Jump to content

Talk:British Empire/Archive 23

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23

RfC

Off-topic (Wikipedia is not a forum): In its current form, with this specific question, this is not a Wikipedia RfC but rather a discussion about history that could instead take place in an internet forum. If there's a Wikipedia-specific question to be resolved, it should be asked as such. There is a quick, small but reasonable consensus below about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Was perceived British incitement of the Indigenous peoples a cause that led to the US declaration of war in 1812? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 021120x (talk • contribs) 11:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No one has objected to saying that there was a perception. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't even know why the article should go into this level of detail. The U.S. took advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars to declare war on the UK. The resulting war ended in a stalemate and tensions between the U.S. and British Empire ended. What more is relevant to the huge topic of this article? TFD (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
The U.S. took advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars to declare war on the UK.
This is clear POV, aside from being wholly unfounded. 021120x (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, it also happens to be a British perception, Shall we add that as well?
Two comments. 1. No one has objected to saying there was a perception, that's a strawman argument, the objection is to an edit that failed verification and stated perception to be a fact. 2. Whilst not objecting to the premise of the RFC, I do wonder whether listing the pretexts used to justify attacking Canada is due coverage in an overview article on the British Empire. The article already covers what is considered by historians as the main causes. As such I'm minded to suggest its not included. WCMemail 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
This "perception" was based in reality, supported by evidence, and accepted as factual by historical consensus - and it should be described as such. 021120x (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No it's not based in reality. The claim that British guns and knives were found at Tippecanoe for example was only made several years after the battle by someone who had not been there and had participated in the massacre of Indians. Furthermore, it would have been recorded in the meticulous records kept by British quartermasters which are now publicly available. TFD (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
We already have references showing that the Natives were receiving British weapons. Do you have any references showing that they were not? 021120x (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Of course it's founded. The U.S. would not have declared war on the UK were its navy and armed forces not required in Europe. TFD (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Close malformed RfC. The question in the request for comment is not contentious. The issue being discussed is whether it merits inclusion in the article not whether or not it's true. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Support close. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Was perceived British incitement of the Indigenous peoples a cause that led to the US declaration of war in 1812? Is this clearer? 021120x (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
That is not what the RFC asked. So this needs closing and you need to ask the question you actually want to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
As was stated above, there is no objection to adding "perception". So, can we proceed with adding 'and a perception of British incitement of the Native Americans'? 021120x (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No as your own sources neither says this was a primary reason for the war, and that this a false perception. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
So you do object to adding perception, in contradiction to the straw man arguments given above, and there is no basis for this request for closure. 021120x (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
No I object to the text you want to add, now if you want to add "the false perception" that would be fine, as that is what the source says it was. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Where in any of the above sources do you see "the false perception" stated? 021120x (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Your correct its "Western Americans continued to claim, inaccurately", so that is what we say, it was an inaccurate claim, or we do not include the claim at tall. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
By the way, it is not a strawman, when I made my comment I assumed you had accurately quoted the source, only when you made the claim again (but it was obvious you had edits it) did I check and found out in fact the source does not even support the text in the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
* Support closure as per Celia Homeford and Slatersteven. WCMemail 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Last word on this, having checked (one) of the sources, and found to be cherry picked I can't support any change to the text. Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No.4? Just reading it now and I agree, very much cherry picked. WCMemail 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

General Comment

This is largely for the benefit of any external editors making a comment but the RFC bears no resemblance to the edit in contention. That edit states in wikipedia's voice that the British supported Native American attacks on settlers in the US. As noted above this edit is not supported by the cite supplied and as noted above in an excellent summary by Ykraps the literature considers the evidence for this to be flimsy and rather this was one of the pretexts used to justify the war. Editors may wish to consider how this RFC may be used in conjunction with the proposed edit and factor their comments accordingly. WCMemail 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reader-friendly introduction

I feel the current lede isn't as reader-friendly as it could be, and doesn't give an overarching "bigger picture" before going into subtle detail to abstract the entire article (as a lede should) considering the exceptional detail the article touches on.

My current draft for the structure of the first paragraph of the lede is below, which will/could be followed by the rest of the text in the lede which explains further. I feel it's just a bit overwhelming to be so detailed as the story goes on in the lede without an initial "bigger picture" as such:

The British Empire was the largest empire in history that existed from the 16th to the mid-20th century. It comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states. It was established primarily through colonisation, conquest, and exploration. At its height, approximately a quarter of the Earth's land area and population was under British sovereignty. As a result, it had a significant impact on global politics, economics, culture, and the spread of the English language. After the Second World War, many of these territories gained independence, leading to the dissolution of the empire in the mid-20th century.

waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Rrius, Peter Ormond, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Wiki-Ed, Wee Curry Monster, Snowded, Doctor Boogaloo, Chipmunkdavis, Marek69, Derek Ross, AlexiusHoratius, Nikkimaria, Susvolans, Guy M, Chelman, Planetary Chaos, and Cooksey87: Pinging editors who'd possibly be interested in commenting. waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Rahter than what we have, which a part form one line contains much the same information. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi Slatersteven, what do you mean by which a part form one line contains much the same information? If I understand correctly, it does contain much the same information as the rest of the lede, which if I placed that info into the first paragraph would only defeat the purpose. Otherwise I could make my proposition less identical to the later paragraphs which contain much the same information just much too detailed to piece the overall picture together. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes that is what I am saying, we already say this in the lede, are you arguing we replace the lede with one paragraph? Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Many bits of the proposed text are duplication and the bits that aren't duplication are misleading because they're oversimplified. Not sure why we need to change anything anyway - it's hardly overwhelming. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
The main change seems to be a summary of the timeline compared to the current lead. I can see an argument for that, although it perhaps may risk putting further the impression of there being a specific defined entity. One change that we should not do is open with "largest empire in history", better to introduce the topic encyclopaedically before adding accolades. One change I would agree with is removing the "the empire on which the sun never sets" sentence, firstly because the second half of it assumes the reader is dumb, secondly because it is peacocky without adding further information to the reader, thirdly it is not at all mentioned in the body. CMD (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Sorry but a lede that survived multiple FAR largely unchanged, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change it. Nor do I see what is proposed as an improvement. Nor do I see the current lede as overwhelming. Is this about using the term "superpower" again, I note the misleading edit summary implying you'd reverted when you hadn't [1],[2]? WCMemail 09:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Your poor attitude compels me to take your statements with a pinch of salt. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
“discouraged by editors who suck the joy from content creation and instead seek to play petty mind games” as you’ve said on your User page before. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
“Is this about using the term "superpower" again” is so condescending. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree with the “sun never sets part”. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
No it’s not that I argue we replace it with one paragraph. But before this snowballs, it appears my description has performed poorly, and developed misunderstanding. And I was better to put on talk page prior to adjusting. Thank you for your response. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Northern Ireland from Legacy

Willthorpe, why was this text recently removed: “Tensions remain between the white settler populations of these countries and their indigenous minorities, and between white settler minorities and indigenous majorities in South Africa and Zimbabwe. Settlers in Ireland from Great Britain have left their mark in the form of unionist communities in Northern Ireland”?

First of all: tensions do very much remain between settlers and Indigenous populations in former British colonies. Second: Northern Ireland is a settler nation and the colonization of Ireland laid the groundwork/set the precedent for later British colonies (especially in North America). I cannot edit as I recently created an account, but here are some citations: “Settler colonial logics and the neoliberal regime” (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2201473X.2015.1035361) ; The Roots of English Colonialism in Early Modern Ireland (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/roots-of-english-colonialism-in-ireland/1F93FDEAEA185A33607A8D8E4939B7BC). A quick google scholar search will turn up many more. This needs to be re added asap. Feel free to use these citations. Breezy85 (talk) 01:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

Request to add a Law and Governance section to the Wikipedia page. The page talks a fair bit about the law but does not have a separate dedicated section to the law on the page. Hwmarriage (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Enslaved person" v "Slave"

I'm not Ethel Del, but my understanding of the issue is that the terminology of "enslaved person" is a recognition of their status as human beings, while "slave" is terminology which reduces them to objects, bought and sold, like chattels. Here's a short outline of the position from the Underground Railroad History Project: The Vocabulary of Freedom:

"Also important to reevaluate is the use of “master” and “slave” in our lexicon. With the word “slave,” we deny the humanity of the enslaved person; with “enslaved person,” we recognize their enslaved state as imposed on them and not intrinsic to their identity as a human being."

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

See also: Slavery#Terminology and People-first language.
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
We must be careful not to get into PC reasoning. The term 'slave' is extremely common and understood in RSSs. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Masterhatch (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree as well - Wikipedia shouldn't be virtue signalling - if the consensus among historians changes then we can change the wording, but for now I'm pretty sure 'slave' is the commmonly used term. For what it's worth, I'd read 'enslaved person' as a softer term which disguises the inhumanity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
Is is an odd way of putting it, and no I do not see it as "dehumanizing" them". As they were "bought and sold, like chattels" that was (and is) the whole point. As per Wiki-Ed if anything it is the other way round, it whitewashes what slavery was by implying it was just a form of employment. Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
The claim that "slave" is dehumanizing, or somehow less dehumanizing than "enslaved" is preposterous. Slaves are by definition human, and the word "enslaved" anyway contains the word "slave". "Slavery" is no more or less dehumanizing than "enslavement". There is no reason under the sun to prefer "enslaved" to "slave". The difference is like that between "circled" and "encircled" – there isn't one. Something circled is no more or less dehumanized than something encircled. I do not see what relevance or authority the "Underground Railroad History Project" can possibly have, least of all in an article dealing with the British Empire. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
While there are valid arguments on both sides, the terminology debate hinges on perspectives. The "enslaved person" term emphasizes recognition of their humanity, while "slave" highlights their status as property. It's a matter of interpretation. 🤷‍♂️ 207.96.13.213 (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert

Why was this edit reverted? It includes a more broad summery of conquests. This also states the British were the dominant power. SKAG123 (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Did its dominance end in 1849? According to whom? In fact Brtian was more powerful after the Second Anglo-Sikh War, and in fact survived a Muinty about a decade later. Slatersteven (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It was referring to the conquests. It should have been worded better.
Does this sound better?
”Britain became a dominant power in the Indian subcontinent through various conquests the 18th and 19th centuries starting in Bengal in 1757 and ending in Punjab in 1849.” SKAG123 (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
No, as conquests did not end in 1849 either, this is a bizarre endpoint that seems far to arbitrary. Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Could we remove the last part and only add “ Britain became a dominant power in the Indian subcontinent through various conquests the 18th and 19th centuries” SKAG123 (talk) 16:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Becasue it adds words for no good purpose? Slatersteven (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

A stub: British possession

@Wiki-Ed, Slatersteven, and Rjensen: An editor, @Wisest fool in Christendom:, who seems to be newish, has created a stub British possession, which at the time of my intervention this morning was cited to one secondary source and four or five primary sources. The editor has been (in my judgment) spamming a large number of Wikipedia articles by Wikilinking the term "British possession" occurring in them (found no doubt by a Google search) to the stub. A quick look at the stub, told me that the Wikilinking was premature, especially when the definition cited to two Acts (1978, 1869) is being applied to Company rule in India which ended in 1858. I'm posting here, as I think you folks are better prepared to judge the product and its widespread Wikilinking, that is at this stage of its development. I did post on their user talk page, but to little effect. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Apologies, the editor is The wisest fool in Christendom (talk · contribs) whom I'm pining here again @The wisest fool in Christendom:. Pinging also some policy-conversant admins: @RegentsPark, Abecedare, Johnuniq, and DrKay: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:57, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I shall be bowing out now as I feel the discussion is now in the proper forum. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Also @Johnbod: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Simply because a "British possession" is formally defined in 1889 (not 1869 as Fowler&fowler erroneously claims) does not mean it did not have legal or commonplace meaning before that time. The Fugitive Offenders Act 1881, for example, used this title. Fowler&fowler's "quick look" was quick enough to allow them to form several inaccurate opinions on both the subject and the article, but clearly not long enough either to investigate the sources nor to construct any meaningful criticism to justify their opposition to its existence and to the existence of links to it. For example, Fowler&fowler claimed that the article was based mostly on primary sources, whereas in truth the article is based entirely on secondary sources, the primary source citations being there merely for further reference. I asked for Fowler&fowler to substantiate their claim that "the term is variously interpreted", but they failed to do so. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
See "Seditious Publications Ordinance was passed in Hong Kong in 1914. ... According to section 2, seditous matter referred to ... by inference, suggestion, allusion, metaphor, implication or otherwise — to bring into hatred or contempt His Majesty, or the Government established by law in the United Kingdom or in this Colony or in any British possession or in British India or the administration of justice in any of such places or any class ..." (here) So, was British India a British possession? If so, why is it mentioned separately above; if not, why have you wiki-linked "British possessions in the Presidencies and provinces of British India to it" here? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
You've added a couple more (secondary sources) after I objected. Originally, there was just one. Spamming other articles with the barest of stubs that is being improved on the fly, I'm afraid, is not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Again, Fowler&fowler, accusing others of "spamming" without due cause is, as you might say, "not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia". I do not see the relevance of your hastily constructed non-argument. As someone who grandly claims "I should know, I've written a large number of British Empire in South Asia related articles", you should know that British India was not all one thing. The princely states were not, strictly, "British possessions" (you may have read this exact phrase had you not, as I suspected, blindly undo my change here), so there is no contradiction between the legal definition of British possession and the listing "British possession or in British India". Again, you grandly claimed on my talk page: "As you will see, in this simple search among books published by university presses, the term is variously interpreted". I challenged you to provide actual evidence of this claim of yours but you failed, despite my repeating my request. Now you are resorting to your own hasty misinterpretations of old Hong Kong law. What happened to the university presses you spoke of which you so confidently? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally, in the heyday of the empire, the term "British possession" was applied to what did not fit in the descending categories of constitutional recognition, starting with the highest: a) United Kingdom, (b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland), (c) India and (d) British crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon).
So, Aden, a British possession, which was administratively a part of British India's Bombay presidency, was the kind of outpost of the empire the term was generally applied to.
Please don't make it sound like some battle between you and me. Offer examples such as I have, not what I said and what you said. This is about knowledge, not behavior. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
No, this is incorrect. The dominions are always considered British possessions, as are the colonies. The UK as such never is. As I have shown, you have conspicuously failed to produce anything but your own opinions despite repeated challenges. I don't see any reason why your example of Aden proves anything, and I don't see any reason why your claims, if they were valid, could not be found in reliable sources, something you have apparently failed to do. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 19:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
For that reason when you search among books published in the 21st century, for "British possession of Canada", you only get examples in which "possession" is used in the meaning of "the act or condition of having in or taking into one's control or holding at one's disposal <the enemy's possession of the town>"
But when you do a search for "British possession of Aden" among books published in the 21st century, you get examples in which the term is used mostly (i.e. in 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, ...) in the meaning of, "c: a territory subject to a ruler or government or d: an area subject to a government but not fully integrated into the nation to which the government belongs"
Definitions is not what WP is about. Ultimately, transferred meaning in usage is more important, and that your stub misses enturely. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:42, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
"British possession of Countryname" is irrelevant and I don't know what Fowler&fowler is trying to prove. "British possession of Countryname" is not a title, the way "Colony of Jamaica" or "Dominion of Pakistan" might be. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
But it very much was for outposts of the empire such as Aden:
Examples:
Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:01, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There are no modern ones for "British possession of Canada" in this meaning. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler So what? Aden and Canada were both British possessions. Canada still is. The term appears in the Constitution Act, 1982. What's your point? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't especially object to the article existing, but in the few examples I looked at of the very large number of articles now linking to it, I thought it was either a distraction or potential source of confusion to the reader. For example, there must be better links that could be used here. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Johnbod. I don't object to the article existing either, but the term is used in a large number of contexts, it seems, (see the HK Seditious Publications Ordinance 1914 cited above (pages 222–223) where British India is distinguished from any British possession. My objection was simply to the hurried Wikilinking especially at this stage of the stub's development. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:35, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
As I have proved above Fowler&fowler's interpretations of primary sources leave much to be desired - in the Hong Kong case Fowler&fowler refers to, there is no contradiction. Fowler&fowler has yet to provide any evidence of the grand claims so hastily made. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Whatever! What we are talking about is, or should be, whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned. The article itself says "while "the term appears in some statutes, its use in modern times is rare"", which is certainly true, and we should follow that. Johnbod (talk) 20:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The Wisest Fool in Christendom says: "accusing others of "spamming" without due cause is, as you might say, "not a recipe for improving an encyclopedia"." I went to your contribution page, and the first 250 entries, all today, are inserting wikilinks to "British possessions". That is clearly spamming, applying a wikilink to a technical article everytime it appears. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Johnbod It's its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century. Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself". Why shouldn't we make links to it where appropriate? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Johnbod's comment: "whether it is a good idea to link this highly technical article every time a part of the British Empire is mentioned". The stub article only considers the meaning of "British possession" under British law. But British statutes do not apply to contries like Canada and Australia. Assuming that the British legal term "British possessions" has the same meaning anywhere in the world is legally incorrect. If the term is used in Canadian law, or Australian law, for instance, then its meaning is defined by Canadian or Australian law. It is not good practice to assume a British legal term has uniform application. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz Laws made before the 20th century certainly do apply in Canada and Australia. Laws made before those countries' legislative independence will still be on the statute book in those countries unless removed by subsequent legislation. As "British possession" was legally defined in the time of Queen Victoria, and it still has relevance in the former dominions, just as it does in the former colonies, whether or not they are still Overseas Territories. It was, for example a matter of relevance for the Australian tax authorities as recently as 1993 [3]. Equally, the words "British possession" was removed from the Indian Official Secrets Act 1923 in 1967 [4], but it remains on the Indian statute book in the Reciprocity Act 1943 [5]. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Wisest fool in Christendom says: "its modern use in laws which is rare, since the British Parliament rarely has occasion to legislate for the dominions in the 21st century." That is legally incorrect. There no longer are dominions, and the British Parliament has no power to legislate for Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, etc. It's not just "rare" in the 21st century; it's non-existent. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Wisest fool in Christendom also says: "Its use in historical context is of course very common. It is not "highly technical" or even "technical" as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz calls it (this seems as strange characterization). Before the middle 20th century it simply means "everywhere in the British Empire except Britain itself" ". The article is discussing a legal term in British law. It is completely silent as to the meaning of that term, if any, in the laws of Canada, Australia, NZ, etc. Until that article is updated to provide reliable sources that indicate the meaning, if any, of "British possession" in the law of Canada, Australisa, NZ, etc, then it is not appropriate to do wholesale links to the term in 250+ articles, without any real consideration of whether that specific legal term is meant or applies in each article. Legal terms by their nature can be technical, and the scope of their application is an important factor to consider before applying them. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
But the basic point is that the term "British possession" is not defined now for Canada, Australia, etc., by British statutes. If the term is still in use in a Canadian, Australian, etc., statute, it takes its meaning from Canadian or Australian law. You can't assume that "British possession" has the same meaning in all those countries, after more than a century of legislation. The British possession article only cites to British statutes and British legal texts. It does not address the issue of the meaning of the term, if any, in Canada, Australia, etc. It therefore is not appropriate to do a mass linking to an article that talks solely about British law. For example, the Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978. Citing to the Interpretation Act 1889 is therefore irrelevant in determining the meaning of "British possession" now. As well, the Interpretation Act 1978 is a British statute which only applies to British law; it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster: there is no indication that any of those countries requested and consented to 1978 Act applying to them, so it does not. The two legal texts cited in the article do not appear to appreciate this fundamental significance, because from the quotations in the article, they appear to assume that the 1978 definition of "British possession" continues to include Canada, Australia, etc. It doesn't, because of the Statute of Westminster. This is what I meant when I said that legal definitions of this sort are very technical, and in my opinion cannot simply be assumed to apply to every use of the term "British possession" in 250+ articles in Wikipedia. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories. It is entirely false to claim "it has no application to countries like Canada, Australia, etc., because of the Statute of Westminster". The 1889 definition of "British possession" is in force, today, in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, and doubtless elsewhere. I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state. It would obviously be inappropirate to add such a link where possessions of Britons were being spoken of. The vast majority of usage on Wikipedia, however, deals with its normal meaning, which is not complex or technical at all. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
@The wisest fool in Christendom: The term "British possession" in the text of the India Official Secrets Act, 1923, did not apply to British India. See the text proposed on 8th March, 1922, which was accepted. If one assumes that India was the British possession to which the law had hitherto not applied, then one should have found the expression "British possession" in conjunction with "British India" elsewhere. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler You are misinterpreting again. Even if this claim were true, it is wholly unimportant. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I did not misinterpret in the first place. I pointed out only that you had no sources.
I will let the administrators deal with you. Requesting @Vanamonde93, Abecedare, RegentsPark, Firefangledfeathers, Courcelles, and Johnuniq:All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler I am still waiting for evidence that "the term is variously interpreted". Will you admit you were wrong to claim this, and that you were unable to find the "books published by university presses" you alluded to? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Although, this might not be the appropriate venue, for their benefit I will note further that user:The wisest fool in Christendom began editing the topic area with a one-fell-swoop-edit of 14:43 21 October 2023, when the stub British possession was created, and thereafter until 16:40 21 October 2023 (as User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz has elsewhere stated), they had made 240 edits involving Wikilinking the term "British possession" to the stub. That is 120 per hour, or two every minute. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm trying to avoid making a time consuming trip to one of the AN boards. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
The wisest fool in Christendom said: "The Interpretation Act of 1978 defines "British possession" with exactly the same text as does the 1889 act. This is the only text that defines the term, whose meaning is extremely broad, and it is precisely the text which is still in force in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India, as well as in the British Overseas Territories."
(1) The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed by the Interpretation Act 1978, s. 25, and Schedule 3: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1978/30/contents. Citing the 1889 Act is therefore irrelevant, as it no longer exists. (2) The Statute of Westminster 1931, s. 4, provides that a British statute passed after December 11, 1931, will not apply to the law of a dominion unless the statute expressly states that the "Dominion has requested, and consented to the enactment thereof": https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/contents (3) The Interpretation Act 1978 does not contain any express statement that Canada, Australia, NZ etc have requested that the Act apply to them, and consents to the enactment of the Act. (4) The Interpretation Act 1978 therefore does not apply to the Commonwealth realms, and the definition of "British possession" in the 1978 Act is not part of the law of any of the Commonwealth realms. (5) All of which shows that determining the legal meaning of a statutory term is not a simple matter, and we as Wikipedia editors cannot just say that a British legal term is part of the laws of any other country, without a reliable source saying so. Which the "British possession" article does not have. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Very well put, @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I was just going to add that the Statute of Westminster applied to the original six dominions, but not India. However, we get to the same point for India by looking at s. 6(4) of the Independence of India Act 1947: "6(4) No Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on or after the appointed day shall extend, or be deemed to extend, to either of the new Dominions as part of the law of that Dominion unless it is extended thereto by a law of the Legislature of the Dominion." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1947/30/pdfs/ukpga_19470030_en.pdf The 1978 Act therefore does not apply to India either. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed this comment from The wisest fool in Christendom: "Aden and Canada were both British possessions. Canada still is. The term appears in the Constitution Act, 1982." Citation, please. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
The wisest fool in Christendom also said: "I did not blindly add a link to everywhere the words "British possession" appears, but only where it is appropriate - i.e. a country or territory where the British monarch is head of state." Well, then, why did you add a link to "British possessions" when it was used in a statute passed by the Congress of the United States? Were you suggesting that the Congress of the United States was incorporating a British statutory term in an American statute? I removed it, by the way. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Montana_Territory#Original_boundaries Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 01:42, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz you are mistaken. I have not edited the article to which you link. The US Congress is simply using the term to mean what it has always meant. Since the border of the Montana territory refers to the edge of to British North America, the link would be correct. This is why I added it to the article History of Montana [6]. You mistakenly removed the link [7], apparently under the misapprehension that the term "British possession" means something different in American law to what it means in British law. It does not.
  2. The Interpretation Act 1889 was repealed in the UK. As Mr Serjeant Buzfuz correctly points out, the Statute of Westminster means that the 1978 repeal does not apply (automatically) to the Dominions/Commonwealth realms. As such, it is the 1889 Act that remains in force in these countries. This is immaterial, since the definition of "British possession" is identical in each. It is incorrect to claim, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz does, that the 1889 Act "no longer exists".
  3. The Statute of Westminster actually uses the term "British possession". That alone establishes its relevance well beyond 1931.
  4. In the Canadian constitution, the expression "British possessions" appears in number 8 of the Schedule to the Constitution Act, 1982. [8] In British legislation, this is part of the Canada Act 1982 [9]. As will be noted, the definition of "British possession" will either be that of the 1889 Act or the 1978 Act, but either way, it will make no difference. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz's changes here, here, here and here are all therefore unhelpful and the purported justification "Canada is not a British possession" is simply wrong, especially as all these instances deal with 19th-century history, at which period no-one could question the fact that Canada was part of the British Empire. The more so that Mr Serjeant Buzfuz removed the link in some instances while leaving the existing statement intact, a strange thing to do if, as Mr Serjeant Buzfuz claims, "Canada is not a British possession".
  5. In Australian legislation, the expression "British possession" appears, most recently, in Schedule 2, number 456 of the Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2011 [10], which amended the Crimes Act 1914. Again, the definition is the same, excepting that the words "the Sovereign's" replaces "Her Majesty's". There is no material difference with the definition of 1978, or of 1889, or of earlier definitions not explicitly defined in law, which were similarly broad.
  6. In New Zealand's legislation, the term is still part of acts in force today (British Settlements Act 1887 [11], Prize Courts Act 1894 [12], Prize Act 1939) [13], but in legal interpretation, it was successfully argued in court in 1976 that the term as used in the British Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 no longer applied to New Zealand (in New Zealand's law) as a result of New Zealand's Constitution Amendment Act 1973. The lawyer that argued this, David Lange, having made himself prime minister, passed the Constitution Act 1986, which taking effect from 1987, ended the power of the British Parliament to legislate for New Zealand. Up until 1973 therefore, New Zealand was a "British possession" in New Zealand law [14]; according to British law, it still is.
  7. Although the 1978 act does not apply to India, that is irrelevant, since the term and its definition of 1889 was in use long before partition and independence, and as such forms part of the post-independence law in both India and Pakistan. I hope Mr Serjeant Buzfuz is not trying to claim that the Independence of India Act 1947 somehow nullified all previous legislation, or is seeking to prove that the British parliament in 1978 somehow modified the laws in India? If not, then I hope Mr Serjeant Buzfuz will agree with the fact the the term "British possession", where it appears in legislation in force in India today, has the same definition it had in 1889, which, not by coincidence, is the same definition which obtains everywhere else, including the UK, where the definition under the 1978 act is the same as in India under the 1889 act.
The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:36, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Does this really need its on article? Slatersteven (talk) 10:57, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, why not? The term is of similar importance to British subject, British colony, British dominion, British overseas territory, British crown dependency, and so on. Unlike these, the precise legal meaning of "British possession" does not differ from its obvious meaning, but it is nevertheless an important legal term and historical descriptor, like the others. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
You may wax on for ever, but the bottom line is that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," where "possession" has the meaning of territory, but they do speak of the "British possession of Aden" as I've already indicated, or "British possession of Gibraltar". The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire: a) United Kingdom; b) the five dominions (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Ireland); c) India, i.e. British Raj; (d) Crown colonies (e.g. Ceylon or Trinidad and Tobago). It can be easily checked that history text-books employ that usage.
So, per usage in text books and per WP:TERTIARY, which states:

Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can help provide broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources and may help evaluate due weight.

Also, per WP:PARITY, the POV being promoted and spammed by user:The wisest fool in Christendom is FRINGE and detracts from the encyclopedic reliability of Wikipedia, such as it is. I don't believe there is any point engaging this WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. It is best for area specialists to be aware of the spamming. Pinging @Kautilya3, TrangaBellam, DaxServer, and Fylindfotberserk: for Raj-related content. I see that Kautilya3 has already reverted several attempted Wikilinks. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler You appear to be inventing your own definition of "British possession" ("The term is used mainly for those territories of British control that do not fit in the constitutional pecking order of the heyday of the empire") which explicitly disagrees with the numerous secondary and tertiary sources I have quoted (the Longman Dictionary of Law being one such). This is textbook WP:original research, as well as a fringe belief. To cite yet another clutch of sources that contradict your tendentious claims:
  • Smith, Andrew (2008). British Businessmen and Canadian Confederation: Constitution Making in an Era of Anglo-Globalization. McGill-Queen's University Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-7735-3405-6. … Canada continued to be a British possession after 1867, ...
  • Corse, Sarah M. (1997). Nationalism and Literature: The Politics of Culture in Canada and the United States. Cambridge University Press. p. 50. ISBN 978-0-521-57912-4. … Canada remained both formally and culturally a British possession …
  • Mancke, Elizabeth; Bannister, Jerry; McKim, Denis; See, Scott W. (2019). Violence, Order, and Unrest: A History of British North America, 1749-1876. University of Toronto Press. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-4875-2370-1. … Lower Canada's status as a British possession …
  • Peterson, Derek R. (2010). Abolitionism and Imperialism in Britain, Africa, and the Atlantic. Ohio University Press. p. 15. ISBN 978-0-8214-4305-7. … Canada, a British possession …
  • Tulchinsky, Gerald J. J. (2008). Canada's Jews: A People's Journey. University of Toronto Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-8020-9386-8. … Quebec was, after all, a British possession …
  • Wright, Barry; Tucker, Eric; Binnie, Susan (2015). Canadian State Trials, Volume IV. University of Toronto Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-1-4426-3108-3. The imperial British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 confirmed the existing practice of enabling the government of any British possession, which included the Dominion of Canada and the Commonwealth of Australia, …
  • Shields, Juliet (2016). Nation and Migration: The Making of British Atlantic Literature, 1765-1835. Oxford University Press. p. 145. ISBN 978-0-19-027255-5. … Canada's status as a British possession …
  • Lipson, Charles (2013). Reliable Partners: How Democracies Have Made a Separate Peace. Princeton University Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-1-4008-5072-3. … Canada remained a British possession …
  • Pearson, Ellen Holmes (2011). Remaking Custom: Law and Identity in the Early American Republic. University of Virginia Press. p. 164. ISBN 978-0-8139-3093-0. … Canada was a British possession …
  • Graham, Gordon (2015). Scottish Philosophy in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries. Oxford University Press. p. 199. ISBN 978-0-19-956068-4. Like Canada, Australia was a British possession …
This is just the result of the most shallow research. There are dozens and dozens of others. Please, Fowler&fowler, accept the reality. Your claim that no one ever speaks in modern history textbooks of the "British possession of Canada," is just obviously false and proven false by even the small selection of examples above. Further, evidence, if further evidence were necessary, is found in the legal documents of the Victorian era:
I cannot see how anyone can claim that Canada was not a British possession, when modern historians say so, and historical documents agree. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Your examples are all historical examples, i.e. refer to Canada of old, of the 19th-century, as it had existed before the Acts (you make your kingpins) had been enacted. They are not text-books, but monographs (found by cherry picking sources). No widely used textbook refers to Canada during the 1950s or 60s a British possession. But they do call Aden, Gibraltar, Malta, or Diego Garcia British possessions. You are wasting you time attempting to argue with me. More importantly you are wasting my time. I can tell by your writing that you are unable to argue using heuristics. You don't present digested knowledge. During the last 17 years, I've seen many like you come and go without making any substantive contributions to Wikipedia. I am done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm taking this page off my watchlist for a while. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Fowler&fowler It seems you are unable to engage on anything substantial. Will be undoing your unjustified reverts? Will you be recognizing that your claims have been false? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it? British subject has 65 cites British possession has 9. In addition, one covers a period of 400 years, the other less than 200. o, I do not see them as similar in importance. Slatersteven (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
British subject has existed as an article for years. British possession was created much more recently, and only I have worked on it. The term "British subject", according to that article, "was codified in statute law for the first time by the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914". The term "British possession" was codified in statute law for the first time by the Interpretation Act 1889. As your comment indicates, the concept of a British subject is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1914 act. The concept of a British possession is hundreds of years older than that codified by the 1889 act. By your own definition, British possession is at least as relevant as British subject. It follows, indeed, that there can hardly be British subjects beyond the UK itself without British possessions beyond the UK itself. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
All very interesting but where are the sources that confirm its notability? Acts of parliament do not count. There are some sources on the British Possession article but they are not specific so we cannot check them. Can you supply quotes, in context. Snippets don't count. British Subjects should not be used as a comparison. It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger I'm sorry I don't understand. What do you mean by "they are not specific so we cannot check them"? I think I have put the references in a very full format. What would you like me to quote? What do you mean by "It is a wiki article and therefore stands alone"? British subject and British possession are both articles on Wikipedia. The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I meant not having page numbers although I can now see that some do have. Anyway, I am not sure the term "British Possession" is notable enough. Being defined in a statute from the 1880's is not being notable. What we need is something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media. It seems that all your references are statutes or text books about statutes. I had a look at John Wilson, a good but amateur historian, in his explanation for the NZ parliament that you use twice, the only mention of 'British Possession' is in the sub-notes. I quote:

"In 1976 David Lange, acting as a lawyer for a defendant, successfully argued that New Zealand, for the purposes of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881 (UK) under which his client was charged, was not “part of Her Majesty’s dominions” or a “British possession”. While noting the significance of the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947, Wilson J unequivocally stated that the last bonds of dependence on the United Kingdom were severed with the passing of the New Zealand Constitution Amendment Act 1973, by which New Zealand established itself in law as an independent sovereign state. In his summation, Wilson J reluctantly concluded that a statute that is still technically part of the law of New Zealand is now ineffective to confer that jurisdiction for which it was originally designed…[and] still subsists like an unburied corpse which I have been compelled to refuse to convert into a zombie. [37]

The judgment is significant because it drew attention to the residual power of the United Kingdom Parliament to legislate for New Zealand – a significance apparently not lost on Mr Lange when he saw the need to pass the Constitution Act 1986 during his tenure as Prime Minister of New Zealand."

An interestingly humorous summary by Justice Wilson (not related), but hardly noteworthy. In fact he confirms what I had thought before seeing this judgement, that you are also inserting original research by deciding what the 1888 statute means. I might be wrong, but the 1888 term British dominion is quite different from British Dominion as we know it today. The monarch of the UK is not the monarch of Australia, Canada and NZ anyway. The monarch of Australia for example is the King of Australia, not the King of the UK. (Wilson J refers to this indirectly for NZ in his summary) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the stub in question, it is a basic definition with the article bloated by reference to a couple of court cases. I would suggest removal and will shortly be nominating for deletion. WCMemail 08:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Roger 8 Roger "something like a specific example where it did become notable, such as a court case that was reported by the media" is exactly what is described by W. P. M. Kennedy in his article entitled "British possessions" in the University of Toronto Law Journal. I quoted it in the article already. You yourself quote the judgement in re Ashman. Where is the "original research" you allege? Absolutely nothing in the article is not based on secondary or tertiary sources. What is the 1888 statute you are referring to? Could it be the Interpretation Act 1889 or the Fugitive Offenders Act 1881? The wisest fool in Christendom (talk) 16:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

For those wishing to comment, the deletion discussion can be found here. WCMemail 14:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Those who commented in the AfD may wish to comment in a related discussion currently at Talk:British possession. WCMemail 15:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

I would like to expand the section on the Scottish attempts to expand to include the colonisation of Nova Scotia and the Plantation of Ulster. MiloThatch 98 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 04:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Those sources are simply carelessly written personal opinion that are being misused by you as well.
"Our research finds that Britain’s exploitative policies were associated with approximately 100 million excess deaths during the 1881-1920 period" Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Article fails incredulously to mention the atrocities against Indians.

Hear me out. Britain, through its colonial satellites sponsored the killing of 100 million[1] Indians within the span of 40 years. India was reduced to poverty under Britain, who strategically fostered ethnic and religious divisions[2] through Divide and Rule. This article severely downplayed the effects of the Jallianwala Bagh Massacre, and does not include the casualties of it or any other massacre. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of unbiased information, not a vessel for rosy-eyed British imperialism. So I request that the information be corrected immediately with reliable sources, and/or the biased template be added. Thank you, Ayunipear (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Those sources are poorly written personal opinion and are misinterpreted by you as well. They cannot be used as reliable independent secondary sources. They are an interesting magazine read while someone is sitting in the dentist's waiting room but they are not serious encyclopedia material. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://rare.rice.edu/hot-topics/how-british-colonialism-killed-100-million-indians-40-years#:~:text=How%20British%20colonialism%20killed%20100,(RARE)%20Workgroup%20%7C%20Rice%20University
  2. ^ https://unacademy.com/content/railway-exam/study-material/modern-history-of-india/the-divide-and-rule-an-introduction/#:~:text=The%20Divide%20and%20Rule%20policy%20is%20a%20strategy%20that%20was,groups%2C%20castes%2C%20and%20ethnicities.

Ross Dependency

What is the status of said territory? Is it part of NZ or not? There is here a NZ govt web page stating that technically the Ross Dependency is part of NZ. The New Zealand article has an infobox map showing it as part of NZ. This 1923 Order is at the heart of the claim. I initially raised the issue at the NZ article talk page but this might be a better place for a discussion seeing as it relates to Empire matters. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure this does belong here. Several countries with Antarctic claims (which have nothing to do with the British Empire) have that territory marked on their main country article map. As to your question: the article on the Ross Dependency explains the abeyant status of the claim... so, like the other Antarctic claimant countries, it is no more (or less) a part of NZ than those other territories claimed by those other countries. Arguably claims shouldn't be shown, but if we were going to change it for one, we'd have to change it for all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite the same as the other six. Chile and Argentina have their sections in their constitution as an integral part of those countries. The others are also treated in different ways by each country. The issue relates to 1923 when NZ was a dominion, before the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1947 and full separation from the UK. The NZ govt statement in its online article says the Ross Dependency is constitutionally part of NZ, without further explanation, and that appears to be the basis of some people's belief that the dependency is part of NZ. The person who was the governor-general of NZ in 1923 was made the governor of the Ross Dependency, (I think making two unconnected positions) and NZ law was applied to the dependency in 1923 (does that amount to the dependency being constitutionally part of NZ? - what then about UK law applying in Pitcairn?) Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

New Zealand may be similar to Australia in never really having defined the concept of internal and external territories in the way the UK and the US have. This may put it closer to the Chile/Argentina position than the UK one, especially if that is the position of the NZ government. CMD (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire/Archive_23&oldid=1247076086"