engaging this
WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It is best for area specialists to be aware of the spamming. Pinging @
Kautilya3,
TrangaBellam,
DaxServer, and
Fylindfotberserk: for Raj-related content. I see that Kautilya3 has already reverted several attempted Wikilinks. All the best,
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fowler&fowler You appear to be inventing your own definition of "British possession" ("The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire") which explicitly disagrees with the numerous secondary and tertiary sources I have quoted (the Longman Dictionary of Law being one such). This is textbook
WP:original research, as well as a fringe belief. To cite yet another clutch of sources that contradict your tendentious claims:
Wright, Barry; Tucker, Eric; Binnie, Susan (2015).
Canadian State Trials, Volume IV. University of Toronto Press. p. 79.
ISBN978-1-4426-3108-3. The imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 confirmed the existing practice of enabling the government of any British possession, which included the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, …
This is just the result of the most shallow research. There are dozens and dozens of others. Please, Fowler&fowler, accept the reality. Your claim that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," is just obviously false and proven false by even the small selection of examples above. Further, evidence, if further evidence were necessary, is found in the legal documents of the Victorian era:
I cannot see how anyone can claim that Canada was not a British possession, when modern historians say so, and historical documents agree.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Your examples are all historical examples, i.e. refer to Canada of old, of the 19th-century, as it had existed before the Acts (you make your kingpins) had been enacted. They are not text-books, but monographs (found by cherry picking sources). No widely used textbook refers to Canada during the 1950s or 60s a British possession. But they do call Aden, Gibraltar, Malta, or Diego Garcia British possessions. You are wasting you time attempting to argue with me. More importantly you are wasting my time. I can tell by your writing that you are unable to argue using heuristics. You don't present digested knowledge. During the last 17 years, I've seen many like you come and go without making any substantive contributions to Wikipedia. I am done.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm taking this page off my watchlist for a while.
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Fowler&fowler It seems you are unable to engage on anything substantial. Will be undoing your unjustified reverts? Will you be recognizing that your claims have been false?
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Is it? British subject has 65 cites British possession has 9. In addition, one covers a period of 400 years, the other less than 200. o, I do not see them as similar in importance.
Slatersteven (
talk) 14:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
British subject has existed as an article for years.
British possession was created much more recently, and only I have worked on it. The term "British subject", according to that article, "was codified in statute law for the first time by the
British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914". The term "British possession" was codified in statute law for the first time by the
Interpretation Act 1889. As your comment indicates, the concept of a British subject is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1914 act. The concept of a British possession is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1889 act. By your own definition, British possession is at least as relevant as British subject. It follows, indeed, that there can hardly be British subjects beyond the UK itself without British possessions beyond the UK itself.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
All very interesting but where are the sources that confirm its notability? Acts of parliament do not count. There are some sources on the British Possession article but they are not specific so we cannot check them. Can you supply quotes, in context. Snippets don't count. British Subjects should not be used as a comparison. It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Roger 8 Roger I'm sorry I don't understand. What do you mean by "they are not specific so we cannot check them"? I think I have put the references in a very full format. What would you like me to quote? What do you mean by "It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone"?
British subject and
British possession are both articles on Wikipedia.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I meant not having page numbers although I can now see that some do have. Anyway, I am not sure the term "British Possession" is notable enough. Being defined in a statute from the 1880's is not being notable. What we need is something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media. It seems that all your references are statutes or text books about statutes. I had a look at John Wilson, a good but amateur historian, in his explanation for the NZ parliament that you use twice, the only mention of 'British Possession' is in the sub-notes. I quote:
"In 1976 David Lange, acting as a lawyer for a defendant, successfully argued that New Zealand, for the purposes of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (UK) under which his client was charged, was not “part of Her Majesty’s dominions” or a “British possession”. While noting the significance of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, Wilson J unequivocally stated that the last bonds of dependence on the United Kingdom were severed with the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973, by which New Zealand established itself in law as an independent sovereign state. In his summation, Wilson J reluctantly concluded that
a statute that is still technically part of the law of New Zealand is now ineffective to confer that jurisdiction for which it was originally designed…[and] still subsists like an unburied corpse which I have been compelled to refuse to convert into a zombie. [37]
The judgment is significant because it drew attention to the residual power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for New Zealand – a significance apparently not lost on Mr Lange when he saw the need to pass the Constitution Act 1986 during his tenure as Prime Minister of New Zealand."
An interestingly humorous summary by Justice Wilson (not related), but hardly noteworthy. In fact he confirms what I had thought before seeing this judgement, that you are also inserting original research by deciding what the 1888 statute means. I might be wrong, but the 1888 term British dominion is quite different from British Dominion as we know it today. The monarch of the UK is not the monarch of Australia, Canada and NZ anyway. The monarch of Australia for example is the King of Australia, not the King of the UK. (Wilson J refers to this indirectly for NZ in his summary)
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 06:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Looking at the stub in question, it is a basic definition with the article bloated by reference to a couple of court cases. I would suggest removal and will shortly be nominating for deletion. WCMemail 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Roger 8 Roger "something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media" is exactly what is described by
W. P. M. Kennedy in his article entitled "British possessions" in the University of Toronto Law Journal. I quoted it in the article already. You yourself quote the judgement in re Ashman. Where is the "original research" you allege? Absolutely nothing in the article is not based on secondary or tertiary sources. What is the 1888 statute you are referring to? Could it be the Interpretation Act 1889 or the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881?
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
For those wishing to comment, the deletion discussion can be found
here. WCMemail 14:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Those who commented in the AfD may wish to comment in a related discussion currently at
Talk:British possession. WCMemail 15:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
"Enslaved person" v "Slave"
I'm not Ethel Del, but my understanding of the issue is that the terminology of "enslaved person" is a recognition of their status as human beings, while "slave" is terminology which reduces them to objects, bought and sold, like chattels. Here's a short outline of the position from the Underground Railroad History Project:
The Vocabulary of Freedom:
"Also important to reevaluate is the use of “master” and “slave” in our lexicon. With the word “slave,” we deny the humanity of the enslaved person; with “enslaved person,” we recognize their enslaved state as imposed on them and not intrinsic to their identity as a human being."
We must be careful not to get into PC reasoning. The term 'slave' is extremely common and understood in RSSs.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I'd agree as well - Wikipedia shouldn't be virtue signalling - if the consensus among historians changes then we can change the wording, but for now I'm pretty sure 'slave' is the commmonly used term. For what it's worth, I'd read 'enslaved person' as a softer term which disguises the inhumanity.
Wiki-Ed (
talk) 11:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Is is an odd way of putting it, and no I do not see it as "dehumanizing" them". As they were "bought and sold, like chattels" that was (and is) the whole point. As per Wiki-Ed if anything it is the other way round, it whitewashes what slavery was by implying it was just a form of employment.
Slatersteven (
talk) 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The claim that "slave" is dehumanizing, or somehow less dehumanizing than "enslaved" is preposterous. Slaves are by definition human, and the word "enslaved" anyway contains the word "slave". "Slavery" is no more or less dehumanizing than "enslavement". There is no reason under the sun to prefer "enslaved" to "slave". The difference is like that between "circled" and "encircled" – there isn't one. Something circled is no more or less dehumanized than something encircled. I do not see what relevance or authority the "Underground Railroad History Project" can possibly have, least of all in an article dealing with the British Empire.
The wisest fool in Christendom (
talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
While there are valid arguments on both sides, the terminology debate hinges on perspectives. The "enslaved person" term emphasizes recognition of their humanity, while "slave" highlights their status as property. It's a matter of interpretation. 🤷♂️
207.96.13.213 (
talk) 19:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Revert
Why was
this edit reverted? It includes a more broad summery of conquests. This also states the British were the dominant power.
SKAG123 (
talk) 17:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Did its dominance end in 1849? According to whom? In fact Brtian was more powerful after the Second Anglo-Sikh War, and in fact survived a Muinty about a decade later.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
It was referring to the conquests. It should have been worded better.
Does this sound better?
”Britain became a dominant power in the Indian subcontinent through various conquests the 18th and 19th centuries starting in Bengal in 1757 and ending in Punjab in 1849.”
SKAG123 (
talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
No, as conquests did not end in 1849 either, this is a bizarre endpoint that seems far to arbitrary.
Slatersteven (
talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Could we remove the last part and only add “ Britain became a dominant power in the Indian subcontinent through various conquests the 18th and 19th centuries”
SKAG123 (
talk) 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Becasue it adds words for no good purpose?
Slatersteven (
talk) 16:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would like to expand the section on the Scottish attempts to expand to include the colonisation of Nova Scotia and the Plantation of Ulster.
MiloThatch 98 (
talk) 01:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
"change X to Y" format and provide a
reliable source if appropriate.
Jamedeus (
talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Those sources are simply carelessly written personal opinion that are being misused by you as well.
"Our research finds that Britain’s exploitative policies were associated with approximately 100 million excess deaths during the 1881-1920 period"
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 21:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Article fails incredulously to mention the atrocities against Indians.
Hear me out. Britain, through its colonial satellites sponsored the killing of 100 million[1] Indians within the span of 40 years. India was reduced to poverty under Britain, who strategically fostered ethnic and religious divisions[2] through
Divide and Rule. This article severely downplayed the effects of the
Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and does not include the casualties of it or any other massacre. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of unbiased information, not a vessel for rosy-eyed
British imperialism. So I request that the information be corrected immediately with reliable sources, and/or the biased template be added. Thank you,
Ayunipear (
talk) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Those sources are poorly written personal opinion and are misinterpreted by you as well. They cannot be used as reliable independent secondary sources. They are an interesting magazine read while someone is sitting in the dentist's waiting room but they are not serious encyclopedia material.
Roger 8 Roger (
talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)reply