This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

First off, the cited source says "The Australian and NZ Army Corps took part in the operations at Gallipoli in 1915...Anzac Day became a day of national significance in both countries." (note no mention of Newfoundload). That said, I don't deny that troops from Newfoundland took part, as did indeed British and Indians. I'm sure references can immediately be found for the fact that Newfoundland troops were present. But that is beside the point. This is not a military history article, it's about the British Empire, and this sentence is about the impact that fighting in the Gallipoli campaign had on the transition of Australia and NZ to independence. Now, if you can produce a reference that this occurred too for Newfoundlanders then there is a reason to add Newfoundland here, otherwise there isn't, because otherwise if you include Newfoundlanders for the sole reason that they participated in the campaign, you'd have to include Indians and British too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

An IP has already re-added it, but would this ref work? Lackenbauer, P Whitney (1999). "War, Memory, and the Newfoundland Regiment at Gallipoli". Newfoundland and Labrador Studies. 15 (2): 176–214. For the soldiers from Britain's oldest colony, Newfoundland, Gallipoli was a baptism of fire that began to cultivate a sense of national identity through military valour Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Red Hat, thanks for catching that. I thought I was undoing what you undid. :D danielkueh ( talk) 23:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries - I was trying to figure out why you had done that! :) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I must not have been paying attention. My apologies to CaseyPenk as well. danielkueh ( talk) 00:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is there no section in this article about the racial hierarchy that was established throughout the Empire and was a fundamental part of the colonial system? To some degree this racial hierarchy is still present today and I recommend anyone who doubts it to read this article in the Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/sep/20/race.uk Aaker ( talk) 14:05, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I would consider an opinion piece in the Guardian as particularly reliable and the writer from Marxism Today is not exactly neutral following the death of his wife and the legal action he has taken, oh and as far as I remember Hong Kong in 2000 was not part of the British Empire. Although as a follow on to his legal action and the promise of ant-racist legislation in Hong Kong it is something perhaps for the Hong Kong article. MilborneOne ( talk) 16:25, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly enough. I'm not suggesting that we should use the article I mentioned as a source. Actually, there is no lack of academic literature on the subject. See for example: [1] ; [2] ; [3] ; [4] ... Aaker ( talk) 12:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It certainly seems to me that institutionalised racism within the British Empire is a topic worthy of fuller mention in this article, and perhaps a free-standing article, so long as it is based on reliable sources. I'm no expert, but I'm reasonably confident that such sources exist. I would support an article along those lines, if someone were to start creating it, but I won't be doing it myself. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:33, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Totally against any mention in this article. If you want to state about racism, this will be based on the present views of race today and making assumptions from the past. At the end of the day `the elite` could be viewed as equally hostile to their own people as to non-white. The whole British army was viewed as employing the scum of England etc etc society -- Rockybiggs ( talk) 13:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

As I said, any text or article should be based on reliable (academic) sources, not "based on the present views of race today and making assumptions from the past". Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I second that Aaker ( talk) 15:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose attempts to add more opinionated views to an article which is meant to focus on factual information, not tons of academic views that belong at a university or guardian debate, not a wikipedia article. It may be appropriate for a couple of sentences to be added on to the end of the legacy section after "The demographics of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War owing to immigration to Britain from its former colonies", where we could focus on initial issues and multiculturalism. But the idea an entire section is needed to push a blatant one sided point of view is clearly giving undue weight and is not appropriate. BritishWatcher ( talk) 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

No-one, I hope, is proposing to add "opinionated views" or "a blatant one sided point of view". But it is perfectly reasonable, defensible and desirable to give due weight to reliable academic sources on the history of racial attitudes within the Empire. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, there are numerous things that could be deemed worthy for this article which are left out, opiniated academic views on something so specific does not warrant an entire section. Its blatant undue weight. BritishWatcher ( talk) 15:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

This article which achieved FA status in its current form, is basically a summary timeline of the Empire. Where on earth would a section on racism even be appropriate? As i said before, i could see the possible case for a couple of sentences tacked onto the end of the legacy section which covers this matter, along with multiculturalism and change in attitudes within the UK ect, which could include a sentence about the impact of empire on racial attitudes at the time.. but an entire section just does not seem appropriate. BritishWatcher ( talk) 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about reliably sourced academic writings, not opinions. We can discuss due weight when someone writes some text. If there is sufficient material, there is a case for a separate article. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 15:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

There may be a case for a separate article, but i'm not sure it deserves a section here. For much of history racism wasn't something special, but a norm. It's relevance to the British Empire has to do with its relevance to the social fabric of the time, rather than anything direct or unique. It's probably even less relevant to the British than other Empires, as the British left local systems and culture intact in many cases, something other world powers at the time did not. CMD ( talk) 16:45, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm also opposed. Racism certainly had its part to play in the affairs of the B.E., and is a perfectly valid topic for research in its own right, but as mentioned above, racism was the norm. What about historical racist attitudes of the Japanese to the Chinese, the Germans to Slavs and Jews, the Spanish to the Incas and Aztecs, or Turks to Arabs, or Arabs towards black Africans, French towards Algerians? Why single out the B.E., and if we don't, should there be a special section on "racism" in every historical country/empire article? Of course not, racism transcends all of these historical eras: it's been part of human history since history began. There is a "In History" section at Racism - that would be the appropriate place. Note though, the "neutrality disputed" tag - exactly what would happen here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:30, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay let's be honest here: England is not and was never really an Empire. Granted, it ruled over many peoples and had hughe lands and colonies, but it was always a "kingdom". "United kingdom" never changed to "United Empire". The same goes for Spain, neither England nor Spain were ruled by emprerors but Kings, it's just a misunderstanding of "Empire" that led people back then to beleive Britain was an Empire. Russia was always an empire, and Japan was also always an Empire, because they were ruled by emperors and not kings. - Didrik, 2012-10-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.28.63 ( talk) 07:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Certainly England is not an Empire but this article is about the British Empire which is not the same place as England or even the United Kingdom. Oh and I dont think you have to have an Emperor in charge of an Empire it is not compulsory, although Queen Victoria was an Empress. MilborneOne ( talk) 18:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's not feed the troll and his/her original research... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Victoria was an empress of India, forgot that she used that title although it was given to her by someone else. However, I think it's still misused, just take "The swedish empire" article for example. Swedish kings never used the titles of emperor and nobody recognized is as an Empire. It was always by Swedes themselves recognized as "an era of great power" but not an "Empire". Yet it's still called "Swedish empire" without any real good motiviation. Yes it was a great power, but are all great powers empires? Were all absolute monarchies empires? And the real comedy is that it IGNORES that Russia always had "Emperors", but according to wikipedia that's just not good enough to be an Empire. I think we need to sort this out and not just ignore it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.28.63 ( talk) 12:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Then applying the same logic to the Romans, the Roman Empire was not an empire until Octavian took the title of Imperator. That seems rather absurd. Surely the essence of an empire is that it consists of a state which has sovereign power over multiple countries. Whether it actually has a Rex, a pair of Consuls, a Princeps, an Imperator, or a Praesidens in charge of that state is neither here nor there. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

So why is the "Korean empire" an empire then? It seems to me it does matter. I must apologise for the off topicness, I realised this belongs in the "Empire" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.28.63 ( talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Beats me. The Bombay duck is not a duck. The Prairie oyster is not an oyster. The Korean Empire is not an empire. Welcome to the wonderful world of English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the definition of Empire that says that it needs to be led by an Emperor, it is just that is the usual title given. Why is American football called football, you hardly use your foot and it isn't a frikkin ball. 82.153.35.70 ( talk) 11:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I realise this isn't a place to quibble, but American Football is called 'football' for the same reason that Association Football and Rugby Football, are also called 'football'. That is because you play it on foot, rather than horse back.

And on the subject of an Empire not ruled by an Emperor, this was declared under Henry VIII: "Where by divers sundry old authentic histories and chronicles it is manifestly declared and expressed that this realm of England is an empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one supreme head and king, having the dignity and royal estate of the imperial crown of the same." -- Just sayin. Alexsau1991 ( talk) 19:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You must be all joking... At least 4 European countries -- Britain, France, Portugal, Italy -- used the word EMPIRE with abandon to denote their COLONIAL domain, irrespective of whether they were ruled by a king, an emperor or a Président de la République. The word empire is very flexible and means whatever you decide it will mean.

Vive l'EMPIRE! http://www.contreculture.org/Images/empire.gif -- Lubiesque ( talk) 22:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That just means the word doesn't have any meaning, or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.28.63 ( talk) 11:38, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Isn't worth citing that British Empire backed Portugal in South America colonization, resulting in what we know as Brazil, a portugue-speaking country surrounded by spanish-speaking countries? WIth the help of the British against Spain in Armadas, Portugal managed to grab more territory from Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.88.201 ( talk) 19:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the article should begin with "what the Empire was" and not "what it comprised or not"... -- E4024 ( talk) 23:32, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

And what was it exactly if not what it was comprised of? If there was a better, reliable and consistent definition we would have used it. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 13:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Everywhere you look, you are told what it is before what it is comprised of:

The United States of America (commonly called the United States, the U.S., the USA, America, and the States) is a federal constitutional republic consisting of.......The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is a sovereign state located......Namibia, officially the Republic of Namibia (…), is a country in southern Africa whose western border is......France (…), officially the French Republic (…), is a unitary semi-presidential republic located.......The European Union (EU) is an economic and political union of 27 member states which are located.......The Commonwealth of Nations, normally referred to as the Commonwealth and formerly known as the British Commonwealth, is an intergovernmental organisation of (...).

But then, when we come to the British Empire -- apparently an ethereal and indefinable UFO -- we are told what it was comprised of but not what it was... Amazingly, a crucial element is missing. Why?

What's wrong with starting by saying that The British Empire was a colonial empire? For mere mortals like us, that's what it was, wasn't it? No?

Yesterday, I edited "The British Empire comprised..." and replaced it by "The British Empire was a colonial empire that comprised..." which is the one brief definition that is reliable and consistent. It was reverted within 45 to 60 seconds, with the comment that it was not essential and the definition too limitative.-- Lubiesque ( talk) 13:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, your name inspires respect as if it were of a superior authority here; however, with all the due respect, I agree with Lubiesque's edit. I am not going to try to impose anything though... -- E4024 ( talk) 18:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What is a "colonial empire"? The (poor) article on colonial empires does not tell us, nor does it have any sources supporting it. Would this term adequately describe the British Empire in its various forms through the centuries of its existence? No, almost certainly not and Snowded was quite right to revert the insertion of this term. If you can find a short definition which is used consistently in a range of reliable sources then we can change the article. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with Lubiesque's change. I have to say though that this looks like it has the potential to turn into one of those silly arguments that Wikipedians like to get into (and I include my former self in that), whose payoff in terms of helping the reader understand the subject in question is dwarfed by the time spent by editors arguing about it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Wiki-Ed makes an important point that the term "colonial empire" is difficult to define or at least, appears to be a characterization that is overly simplistic. British rule was not always clear cut. In some places such as Malaya, British rule was informal while in other places such as Australia, there were colonies of British migrants that eventually became self-governing. Thus, there are subtle but important distinctions in the way British rule was administered, which the term "colonial empire" fails to capture. danielkueh ( talk) 23:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry yeah, that's what I was getting at - I probably should have explained that a bit better. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 23:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, by Wikipedia's own definition, the British empire does by default still exist. I show you here, the wikipedia definition of the term 'Empire'.

"The term empire derives from the Latin imperium (power, authority). Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy.

Aside from the traditional usage, the term empire can be used in an extended sense to denote a large-scale business enterprise (e.g. a transnational corporation), or a political organisation of either national-, regional- or city scale, controlled either by a person (a political boss) or a group authority (political bosses).[1]

An imperial political structure is established and maintained in two ways: (i) as a territorial empire of direct conquest and control with force (direct, physical action to compel the emperor's goals), and (ii) as a coercive, hegemonic empire of indirect conquest and control with power (the perception that the emperor can physically enforce his desired goals). The former provides greater tribute and direct political control, yet limits further expansion because it absorbs military forces to fixed garrisons. The latter provides less tribute and indirect control, but avails military forces for further expansion.[2] Territorial empires (e.g. the Mongol Empire, the Median Empire) tended to be contiguous areas. The term on occasion has been applied to maritime empires or thalassocracies, (e.g. the Athenian and British Empires) with looser structures and more scattered territories."

The current span of worldwide British territory does indeed fit most, if not all of these criteria, and hence I must insist that the idea of the British empire having ended is utterly wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordOfTheCardies ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

While you may believe that the British Empire still exists, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, your logic behind that claim constitutes "original research" and there is a policy ( WP:NOR) that articles are not allowed to be based on such material. Instead, all claims in articles must be attributable to reliable sources. If you are unfamiliar with these policies, please read those pages. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

You allow, therefore, Wikipedia to contradict itself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordOfTheCardies ( talk • contribs) 16:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not intend to edit. Just want to point out that there is no such thing as a British Antarctic Territory (in the map we can see that "Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red." and this includes an area in Antarctica). Quite inaccurate. Very British, though.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.140.4.63 ( talk) 03:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a reliable source but British Antarctic Territory says it is a British overseas territory. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is such a "thing" as a British Antarctic Territory [5]. Whether or not that is universally recognised by all governments is a different matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The alleged British Empire fails your own definition, My Lord. ... an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy. Guess what - the Queen reigns but does not rule. Her individual governments do all the ruling. As for united, the countries who have her as their head of state are united only by that fact, just as countries that belong to the United Nations or NATO or ASEAN or whatever else are united in that sense. They are independent sovereign states and they conduct their own affairs. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think he's refering to the British overseas territories, not the Commonwealth Realms.-- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 00:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

My point remains. The Queen does not rule them; governments rule them, and the Queen reigns over them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

By that logic, the British Empire ceased to exist upon the conclusion of the Glorious Revolution. Even the great Empress Victoria did not rule the British Empire. -- Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Queen gives Royal Perogative to the governments of all of these states to govern themselves, and hence, she does rule them, but simply allows them to rule themselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.89.43 ( talk) 00:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It's time you were blocked - you're becoming disruptive now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

They do not govern themselves by royal prerogative. They are governed by their own constitutions, initially enacted by the British Parliament, but now, operating independently under distinct Crtowns. Gazzster ( talk) 02:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but please understand that the Queen gives her PREROGATIVE for all of this to happen. I speak of the 14 British overseas territories that still remain, as their constitutions can be revoked and direct control can be taken over them. Take the Turk islands for instance. And as for you, Mr 'Ferrick', if you're incapable of allowing a democratic debate on here, clearly you do not deserve the title that you so insult. Check your talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.106.24 ( talk) 12:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Turks and Caicos Islands government was suspended and were taken over by the UK government, not Her Majesty. Indeed, the Law Lords ruled that Royal Prerogative can be invalidated by the British legislature at will, and the government runs the country on behalf of the institution of the Crown, not the Monarch herself.-- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 15:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and despite all this you're continuing to ignore the fact that the government represents the crown, and the crown gives the right to the government to govern. God almighty.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.135.164 ( talk) 20:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't. The UK and its dependencies are ruled by Act of Parliament. When we speak of the Prerogative, we are dealing with a quite specific set of circumstances. 'The Crown' means 'the Crown-in-Parliament'. The Parliament in fact limits the monarch- refer the Acts of Succession, the Bill of Rights, the Abdication Crisis. All this is Constitutional History 101. THe Queen does not rule. But this doesn't affect the question, 'does the British Empire still exist?' because none of her predecessors from William and Mary ruled either. Gazzster ( talk) 20:36, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The Queen has the power to dissolve parliament and take autocratic control at any time, officially. And you have a point there. How did the French republic have an empire? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordOfTheCardies ( talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No, she doesn't. As per the Bill of Rights, the Monarch can not suspend, dispense with or even execute existing law without the consent of Parliament. There is little the Monarch actually can do without violating constitutional law. Not much of an autocracy that would be.-- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 21:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect sir. She can decline to sign any bill, and she can dissolve parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordOfTheCardies ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I never said she couldn't either. I said she doesn't have the power to turn the UK into an autocracy. There is little she can do in regards to actually running the country without the consent of Parliament. She can't enforce the law, make new ones, repeal old ones, levy taxes, have an armed forces etc. She is also obliged to convene a new Parliament ASAP, so the little autocratic reign would be short lived regardless.-- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 22:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

With the ability to dissolve parliament comes the ability to take government. Of course she can't while there is still a parliament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordOfTheCardies ( talk • contribs) 22:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

British constitutional law begs to differ. But don't let facts get in your way.-- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 22:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no, the lord is correct. You're ignoring the fact that the Queen is capable of dissolving parliament AND HENCE the constitution on demand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.105.190 ( talk) 17:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Erm, no, the lord is most certainly not correct. He said 'The Queen has the power to dissolve parliament and take autocratic control at any time, officially'. There is no such official power, as I have just explained. Secondly, the constitution is not only in force when Parliament is in session. The two are completely seperate entities. The country doesn't suddenly descend into anarchy with people doing as they please when ever Parliament is dissolved. She can dissolve Parliament, but the Bill of Rights prohibits the Monarch from interfering with the law, amongst other things. Any attempt by the Queen to take control of the running of the country would be illegal, plain and simple. That's indisputable. The law is plainly clear on the matter and your personal opinion on the matter will not change that fact. -- Allthestrongbowintheworld ( talk) 18:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Digression into the legal fictions surrounding the Queen's powers aside, there is logic in what the OP said. As soon as, say, Bermuda voted for independence or Britain handed over the Falklands or whatever, there would be a whole spate of new reliable sources calling THAT the end of the British Empire. The idea that there's a real difference between the current BOTs and crown colonies is kind of a legal fiction in and of itself. But this is all OR and has no place in the article. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 18:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

As with so many things which are British, the question of whether the British Empire has come to an end is arguable. However, in Wikipedia's terms it needs to be argued on reliable sources, not from first principles. Plainly the United Kingdom still has far-flung territories which could be called an empire, and as far back as the 16th century Henry VIII made the claim that England itself was an empire, but I know of no sources which equate the remaining overseas territories, all of them with tiny populations, with what we call the "British Empire", a historical superpower which is no more. John Darwin's The end of the British empire: the historical debate (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991) certainly takes that view of it. Steve Tsang's A Modern History of Hong Kong (London : I. B. Tauris, 2004) says at page 269 "To the departing British, Hong Kong was their last major imperial possession and its handover to the PRC effectively symbolised the end of the British Empire built up in the heyday of Queen Victoria". Moonraker ( talk) 19:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, but at the same time you can dig up sources in the 60's, 70's and 80's that speak of the Empire in the past tense even while Hong Kong was still under British sovereignty, the idea of it being the end of the British Empire only cropped up when it was actually being handed over. And, as we're seeing lately, Argentine sources frequently couch their protestations over the Falklands in the terminology of the British Empire (ditto Spain over Gibraltar), so I'm not sure it's actually true that there are no sources that would equate the overseas territories with the imperial enterprise that wrought them. But like I said, this has no place in the article. Let us come back to this issue when and if the status of a BOT changes. -- MichiganCharms ( talk) 22:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

From at least 1170, the year the King of England claimed to be Lord of Ireland, and began dividing up the newly conquered lands across the sea in Ireland, they were engaged in establishing an overseas colony. The Portuguese and Spanish only started in the mid-15th century. What other European power, therefore, were the English "lagging" behind? If anything they were pioneers. Let me guess: the British nationalist political agenda here is that Ireland isn't overseas despite the existence of the Irish Sea and that England was merely following the (implicitly much worse) Spanish and Portuguese powers who began all this colonialism stuff? 89.101.41.216 ( talk) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you have some reliable sources that you wish to bring to everyone's attention to show how the English were the pioneers of colonialism and the Spanish/Portuguese merely following their lead? If you do, please tell. Alternatively, if you're here to air your paranoid suspicions about non-existent "agendas" on the part of the authors of the article (who merely referenced the listed reliable sources, all of which you can read for yourself) then please note that article talk pages are not debating forums. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see there is still no definition of the British Empire, which is ridiculous. Has there been a "consensus" by the happy few who own this page not to have any definition?

I once inserted a very short, basic one ("The British Empire was a colonial empire that comprised"...) but it was deleted within a minute or two by one of the happy few who own this page.

Encyclopedia Britannica, naturally, has a definition: 'British Empire; a worldwide system of dependencies - colonies, protectorates and other territories - that over a span of three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the Crown of Great Britain and the domination of the British government.' (Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed., 1992).-- Lubiesque ( talk) 13:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi this article is FA in Uzbek Wikipedia. Can you change it? MKakaMIRaclo ( talk) 08:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I reverted this edit like so [6] because the language is English, while varieties of it are dialects. ie: English language vs List of dialects of the English language. Indeed, the cited source states "about 400 million people have English as their first language" not "varieties of English are the primary languages of up to 400 million people". We could of course say "400 million people have dialects of English as their first language" but that would be unnecessary pedantry for the purposes of this article which is about the British Empire, not regional differences of the English language. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for changing that back. I saw the edit, but couldn't muster the energy to articulate the reasoning for reverting it... so didn't. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 12:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok then, we'll word it that way since the source being used states it like that, even if I don't like misrepresentations and overly simple assumptions. (I could just find a source that uses that wording, but I'm too lazy, so forget it). But I'll have to admit myself, even though using the wording with "varieties of English language" is more accurate, the distinction is a bit trivial/pedantic (which isn't necessarily a bad thing by the way, just depends on context and usage). It isn't the main topic of discussion like you said, and most readers probably don't care much about the specifics of the topic being discussed in that sentence, so I'll leave it as it was before I revised the wording. Thanks for discussing this. - M0rphzone ( talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

...and as for the sentence on emigration from (Southern) China, just realised that it's not sourced at all... we should get one, and then be more specific about exactly what region in China the emigration came from. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The existing ref (Marshall, second book in reflist) mentions emigration from southern China due to disruptions caused by civil wars, but doesn't mention anything about it leading to a majority in Singapore. Yet I don't think those assertions necessarily need citations specifically mentioning the emergence of a majority as it can be assumed per demographics of Singapore. If you're going to re-add and expand it to include the specific regions, then we could include a citation for those regions of emigration, which were primarily from the East Coast of China or the provinces of Fujian, Guangdong, and Hainan Island, since the existing ref doesn't mention it. - M0rphzone ( talk) 22:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I added the ref and changed the wording to reflect what it says. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you didn't add any ref. Are you going to add one that mentions what you talked about? - M0rphzone ( talk) 07:42, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I did add a ref. [7] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add:

{{ confused}}

As empires ruled by the English Crown, where "English" and "British" are currently used interchageably, the British Crown is the successor to the English Crown, so these preceding empires would be confusable with the British one. -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 08:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There was no "English Empire"; the link you've provided redirects to an article on English overseas territories. Likewise, the Angevin possessions were not an empire - that implies a very much more centralised authority than actually existed. In any case the chronological scope of the article is explained clearly so I don't think there is any danger of readers getting confused. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That we have English Empire shows that we have a topic that is considered covering the "English Empire". That England had overseas colonies prior to the Act of Union shows that England indeed had an empire. That we have an article called Angevin Empire shows that we have a topic that can be considered an empire. That the heart of that empire was England means it can be considered an English Empire. The fact that people in the world nowadays confuse English and British means that both these entities can be considered as something someone would search for under the term "British Empire". That I suggested adding {{ confused}} instead of {{ about}} shows that this is a confusion hatnote. The hatnote is not about this article it is about other articles that the reader may be mistaken this particular title for. The chronological history section does nothing to help such a reader find their topic of interest, only making them sure that they are at the wrong article, and therefore cannot find their article at all. This is why we have the {{ confused}} template. You seem to be assuming that the reader knows all about the topic they are looking for, instead of people coming to wikipedia to learn about the topic they are looking for. If they already knew the topic they're looking for, why use wikipedia at all? -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 01:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you're pushing something which isn't suported by academic sources. Wikipedia doesn't have an article called "English Empire" - you've linked to a redirect page and the article on English overseas possessions does not deserve to be given any prominence; it is already linked in the correct place. During the period covered by that article (i.e. before the Union) there were people referring to these possessions as the "British Empire". If a reader is actually specifically searching for the term "English Empire" (which is not well supported in academia) they will be redirected to English overseas possessions. That article has a hatnote redirecting here and also to the other article you've mentioned (NB we made a conscious decision not to include references to medieval territorial holdings in this article - it would wrongly suggest direct continuity of institutions and control). There is some management of which way readers are directed - the principle of least astonishment applies and we don't want to allow nationalist agendas to be pushed - this is a historical article. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 11:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Wiki-Ed. "British empire" is a well-known term (13 million Google hits). "English empire" is marginal at best (200,000 hits - and if you look at the first page of results, other than the Wikipedia article, the results aren't even about what you are referring to). Sure, some historians use catchy titles for their books like "First English Empire" but it is not in any way a generally accepted term like "British empire" is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

following essential and well supported facts cannot be denied about britsh empire- 1/ britsh invaded and occupied other countries. word 'occupied' is the technically correct word here. 2/ ppl of occupied countries had no say in how empire was ruled. 3/ britsh exploited others countries assets, resources, and labor, for benefit of uk and its ppl. if anyone objects to word 'exploited' they are free to substitute another word describing use of others' resources to one's benefit. 4/ there were continuous resistance to british occupation (both peaceful and violent) and britsh used various means (violence included)to suppress them. (i purposely do not discuss more controversial subjects in this section but these 4 facts cannot be denied, and i am open to changing words like 'exploitation' if case for a better word is made )

nobody writing for an encyclopedia article about a political/economic entity can omit such essential facts about its state.

but all reference to them are systematically removed whenever they are included in article. most such inclusions took place after exhausting discussions here. various ppl made the case for the inclusion of these facts through the years and months. history of this talk page has several such discussions.

those who object to inclusion of above facts have never been able to advance evidence that all these things did not occur. not surprising since it would be hard to prove that british did not occupy india, kenyans ruled their country during britsh occupation, that british companies were not given exclusive license to mine, plant, etc, in various territories by britsh rulers, that indentured labor did not take place, that australia was not used as a colony for british criminals, etc. etc. iow these essential facts cannot be denied .

but above facts were always removed by a group of entrenched editors.

since no case can be /was made against the facts,they used false attacks against those who argued the case for inclusion of these facts as an excuse for removal. those ppl were branded as 'vandals', 'disruptive', and 'violating the consensus' etc, etc. how can ppl who argue for an enrichment of an article be 'vandals'? how can ppl who respect facts and reason be 'disruptive' to ppl who are of like mind? and where was the consensus reached to exclude undeniable facts from article? so not only were the facts removed from article, but all who persisted in making the case were banned or blocked.

due to this abuse of rules and power by these pro western/pro british entrenched editors, we now have an article that does not refer to how ppl in the empire were ruled and their political and economic condition. instead we have an article that talks about how sun shined on ppl of empire all day!

but all of us who respect facts and want wikipedia to succeed, should persist in their effort to include these facts, even if we get banned and slandered during the effort, that is the cost we must pay so that truth prevails at the end. at the very least we would be exposing the bias of these particular entrenched editors who want to push a pro western/british agenda regardless of truth and facts. even if they prevail in banning truth, we would have exposed a fundamental error in way wikipedia operates. 123.231.95.186 ( talk) 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever it is you're after I think you need to familiarise yourself with the core policies. This is a narrative article covering a wide area and a long period of history. It does not go into detail on the social and economic conditions in each of the areas which were incorporated into the Empire; that information belongs in articles about those areas. If, however, your diatribe is some sort of argument for the inclusion of a section listing all the bad nasty evil things that the British Empire did then you may wish to note that it does not have a section about all the good things it did either - the inclusion of "facts" of either sort would not be neutral. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Pretty much what above said. I love it when people complain about something being biased when it does not have a big list of negatives. Mentioning all the bad things the Empire did would be biased unless we also had a big list of all the positive things it did, and god help us if we need to go down that inevitable edit war. Mishka Shaw ( talk) 23:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

My issues with this addition "Although political power and influence over the former American colonies was lost after the 1783 Peace of Paris, Britain was able to cement its power through direct rule in India at the expense of the East India Company and in Canada through the Constitutional Act of 1791." are that it's poorly worded and it's just repeating information that can be found elsewhere.

1. "political power and influence over the former American colonies was lost after the 1783 Peace of Paris" - a repeat of information in the preceding sentences
2. "Britain was able to cement its power through direct rule in India at the expense of the East India Company and in Canada through the Constitutional Act of 1791" - the transition from EIC to direct rule is discussed in the "East India Company in Asia" section, while the 1791 Act is discussed in the very next paragraph
3. grammatically, this clause gives the impression that both India and Canada were covered by the Act.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Partially agree, the wording is somewhat awkward and most of these issues are discussed elsewhere, but that's not the case of the Peace of Paris, a key event in the transition between the "first" and the "second" British empire which is not mentioned at all in the article.-- Darius ( talk) 17:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, Florida and Senegal are mere side-shows in this period of the BE, and but two of numerous exchanges and acknowledgements of claims in the treaties. Tobago was back in British hands a couple of decades later and Florida had only been in British hands for a couple of decades. Anyway, why single these out? Why not mention that Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica, St. Christopher's, Nevis and Montserrat were returned to Britain? Or that Britain ceded Menorca to Spain? I'm being rhetorical of course: there's no need to. First, this is an overview article of the BE, second, the reader can click on the link to the treaty to find out more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.-- Darius ( talk) 23:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

3rd paragraph, 1st sentence error - "The independence of the Thirteen Colonies in North America in 1783 after the American Revolutionary War caused Britain to lose of some of its oldest and most populous colonies." Remove the extra "of". 86.4.159.50 ( talk) 14:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Done: Minor edit only. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 14:32, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely the American Revolutionary War as it is known, is known in British culture as the American War of Independence, surely that is what it should be called on a page for the British Empire? No need to be neutral that is what it is known as. Babydoll9799 ( talk) 18:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Our article is at American Revolutionary War, which is prima facie evidence that that is the most common name (per WP:COMMONNAME). Apart from that, I have no strong opinion on the topic - why does it matter to you? -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 19:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Must admit I had to look up American Revolutionary War as it is not a common term (or even used at all) this side of the pond and I had no idea it was the American War of Independence. MilborneOne ( talk) 19:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless there is evidence to the contrary it may be surmised that readers from outside the USA who have been educated in the British historical tradition will not generally expect that what they know as "the American War of Independence" is better known from the point of view of those educated in the USA tradition as "the American Revolutionary War". Wikipedia redirects "War of American Independence" there. The article begins "The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,[N 1] or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States, began as a war between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the Thirteen Colonies...." N1 reads: British writers generally favor "American War of Independence", "American Rebellion", or "War of American Independence". Fair enough, Wikipedia has been founded in USA and is hosted there. But it would be more helpful to readers of both traditions, and more in accordance with NPOV, if the alternative use of "American War of Independence" were acknowledged in the British Empire article, as it is in the other article. In view of the redirect, it makes sense to retain the name "American Revolutionary War" for the link, but then let there be inserted, perhaps in parenthesis, "(more usually known in works by British writers as "American War of Independence"). Qexigator ( talk) 21:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me in particular. What I fail to understand is why the American version is being used on the "British Empire" page. To people (of the British Empire) this is American War of Independence - fact. What I see is a rewriting of "stuff" to suit America. For example American spellings (i.e. categorized). There is the American version and also our version. Anyway in the case of my edit it was only the link I rewrote and the page itself remained American Revolutionary War. So as it is a page for the British Empire why are some objecting to this ? Babydoll9799 ( talk) 22:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is about the British Empire. It is NOT about the British Empire from a British POV. This article is written for everyone and not just for those with a British POV or education. As Stephan Schulz said, we go by the WP:COMMONNAME. danielkueh ( talk) 04:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

While that's partly true, an article like this should reflect the perspective of the topic. For the British Empire the events of 1776-1783 were a war of independence, the first of many, and should be presented in that context. It's also the term used by many of the principal sources employed in this article (e.g. Ferguson, James etc). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

After much thought, I'm willing to go along with the change if the reasons given for that change are that the term should be consistent with the cited sources ( WP:V) and we should maintain consistency of the English variant ( WP:ENGVAR) used in this article. It should not be changed to reflect or suit a particular point of view. That is simply not acceptable. danielkueh ( talk) 13:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with Babydoll that a piped link [[American Revolutionary War|American War of Independence]] should be used in this article as it is a British subject and the common name outside of the US. MilborneOne ( talk) 08:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned it is a rewriting of history Babydoll9799 ( talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The current wording is not consistent with coverage of other independence movements related to the British Empire, and more importantly it is not consistent with the sources we're using here. I don't see that using common British English terminology (as we do throughout this article) is a neutrality issue, at least not in this context where an article is covering a particular historical perspective. The term should be "War of Independence" and it would obviously link to the article on the "American Revolutionary War" which, as others have noted, already acknowledges alternative terminology. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Scratch that: I've changed the wording so it just says "war" which is a neater compromise, especially given the paragraph structure (previous sentence mentions revolution, next sentence mention independence). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable compromise. MilborneOne ( talk) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally for this link I firmly believe it should be American War of Ind.. What I wouldn't like is for the term to be written out. Clearly American's say Revolutionary War I even heard it on 'Up All Night' on BBC 5Live last night. From a British historical perspective it isn't that. A reminder this is a page about the British Empire... Babydoll9799 ( talk) 10:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that "War of American Independence" redirects to "American Revolutionary War" which opens: "The American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the American War of Independence,[N 1] or simply the Revolutionary War in the United States...", and that N1 reads: British writers generally favor "American War of Independence", "American Rebellion", or "War of American Independence" - yes, just leave it to read "war" with link to article. Qexigator ( talk) 13:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Without wanting to seem I am the only one pursuing this, why is there a need to compromise? This is a page reflecting the history of the British Empire and the American War of Independence was part of it. Not taking anything away from what American's now call it, it is what we call it that should reflect here. It is our history. That is how we have always referred to it, you can't rephrase history! There is no treading on the toes of our American friends because by merely changing the link it still redirects to American Revolutionary War page. The fact that AWoI is mentioned on the page is welcome and points out to American readers that the British know it by another name Babydoll9799 ( talk) 22:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

As editors we should be composing neither as us (British, American, French, other) nor as them. My reasons about this are objectively in respect of the linkage of Wikipedia articles. There are different historical traditions but the British Empire (past history) is of interest to persons everywhere, just like the Qing dynasty of China, the Spanish Empire or the Russian Empire, or the USA empire/hegemony. The history of the British Empire is many faceted, The rebellion of the 13 colonies, followed by the founding of their federal union, is but one among others, including India, parts of the continent of Africa, islands all over the place, and so on. Why need anyone take chauvinisic offence at a sentence under "Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies" which now reads: "In response Britain sent troops to reimpose direct rule, leading to the outbreak of war in 1775." ? Qexigator ( talk) 23:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said. I think that pretty much covers it. User:Babydoll9799 - I support your argument, but there has to be a bit of compromise to avoid upsetting sensibilities of those who feel strongly about nomenclature either way. One term would jar for US readers, one for non-US readers; simplifying it to "war" avoids the problem. Yes, it's weasel-wordy, but's that Wikipedia for you. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

What about the lead? Should we change that too? danielkueh ( talk) 13:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes. I've amended that sentence, removed the unnecessary reference to the war, putting emphasis on 'independence' as a verb. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 15:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, let it be. In the context of this summary of the British Empire's rise and decline, the use of ARW can be felt as acceptable from the point of view of the British historical tradition. Up to that time, in the reign of George III, the British homeland and the 13 colonies had a common history, of government by monarch in parliament and monarch in council, under the Tudors and Stuarts, and including the Commonwealth, or "Great Rebellion", the restoration of the monarchy, the "Glorious Revolution", and the Act of Settlement diverting the succession to the crown to the Hanoverians up to George III. The war could well be seen as revolutionary, both in the terms of the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense (pamphlet) 1776 and Rights of Man 1791, and in the larger sense of the perspective of world history, marking the transition from the earlier period of European colonisation into the later period of the Monroe Doctrine, the 13th Amendment and the hegemony of the federal republic as it expanded to the western seaboard, and acquired territories by purchase or conquest from other nations (such as Alaska and states now north of the Mexican frontier), and on to the present day and the uncertain future. It was not the first nor the last of the revolutions, from a British or any other point of view. Qexigator ( talk) 15:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC) + Qexigator ( talk) 07:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"the British homeland and the 13 colonies had a common history, of government by monarch in parliament and monarch in council, under the Tudors and Stuarts". Perhaps I am reading this wrong, but are the Tudors actually relevant to the history of the 13 colonies? The Tudor attempts at colonization were all too brief and abortive. Out of the entire group of Colonies that rebelled in the 18th-century, the oldest one would be the Colony of Virginia. Established in 1607, four years following the death of the last Tudor monarch. Dimadick ( talk) 12:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, since you mention it, Dimadick, for whom was "Virginia" named? "The name Virginia was first applied by Sir Walter Raleigh and Queen Elizabeth I in 1584. After the English Civil War in the mid 17th century, the Virginia Colony was nicknamed "The Old Dominion" by King Charles II for its perceived loyalty to the English monarchy during the era of the Commonwealth of England" (per Colony of Virginia). It's a question of perspective. The point is the common heritage of law and monarchy, including the Tudor reformation in England and the founding of the Church of England, to escape from which some, looking for freedom of religion, emigrated to North America piously retaining adherence to the English translation of the Bible (later King James version), and some continuing in the old religion of Rome. And this is an article about the British Empire: section 1 "Origins (1497–1583) - Plantations of Ireland"; section 2 "First British Empire (1583–1783)". The 13 colonies that were "lost" emerged from the earlier heritage, which had an even longer history (Magna Carta, constitutional law, parliamentary government, deposition of crowned monarchs). By the 18c. the great problem, in the then circumstances, for the colonists and their sympathisers in Britain, was the right of rebellion in general and against the king in particular. The leaders were educated men of principle, some, like Washington, formerly loyal officers of the Crown who had been rewarded as such, who were no more oblivious of the 16c. than they were of the Roman Republic and the development of government theory and practice, not only in Britain, but also in continental Europe, including the Swiss Confederation. Also, of course, before attaining independence, the colonists were divided among rebels and loyalists. The history of the USA may be thought of as beginning in the 18c. but not the one-time British Empire. Anyhow, you know all that. Cheers! Qexigator ( talk) 14:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Or should that be "the British homeland and the 20 colonies". People seem to be ignoring the 5 mainland colonies that the British kept after 1783 and the 2 that it transferred to Spain. But they all "had that common history". And they were all part of the empire. Use of the term, "The thirteen colonies", has its place but it is overused when people use it where the term "North American colonies" would be more accurate. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My comment was on the article. If you wish to propose altering the content of the article, there are ways of doing that, but altering another's comments on a Talk page is not the thing to do. Qexigator ( talk) 07:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My apologies, Qexigator. I did not realise that I had done that. My intention was merely to copy the phrase from one of the many commenters who had already used it. I must have accidentally pressed Shift-C instead of Control-C. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, that explains it. Lucky I was awake enough to notice. Even old hands (editwise) can slip. You will have noticed that my proposal to retain ARW in lead has been overruled in the name of consensus. In my view that would be a more succinct way to mention another aspect of the larger perspective point, but to depart from "13 Colonies" would need a section of its own, which here would be undue. What about History of Canada, with this POV: "American Revolution and the Loyalists (Further information: Invasion of Canada (1775)) During the American Revolution there was some sympathy for the American cause ...several hundred individuals joined the revolutionary cause. ... Lower emphasizes the positive benefits of the Revolution for Americans, making them an energetic people, while for English Canada the results were negative". Arthur R. M. Lower (1958). Canadians in the making: a social history of Canada may have thought so - I couldn't possibly comment [8] [9]. Cheers! Qexigator ( talk) 08:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting that we depart from the "13 colonies" terminology. Merely that we should be more careful to use it where appropriate. There are instances where we mean the North American colonies and instances where we mean the thirteen colonies. As it happens all the instances in the article itself are appropriate but there are a couple of instances in the discussion above which are not. On the topic of ARW vs AWOI, i do not feel strongly either way. Both terms are accurate whether viewed from the British POV or the American POV and both terms are common. It basically comes down to WP:ENGVAR. -- Derek Ross | Talk 08:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am having difficulty making sense of this. Can you be more specific: Which bit of "National varieties of English" are you pointing to? And "a couple of instances in the discussion above which are not appropriate": what does that mean, and does it matter enough to make a point of it? Qexigator ( talk) 09:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Seeing recent revert of edit, which had changed the single-pink tint map inset to lead to a multi-tint map, [10] could we not have both perhaps insetting the multi-tint next to sections 3 and 4? Qexigator ( talk) 05:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Two issues: 1. The map proposed by User:Cardiomals is contentious and it is not clear which/whether sources were used to construct it (Japan wtf?!). I am confident that the existing map by User:TheRedHatofPatFerrick is based on verifiable sources and uses an appropriate colour scheme. 2. We have enough pictures. It's difficult enough to squeeze them in without squashing paragraphs into contorted shapes so I don't think we should be using similar images. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 11:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

IN trying to get the this article into shape. I noticed that a most agregius error was having American independence listed as 1783. De Facto (and De jure) independence took place on July 2, 1776, and the UK officially recognized that fact in 1782. The War of independence began in 1775, nearly eight years prior to the date listed in the article. So why have it listed in an section which allegedly begins in 1783? Also, India was taken over by the East India company well before 1783, in the 1760s, and there is no mention of this....Also, what is Cook's picture doing in a section that begins well after he's dead? The Exploration of the Pacific (why no mention of Francis Drake?) and the American Revolution should be in an earlier section. Ericl ( talk) 16:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

First point: this has been a featured article for some years and does not need to be brought "into shape". Second point: The article cannot address every event in strict chronological order if it is to remain concise and accessible to readers. It is an overview of approximately 500 years of historical events, it covers a large portion of the globe and it takes the British perspective. So, the American colonists' declaration of independence and the subsequent war is less relevant to the history of the British Empire, as an entity, than the date when the last British troops left New York in 1783 and ceded control of the region. The paragraph is positioned in the "Second British Empire" section because it provides an introduction to one of the (historiographical) periods that the article is covering. It is not an account of that war and the fact that it has a different level of significance in US history is irrelevant here. The same principle applies to India and the Pacific - those regions took centre stage in the history of the British Empire long after British explorers and merchants had first reached those regions. We cover Australasia in the period after 1783 because that's when colonazation began (1788) in earnest. India, similarly, only became important to the British Empire when it turned its attention away from America. The important dates there come in the 19th century, particularly when the government took over the EIC's acquisitions in 1858. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The British ceded control of the region in 1781, when it lost the war. IT recognized the US's independence in 1782, but didn't fully leave US territory until 1813, when we kicked them out of Michigan and Ohio, where they had refused to leave some forts as per the treaty of 1783. Taking the "British perspective" makes it less accurate, especially when it comes to India, which was extremely important well before the American Revolution. As to Ireland, Ireland was controlled by the English Crown longer than either Scotland or Wales was. The settlement of Englishpeople predated the 17th century, as any Irishman would tell you. Finally, the relationship with the Dominions was changed dramatically during the Versillies conference in 1918, and this isn't mentioned. The article need a complete rethinking. Ericl ( talk) 16:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Historians consider that the war ended in 1783 when the treaty was signed and British troops left the US; that's the date we use. I don't know what you're talking about in reference to actions during the War of 1812 - that was a completely separate conflict. The establishment of medieval monarchs personal unions, of plantations, of English occupation of parts of nearby countries prior to the age of age of discovery (etc) is not relevant to colonial imperialism, so it is not covered by this article; historians start talking about British imperialism with the first settlements in Newfoundland in 1497, so that's where we begin. The Treaty of Versailles, subsequent imperial conferences and the changing relationship with the Dominions is mentioned already. The article doesn't need "rethinking", but you might want to try rereading it. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the reasons for the War of 1812 was that the British refused to get out of American territory. Also, there the first English settlement in the New World was in the 1520s, when fishermen began setting up summer settlements in Newfoundland. If you're going to mention John Cabot, which you should, you should also mention Francis Drake, who claimed The West coast of North America in the 1580s, and Martin Frobisher who tried to find the Northwest passage, claiming northern Canada for the English as well. That was in the 1550s when Mary I was Queen. Ericl ( talk) 21:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ericl, The British withdrew from the 13 Colonies and recognised their independence in 1783, not 1781. Battles (such as Saintes, to which American sailors on the French side participated) still occurred throughout 1782. The British refusing to get out of American territory was NOT a precursor to war. I really hope you are not the one editing this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.89.220 ( talk) 12:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

As I said, this article is very broad brush and there isn't space for details of individual explorers and claimants except when they play a role in the bigger picture. Readers can follow the links to other articles if they are interested in the details around the exploration of North America or the technicalities of treaty negotiations at Versailles in 1782/3 and 1918/19 etc etc. This is not the place for it. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

An editor, User:Tommy Pinball, has tried to change the wording of the opening sentence from "Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the British Isles" to "Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories outside the United Kingdom". This is a tautology, as in this context "Britain" and "the United Kingdom" have identical meanings. The intention is to identify overseas territories - and it's not possible to use terms like "...outside Europe" or "...outside the North Atlantic" because either would also cover Gibraltar. The term " British Isles" is (per multiple discussions) the currently used term to describe the archipelago concerned, and there is no reason to change it here. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How about "Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories across the world"? Tommy Pinball ( talk) 10:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you opposed to the term "British Isles", or something else? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 11:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I actually think I am right: the references explicitly refers to the UK. If you cannot see an improvement, then per WP:BRD a revert with response of "duh" is hardly exhibiting "Care and diplomacy"; you may revert only if it cannot be immediately fixed by refinement. Tommy Pinball ( talk) 11:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Of course, they are called the "British Overseas Territories" or "UK Overseas Territories". The issue is how we describe where they are - apart from simply saying "overseas". Ghmyrtle ( talk) 12:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

What possible problem do you have with "Britain retains sovereignty over 14 territories across the world"? Tommy Pinball ( talk) 12:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It's less informative than the previous wording, and doesn't take account of the fact that Britain controls its own territory (hence, no.15) as well. But, personally, I'm not going to revert that change. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 13:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert to consensus. The purpose of the wording was to differentiate the BOTs from the Crown Dependencies, all of which lie within the British Isles. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 13:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I don't think it achieves that Wiki-Ed, which is precisely why I made the edit in the first place. Looking at the Channel islands article I can see that they are designated Crown Dependencies. From the previous wording I don't believe it is clear to the uninformed whether there could infact be 15 or 16 BOTs. Tommy Pinball ( talk) 13:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It says there are 14 so it's hardly confusing and it says they are located outside a geographical region because this is a high level article and not the right place to go into detail on the complex issue of sovereignty within that region (and none of which is relevant to colonial imperialism, which is the subject of this article). The statement is factually accurate and supported by the sources. You haven't provided a sensible form of alternative wording or a good reason for wanting to change it. Revert to consensus. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 14:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It says there are 14 outside the "British Isles" leaving open the possibility that more could exist within. Do not make the mistake that, because you are informed about the differences between a BOT and a Crown Dependency, others will be too. Tommy Pinball ( talk) 14:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

How about: "There are 14 British Overseas Territories – known as British Dependent Territories until 2002 – over which the United Kingdom retains sovereignty." Ghmyrtle ( talk) 18:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Personally I think this is one of the few cases where "British Isles" is more informative as it avoids all the issues over what is or is not the UK over the period covered by the article ---- Snowded ^TALK 04:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear I see I have been reverted once again based on ad-hominem as opposed to content. My own view is that the British Isles are "little islands" that gave us One Direction. Anyways I have taken Snowded's advice & trawled through the Archive and a fair few WP:s; I didn't find any consensus. We should go with "There are 14 British Overseas Territories – known as British Dependent Territories until 2002 – over which the United Kingdom retains sovereignty." To "Red Hat of Patrick Ferrick", I would say I am content knowing Ireland has greater relevance to today's readers than the British Empire: sprinkle in a dozen more BIs elsewhere in the article if that floats your boat - virtually no one, myself included, has any interest in the British Isles naming dispute. Tommy Pinball ( talk) 16:17, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

How about no. How about we stick with the consensus version. No one here agrees with your view, including a number of editors who don't often agree on anything. The wording may not mean anything to you, but it does mean something to those that are informed, conveying a distinction which would be missed by implementing the changes you've proposed. The wording as it stands is the most accurate way to communicate the information. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 20:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I get it "I can see nothing wrong with the article and there is no need to change anything at all." and "Are you really qualified to edit this article?"...etc etc...I can see it all in the archives...Time for me to step away for a while....maybe when I come back I will see this consensus...not my current perception...Its kinda sad but kinda funny and that the British Isles is mentioned twice as many times at WP:Lame than it is in this article. Tommy Pinball ( talk) 23:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You were the one that raised the issue of more and less informed readers. You have failed to provide a reason for wanting to change a featured article and the fact that you just don't like it is not sufficient. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 09:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's "definition": The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom.

Encyclopaedia Britannica (15th ed. 1992) definition: British Empire: a worldwide system of dependencies -- colonies, protectorates and other territories -- that over a span of three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the Crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government.

The key word is sovereignty, which is absent from what passes as the definition in Wikipedia. By saying merely " and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom" it opens the door every now and then to questions such as: What about Cuba and Manila? what about Tripolitania, Java, etc.? Indeed, these territories were "ruled or administered" during certain periods by the United Kingdom, but they were not part of the B. E. because the British Crown never possessed sovereignty over them. The crucial word sovereignty should be introduced.-- Lubiesque ( talk) 12:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain what you see as the difference between the word "sovereignty" and the word "ruled"? Thanks. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 19:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Britain did not possess sovereignty over Egypt, yet it is considered to have been a part of the British Empire. Ditto, the Princely States of India. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Ruled is a very loose word. The United States Marines ruled Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and Haiti for a number of years but the U.S. of course didn't have sovereignty over these places and they have never been considered US possessions such as the Philippines, Puerto Rico, Guam, where the US was (is) sovereign. Egypt was considered part of the British Empire only after the UK declared war on Turkey in 1914, abolished Turkey's suzerainty over Egypt, and declared Egypt a British protectorate. It then had sovereignty over Egypt in international law. Britain had sovereignty over India's princely states. They were not subjects of international law. They were subordinate to the British Crown (the Imperial Crown). Their continued existence depended entirely on the good pleasure of the British Government. Before 1947, the British government could have abolished any of the 400-odd princely states and extend its direct rule over them and that would have been perfectly legal in international law.-- Lubiesque ( talk) 23:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

However, a very small number of states, (Muscat & Oman (the Sultanate of Oman) comes to mind), were not technically under British sovereignty and I guess it's only by convention that they are included as part of the British Empire.-- Lubiesque ( talk) 23:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Now you're getting into distinctions of sovereignty and suzerainty, formal versus informal empire, what was in, what was out, which is a matter for interpretation and disagreement amongst historians not to mention British officials at the time. You're certainly entitled to your view on the topic, but it's original research. Also, I'd like to add, this kind of discussion about 0.00001% of the article (just because it happens to be the first sentence) just wastes editors' time and talk page space and does nothing to help the reader understand the topic in question. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

A single word or phrase in a lead may be of particular importance and worth editors' time and attention. But here the current lead is accurate and correct. No relevant RS support has been offered for some "better" definition. The inadequcy of the "1992" snippet quoted out of the context of its full article is shown, for example, by the content of the article in the 14th edition (1950) contributed by Wheeler B. Preston. This edition was published "with the editorial advice and consultation of the faculties of the Universisty of Chicago". It was dedicated to "His Majesty George the sixth, King of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British dominions beyond the seas, and Harry S. Truman, President of the United States of America". Volume I comprised articles from (letter) "A" to "Annoy". The lead in the article "British Empire" included: As synonym for "empire" with its modern-day connotation of dominance, the term "commonwealth of nations" has come into general use to denote the British territories as a whole, since it expresses more appropriately the internal liberty in fact attained or in process of attainment, by the components, which consist of sovereign states already equal and independent although voluntarily associated together, communities managing most of their internal affairs, and peoples in varying degrees of advancemant toward eventual self-government. Qexigator ( talk) 08:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, I should have played in the sand box first. The last entry on that was really poor. But I have now worked on it, refined the details, came up with the important people and situations at the time. This was the last deciding border dispute for the British Empire on the US continent and thus part of the British Empire. Without that treaty, the maps would look different now. It's part of the British Empire. If one goes to Astoria Oregon, one can clearly see and feel the former Crown colony. Please, accept this contribution with relevance for the British Empire. The boundary dispute in the special section is written from the US point of view. This new one I included is not a cheap abstract of what has already been written. It contains two pertinent sources, Canadian and from the premier ministers speeches. Thanks.( Osterluzei ( talk) 15:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC))

Apologies if my edit summary was rather abrupt, but I wasn't criticising the content or style of the text you inserted. The point I intended to make is that any of the many boundary disputes that occurred throughout the Empire during this 500 year period are relatively parochial and therefore should not occupy much space in the article, which is more of a broad overview. You could perhaps tag something on (by which I mean about half a sentence) to the end of the section dealing with the "Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies" (bear in mind the article does not run strictly chronologically). If you're knowledgeable about the subject and you're keen to improve how WP covers it then might I suggest the main article on that topic requires some attention. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 15:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an overview article of 400 years of history spanning 5 continents, there just is not space to cover everything, and this is a minor side show. Yes, the present day borders of Canada and the US derive from this dispute, yes that's very interesting and true, but there is also lots of lots of other stuff that is interesting and true that if we included would result in a multi-volume work. (e.g. what about all the other borders that resulted from the British Empire?) But the beauty of Wikipedia is that there are other more specialised articles where this can be covered: History of Canada, History of the United States, Oregon Country, Oregon boundary dispute etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I should know better than to drop in on my watchlist for a look-see, I'm supposed to be retired, about about this (and being a sort of wiki-expert, from the "British" side on this anyway = British Columbian that is), I do have to butt in:

"This was the last deciding border dispute for the British Empire on the US continent and thus part of the British Empire. Without that treaty, the maps would look different now. It's part of the British Empire. If one goes to Astoria Oregon, one can clearly see and feel the former Crown colony"

No, it wasn't the last. The San Juan Dispute (1859-70) resulted from a poor understanding of its original intent, plus some freebootery by an American settler on an island that was assumed to be British by terms of the treaty, and the Alaska Boundary Dispute was ongoing from the time of the Alaska Purchase (1867) until it became critical in 1898, not being resolved until 1903. That dispute had been ongoing with Russia beforehand in various ways but it's British Empire vs US that this discussion seems to be about. So the present-day boundaries of CAnada and the US were not settled, land borders that is, until 1903, and were still ill-formed in 1859 until arbitration settled that matter in 1870 (with the US getting its way, as always). There remained ongoing marine disputes in the Strait of Juan de Fuca (resolved now I think, to do with the middle of the channel vs the deepest route through the channel) and the ongoing dispute over the Dixon Entrance. There were unofficial challenges to the international vs domestic waters of the Inside Passage in the 1990s though that's long after the British Empire ceased to exist (which Canada remained part of into the 1920s/30s or so..I'm unclear as to which Statute of Westminster did that relationship in, though I do note the name British Empire Games being used in Vancouver in 1952. One more point - Astoria was never British Colony. And ceased to have much relevance after 1821, when Fort Vancouver was founded. And it feels more like a 19th Century America military base than anything else. The colonial period of the British Pacific did not begin until 1849 with the creation of the Colony of Vancouver Island - the Columbia District was not a colony, just a privately managed fur trading district - license to trade - with no Crown sovereignty, just a claim. Skookum1 ( talk) 05:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, just had a look and should comment that that Canadian cite is American-tinged ("Native Americans" is not a CAnadian term, nor is Oregon territory as a description for the region used by British/Columbian historians; it refers in "our" terminology to the Oregon Territory as chartered after the boundary settlement) and though from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada doesn't get the history of the region right; as is often the case with federal sites or others in Central Canada; BC history has its own context; some major gaffes in that, in fact, I won't bother to enumerate them or explain them. And that bit on Polk is worded as if Manifest Destiny were a given and is out of context in terms of the nature of the British presence...and so much more. IMO this is an important matter enough in imperial history to mention, though in not so much detail or with so much politically-loaded wording...one may be Canadian in location of the URL, but both are USPOV in nature. The Oregon boundary dispute article needs more British-side content/input but I had too many distractions in Wikipedia to continue my work there.....it's largely of Oregonian origin/authorship; British-American rivalry in this region was a major, though obscure, stage of imperial development; but without the British retaining a coastal footprint on North America in this region the All Red Route would never have been created and most of Rupert's Land would have wound up American; and the Royal Navy would not have had the redoubt it did after the Siege of Petropavlosk during the Crimean War. That this was the last region of the globe's coastlines, other than some of Antarctica and bits of the Canadian Arctic, to be put on the map, and the last area where land boundaries is drawn, is highly notable in terms of political geography. There's also the later matter of the Bering Sea Crisis though that was a marine boundary issue, though it did almost bring the US and Britain to pitched warfare (as did the Alaska Boundary Dispute). These matters are largely obscure to eastern ("central") Canadians and mainstream Canadian historical awareness...and the prime ministers were often clueless about the Pacific (as they still are); same with the Colonial Office and Foreign Secretary.....something about this area's role in consolidating the "sun never sets" paradigm has to be mentioned......the San Juan and Alaska disputes matter less in that regard, though American pressure on the BC mainland didn't end for a long time (and still havne't). Skookum1 ( talk) 06:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Incroyable ! When I read French colonial empire, I can see pictures about massacres, etc. (which is corect BUT not only). At the opposite, when I look into British Empire in english, sun shines everywhere ! Is « neutrality » an english word ? Or hypocrisy ? Sorry, but I try to figure the article fr:Empire colonial français out : not easy. I thought : they might have some (moral) problems/issues too, regarding their colonial past... -- Spiessens 16:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiessens ( talk • contribs)

At first I was going to raise this question on the Talk page of the actual image but it specified that the Talk page was not for requests for changes in the image. Pink is harder to make out against grey when just glancing at the small version found in this article. Any other color could have been used, such as the colors of the flag, a light red or blue. I was just wondering if it was a huge issue for anyone to make the color slightly darker for those who know how. Cadiomals ( talk) 04:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe so but pink on grey is the traditional colour for maps of the British Empire. And we're nothing if not traditionalists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Is it impossible to make it a darker reddish-pink? There's a wide gradient of colors available on Wikipedia, one could just pick a darker shade. Cadiomals ( talk) 06:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally I think it probably should be a slightly darker shade of pink anyway. I'm sure Red Hat will read this at some point. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've actually seen an image of a flag that actually represented the whole of the British Empire and is featured on flags of the world.com and I think it would be really good if if a Wikipedia version of this flag could be made and featured as the flag that resents the British Empire rather than the Union Jack! ( 90.197.194.14 ( talk) 10:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

Do you have a reliable reference that the Union Flag was not used to represent the British Empire, nothing on flagsoftheworld.com that I could see shows an "Empire Flag". MilborneOne ( talk) 11:09, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it was more ceremonial rather than a flag that was used in place of the Union Flag, I remember seeing picture of this flag on a website which I thought was flags of the world.com but I must have been mistaken but it was on a website but can't remember which site it was so sorry about that.. I can tell you thou that the flag was smilier to the Royal Navy flag as a white Ensign with the coat of arms for Australia. Cape Colony and Canada on it I believe with a Red Cross dividing the flag into four.( 109.151.114.93 ( talk) 13:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

I have the page now for the image of this flag, it's towards the bottom of the page at http://fotw.fivestarflags.com/gb-colon.html ( 109.151.114.93 ( talk) 13:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

Not sure of its provenance but I doubt it has been used as an Empire flag, the website speculates if was for patriotic decoration rather than an official flag. MilborneOne ( talk) 13:28, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware of the uncertainty but I think the flag is still worth recreating as it did exist for some propose even if it was only for ceremonial proposes. ( 109.151.114.93 ( talk) 13:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

OK I would have to disagree, it may be fine for an article on Empire souvenirs and decoration (presume that you can upload a copyright-free one to commons) but a made-up unofficial decoration probably used for a few years in the Edwardian era at street parties and indoor events is not appropriate for an overview article on a few hundred years of British Empire history. It is similar to the souvenirs and similar items created now for royal events. You can wait and see if anybody else agrees with you but I would have to oppose even a mention. MilborneOne ( talk) 14:31, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough I am happy to let things rest there with the British Empire, I have no wish to cause trouble however on a more important note I was wondering if any of you guys could be very willing and take on a project on a neighbouring article called Flags of the British Empire a page where we are trying to develop a place for all the former colonial flags of the British Empire and its Dominions and territories which was started over two years ago and although its just starting to look like a proper reference page it needs a lot of attention and I wondered as you there is a lot of attention on this page weither or not it could be put under your wings or the wings of someone who can make it a offical project where we can be a true source of reference to something which is just as important as the History of the Empire as its part of that History! ( 90.197.194.14 ( talk) 16:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

You could try one of the projects listed at the top of this article like Wikipedia:WikiProject British Empire or the one for flags which is Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. MilborneOne ( talk) 17:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Both those projects would fit that page so thank you very much for that but I am limited when it comes to this sort of thing and I have no idea how you put a article under a project so please can you help to get Flags of the British Empire added to those projects. ( 90.197.194.14 ( talk) 18:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC))

The only flag indicative of the Empire as a whole is the Union Flag (right), as that preceded all the later national ones, and in many cases, the national flags incorporated it, as did the naval flags. Otherwise, there is no 'Empire' flag overall, the Union Flag represented all the British Empire countries, and could be used if the relevant national one was unavailable.

I dismantled this edit [11], as it was too vaguely worded and short on specifics. There was already something on Egypt in this section, so anything Middle East related should have gone there, but most importantly the additional material had no mention of the Arab versus Jewish "problem" and the background behind it. Lastly, the supplied reference for the added text - another encyclopaedia - wasn't optimal. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Was there a date when the UK government stopped referring to its overseas territories as an, "Empire"? Thom2002 ( talk) 17:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably. However good luck on getting people to agree when that was. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha. I checked Hansard - the last time the "Empire" was referred to as a going concern by a minister was in 1956, right before Suez. After Suez, no Minister ever called the remaining overseas territories an "Empire" again, or at least not in Parliament. Not sure if this is too OR to include though. Thom2002 ( talk) 07:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

And it wasn't until 1966 that the Commonwealth Games ceased to be named the "British Empire' Games. Gazzster ( talk) 21:03, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's not forget the extant Order of the British Empire! But the Colonial Office was also renamed in 1966. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

As part of the FA review, the placement and number of images had to be modified to be in accordance with the manual of style. Since then, there has been some "image creep" which I'm sure would have to be addressed were this article ever have to undergo a review again. Anyone have any thoughts on this? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Six images have been added since the review closed. I've removed one ( File:Partion1.jpg) because of unclear licensing status; the rest appear to be appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 20:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Also I was worried about the layout aspect - any concerns there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks okay on my screen, but if you think it could be better give it a go. Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

IIRC the rule of thumb is basically that images should alternate left/right, but they should not be placed on the left if at the start of a paragraph. So, for example, Anthony Eden should really be on the right and Robert Clive could be on the left, but the rest are fine. With a wiki the text wrapping is always a bit awkward so we have to accept that short paragraphs with large images are going to look slightly odd. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 10:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the British more like claimed those lands then conquer. I notice some places were highlighted at which Britain never really conquered such as most of Canada the Inuit and a lot of other tribes didnt even get conquered yet. The area around the Great Lakes, and the Western part of the Easern Woodlands in the USA were not even conquered the Iroqoise, Ojibwa and other tribes. Belize just got the their coast conquered beacause a lot of he Maya died but inland their were still Mayas that were not ever conquered by the British and im sure theirs many other areas that were not conquered. NativePride98 ( talk) 02:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Where in the article does it talk about being conquered? MilborneOne ( talk) 17:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I am at a loss. How do I succinctly state the important fact that Virginia is the first colony, in the entire world of England and what will become the British Empire? I was astounded to read, on the Slate website that Jamestown was the first colony of the British Empire. The author of the Slate article quotes William Kelso, directly, as telling, Queen Elizabeth, "Your majesty, this is where the British Empire began, this was not just the first American colony, this was the first colony in the British Empire." To me this is an astonishingly important fact, that as an American I was never taught. Everything that Americans write, read as did this article, emphasizing the importance to the United States, while ignoring the importance to the development of the British Empire.

Please I am not being nasty to the authors. I would have written that first sentence that way, which is exactly my point here. That, that sentence as originally written misses entirely the world-wide historical importance of the founding of Jamestown. This colony was a success, which prompted others in England to want to get in on the profits. There quickly followed other successful colonies, and, though no one at the time knew it, the British Empire began to grow.

It just seems to me to be essential to mention here, that Virginia is the start of not just the United States, but of the British Empire. Nick Beeson ( talk) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

All my life, without exception, I have read the phrase "Jamestown, the first English colony in America" or "North America" or "the New World". Always a qualifier, which explicitly states that there were other English colonies at that time. There were none.

It seems to me that Wikipedia is a world-wide resource. That the American perspective, in the three articles, Virginia, Colony of Virginia, Jamestown, Virginia, should not prevail. That they should say "first permanent colony of England in the world". Is seems to me obvious that readers in Nigeria, India, Australia, Hong Kong, South Africa, New Zealand, to name a few, would see it differently, they would all think it more important that Virginia is the start of the British Empire, not just the start of America.

If you disagree, please state your reasons here. Thanks Nick Beeson ( talk) 16:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Depends how we define the word "colony". The British Empire is generally dated from the colonies in North America. But once you say "worldwide" or "in the world", we have to start considering periods long before 1607. Does Ireland count? Does Wales count? English kings in the Middle Ages controlled much of modern France, so what about Anjou, Gascony, Calais? Is England itself not a permanent English colony? After all, after the Romans left it was colonised by Anglo-Saxons who crossed the sea from what is now Denmark and northern Germany.

The first English colony in America is easy to define: assuming we're ignoring Roanoke, it was Jamestown. The first English colony worldwide is a matter of opinion. Kahastok talk 19:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am defining colony as of outside traditional Europe and founded after the beginning of the reign of Queen Elizabeth I. I cannot find any other definition. Please post references to your comments from reliable sources that define "English colony" your way. The comment about Roanoke is a non sequitur, since we are talking about the first permanent colony. Note that I have a solid reference for "first in the world". My only concern is there might be a referenced source reference which says it is not the first permanent colony founded by England. I am putting it back, please do not remove it without giving a reference. Nick Beeson ( talk) 21:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you cannot find any other definition for " colony", perhaps you could provide me with the source that demonstrates clearly that a colony in Europe is a physical impossibility, or that there was no such thing as a colony anywhere in the world - no colonial empire, no colonies of European powers in the Americas or India or Africa whatsoever - prior to 1558?

You want references for Ireland as an English colony? Take your pick. Took me less than five seconds to find that. It doesn't confirm the point definitively, I'll grant you - I noted above that the point is open to debate - but it does mean we can't say definitively that Jamestown was the first in the world. And as sources go I think it probably pretty firmly trumps your source about a modern reenactment of the story of Pocahontas. Kahastok talk 22:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

And on a slightly different note, Mr Beeson appears to be rather dismissive of the settlers of Roanoke whose colony may have been unsuccessful but was certainly never intended to be temporary. And was undoubtedly first. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Or was it? Some historians think a colony was founded at Carbonear in 1498. Although admittedly that's somewhat lacking hard evidence. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 22:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The lede talks about the "height" or peak of the empire's power, and in the next sentence it says "By 1922 the British Empire held sway over about 458 million people". Is 1922 really a good estimate of when the empire peaked? Previously, I had an impression that the peak came somewhat earlier. Novel compound ( talk) 17:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

We should go with what the sources say. But the sources will give us different answers, because there are different questions (as you hint at in your post). So for example:

• When did the British Empire contain the largest number of people? Perhaps 1922 or perhaps a bit later. (Population goes up even if geographical territory is static and relative "power" is declining.)
• When did the British Empire have the largest geographical extent? Perhaps 1922 or perhaps a bit earlier or later.
• When did the British Empire have the largest total manufacturing capability? Very hard to answer, perhaps sometime in 1944? Perhaps much later?
• When did the British Empire have the largest lead over other countries in naval power? Perhaps about 1900, perhaps anything up to nearly a century earlier.
• When did the British Empire have the largest lead over any other country/empire in manufacturing capability? Perhaps about 1850 or somewhat later?
• When did the British Empire have the largest number of men under arms? Perhaps early 1945?
• When did the British Empire have the largest lead over other countries in numbers of men under arms? Not applicable - never had the lead. -- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 19:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay if I add a politics/government section which would explain the relation between the colonies and UK? There could also be info about forms of govenrnment, democracy, and society in the colonies/dominions/etc. I understand that the British Empire was not an official country, but there is existing info even on Wikipedia about the politics of the individual dominions, colonies and protectorates, and this article could have a general summary of the colonial politics of areas governed by the British/UK. So before I start to do this I would like to know if there are any objections to expanding the article. Regards -- Ransewiki ( talk) 17:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This should be covered in the country articles - it would be horrendously complicated for a general overview (which is what this article is). Wiki-Ed ( talk) 22:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I would add only general info such as the explanation of different types of colonies like Crown colony and Proprietary colony, but also other entities like Dominions and Protectorates. There were lots of similarities between different British colonies in different parts of world. I would also add a summary of explanation for the system of Governors/ Governor-General, the legislative systems in the colonies/dominions/protectorates, and who were eligible to elect them and so on. I know that there is existing detailed information about the governing systems in the articles for different parts of the Empire, but we should have a general summary of them in this article too. -- Ransewiki ( talk) 09:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It would be very difficult to summarise the wide variety of different forms of governance at different times into a single short paragraph. I'm not sure such a summary would be possible, or useful. Ghmyrtle ( talk) 09:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I´m going to try since I found many similarities between the types government. -- Ransewiki ( talk) 11:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this belongs here. An existing article already covers this subject matter (although admittedly not in as much detail) and it's a much better place to set out a glossary of terms. This article does not need to be any larger. However, it is good that you've found sources for each section. Could I suggest you use this material to expand the relevant section of the article on the Territorial Evolution of the British Empire? When you've done that you could then wiki-link the first mention of each "dominion" or "crown colony" in this article over to the correct section of that article so readers can investigate what each term means. Wiki-Ed ( talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I moved this section in its entirety to Territorial evolution of the British Empire. Governance, by the way, is just one of many aspects of the British Empire that could be covered. See [12] for some other aspects that could have an article in their own right, none of which can be covered in an overview article like this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have now replaced the unsourced types of control with the governance section in the Territorial evolution of the British Empire. There was no mind in including any text from the Types of control section, because it would have been repetition. Regards -- Ransewiki ( talk) 08:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why there cant be more information about the British Empire?? It would be useful to have more info easily available in the infobox. It would be much more simple to get basic facts like capital and area and so on without having to scroll the hole page. I am sorry if I´m opening an old argument, but the archives are quite long to search for arguments about the infobox.... Regards -- Ransewiki ( talk) 10:38, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

These infoboxes are used for 'official' entities like countries, provinces, cities etc. There was no official British Empire, no official capital, no official borders defining an area ("you are now entering the British Empire"). There wasn't even really an official flag. By adding a fully fleshed out country infobox it misleads the reader into believing that all these things were in place. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

If its not official then what country/entity did Canada, Australia, India and etc. become independent of? The UK? But how that can be possible since they were never part of UK, they were part of the British Empire?? That would mean its official. Also a lot of other British things are de facto because even currently it doesn't have a written constitution. There is no law about London being the official capital of UK, yet Wikipedia uses it as the capital, because it's the seat of government. Ransewiki ( talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Dominions like Canada and Australia became independent of the United Kingdom, the British Empire is just a shorthand for the bits that the British/United Kingdom governed and looked after it wasnt an entity or organisation. MilborneOne ( talk) 21:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with The Red Hat on this one. There were multiple complex constitutional aspects in different parts of the British Empire. A country information box is not appropriate. ---- Snowded ^TALK 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well if you say the infobox can't be expanded, could there be a section in the article for the political structure of the empire, or at least a list of the political entities and their forms of government? Regards Ransewiki ( talk) 08:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

it says 'The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom' mates, so how come there are 'no official capital, no official borders defining an area' etc.? kazekagetr 16:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Note to all editors here, there has been some utter nonsense added of late to the map on Wikimedia Commons, such as Dunkirk being part of the British Empire. Unfortunately if one watches changes to this page, edits to the map go unnoticed. /info/en/?search=File_talk:The_British_Empire.png The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I have it the article on my watch list, is this serious enough to link all maps to that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowded ( talk • contribs)

Hi Snowded. Not sure what you mean by "serious enough", but the user in question just readded Dunkirk to the map (again reverted). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

On watch in case you need backup ---- Snowded ^TALK 19:48, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Please help to identify the sitter and painter (1st quarter of the 19th century), thanks! Sdfghkl ( talk) 11:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really the right place as it doesnt relate to this article (or the British Empire) (or all the articles you have added the question to) perhaps try one of the reference/help pages like Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Off topic here, but the image is now on commons, good luck. – Be..anyone ( talk) 14:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

In the map some users (like me) Added Afghanistan, but it look likes the creator of map is removing Afghanistan. So My question is: Was Afghanistan british? Please answer me ;_; Carcaça Metáliaca ( talk) 18:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No. Uspzor ( talk) 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved the map (back) to Wikipedia, so it can be added to Wikipedia watch lists to make sure nobody sneaks in any original research. [13] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

This piece of Sumatra should be marked on the map. It was a British outpost from 1685 until swapped for Dutch Malacca (Melaka) in 1824. 80.3.72.207 ( talk) 21:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, will add. Verifiable in The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)