This is an archive of past discussions about British Empire. 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.
Announcing the formation of a project to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of the British Empire. All interested editors are encouraged to read the project page, join the roject and get to work! :-) -MichiganCharms (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Former Country Infobox
I reverted the addition of the former country infobox [1] because these things are rarely helpful (national anthem? motto?) and just cause controversy (the B.E. was never formally "established" or "disestablished" and any attempt to date such non-events is misleading). And if someone wants a summary that is what the introduction is for. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
If the article were to have one, it would have to be a great deal larger then that (one I added to the page before joining, for example, included the capitals of every dominion and India) plus the totally arbitrary end date was curious. -MichiganCharms (talk) 02:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Where did the B.E. begin - the plantations of Ireland, or the Norman conquest of Wales?
The newly added claim [2] (and since reverted) that the British Empire began with the Norman conquest of Wales is unsourced. Furthermore, if this is based on the claim by Davies, John that plantations in Ireland were similar to castles in Wales, this would be synthesis on the part of the Wikipedia contributor to suggest that the origins of the British Empire lay in the conquest of Wales. I for one have never read any author making this claim. All the books on the B.E. (all cited in this article) begin with Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The Norman conquests/settlements of Wales and Ireland took place in parallel, although they were terminated earlier in Wales by Edward I. Very similar methods were used. This section related (properly) to the "domestic" expansion of England from which the "British" empire arose. There is a tendency in many a history book to "for Wales read England". The reference to Davies is to more than the settlements around castles. --SnowdedTALK23:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Unless you can show that the academic consensus is that the origins of the British Empire went all the way back to the conquest of Wales, it is original research. Please provide a source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just added in a citation to a paper which summarises several sources - to quot "Colonial studies and an emergent historiography of the "British problem," meanwhile, have highlighted diversities of culture that enlivened the exercise first of English and then of British power, with some works treating Wales and Ireland as proving grounds for colonial adventure" Goodday is right to a degree, if you include Ireland you need to include Wales or leave it until Britain was Britain as opposed to England--SnowdedTALK23:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) re the dubious tag - I think this a fair enough marker while we discuss things. Academic consensus is not the binding criterial however. Academics may disagree on issues in which case it is necessary to reflect those differences (equal weight). I think I have established that there is a citable position that Wales and Ireland were both experiments. There will be people who disagree with the inclusion of Wales, ad others who argue that a British Empire cannot be considered to have started until you get the Act of Union with Scotland (up until then it is anglo-norman expansionism). We may need to state that the origins or empire are contentious and reference points of view. That would make for a balanced article. --SnowdedTALK23:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It is silly and pointless to attempt to date exactly the beginning of the Empire. Also, these disputes can end up with some silly and contorted compromise wording "at least one historian views... yada yada yada but the majority yada yada yada", and I would like to avoid that because it spoils the text. I would sincerely be interested if you can put forward more sources that advance this position. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The British Empire is an interesting concept (one wonders when the term was first used); I mean, there never was an Emperor/Empress of the British Empire. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
(indent) The reference makes sense although controversies over quotes from John Dee on the British Isles article were not enjoyable! Dee was by the way Welsh and claimed descent from Rhodri Mawr. Part of his claim for British Empire was the supposed discovery of North America by Madoc, which he developed as an argument to the effect that Elizabeth as successor to the Princes of Wales therefore had prior claim. In any event the British Empire starts in the 16thC. We are talking here about a single paragraph in the introduction which deals with the pre-conditions of empire and this is currently centred around Norman (and later Anglo-Norman) expansion. This was not unique to the UK (one thinks of Sicily) but the pattern was similar. Aggressive conquest and settlement of Anglo-Normans around a secure site or location following confiscation of land and other rights. In the UK this took place in Wales and Ireland (and was attempted in Scotland but did not succeed). There is an inevitable lull during the War of the Roses but then the Tudors stabilise the home front and the empire builds from there. The Tudors finalise the incorporation of Wales by the way with the Laws in Wales Acts 1535–1542, again 16th C.
Now the conquest, occupation, use of castles, plantations etc, are common practice in Wales and Ireland and established by citation. There is no real difference and they overlap in time period - the main difference is that the incorporation of Wales in the 16th C whereas the position in Ireland remained confused until the act of Union. This gives rise in some circles to the claim that Wales is England's oldest colony but that is controversial and should not be incorporated.
So we are not talking here about the origins of the British Empire qua Empire, but making an important point that the Anglo Normans were engaged in conquest and colonisation in parallel with the more global efforts of Spain and Portugal. Spain was additionally engaged in the build up to the expulsion of the Moors and other acts of internal consolidation. There are other interesting aspects of this Anglo-Norman "practice" period that inform later practice. For example the use of numerically inferior forces exploiting local differences, used in Wales and Ireland then extended in India and Africa. This is something that may be worth exploring in the future, but will need citation - for the moment I just note it.
So to the paragraph in question, I think the argument runs as follows
The pre-empire conquest and plantation should be referenced
The process in Ireland and Wales is similar and supported by citation
There are citations that reference the Irish Plantation and do not mention Wales
There are citations that reference Wales and Ireland (the paper I referenced last night, in turn references other material)
The section therefore references domestic colonisation rather than Ireland per se, but the Irish period is longer and more complex and therefore deserves the majority of the text (which is the case)
I don't think there is a need to say that some historians think this, others think that (I agree that is always messy). What we have here is a position that some historians omit the Welsh point, maybe in part because the Irish plantations continue in the Imperial phase whereas they are over at the start in the case of Wales. Yes its worth looking for other citations, but what is there is enough for the claim o a single background paragraph --SnowdedTALK06:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
...in particular I have trouble with this: "So we are not talking here about the origins of the British Empire qua Empire, but making an important point that the Anglo Normans were engaged in conquest and colonisation in parallel with the more global efforts of Spain and Portugal." This is an article about the British Empire, and a section on the origins of Empire. Yes it is an important point, but should it be mentioned here at the B.E.? Merely by mentioning Wales, we are implying that this had something to do with the origins of the British Empire. If we mention Wales, why not mention the Norman conquest of England itself, and suggest that the origins lay on the coast of Normandy? After all, the Normans ruled the English via a series of castles too. And where did the Normans come from? etc etc The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No, you see some general statements and discussion around the theme and then an argument which references citation. You have a clear citation (which references other cited material) which sees the conquest of Wales and Ireland as representing a "practice run" at Empire. You have supporting citations about the nature of the process in each case. Your citations reference Ireland but do not exclude Wales. Given that the paragraph in question relates to a pre-empire state the case for referencing Ireland and Wales is clear. You could argue a strict rule and have nothing before the 16th C of course but I think that would weaken the article. Your second edit supports this position, yes you could argue a case for Norman aggression in England, although that is going way back (it is arguable that without 1066 there would not have been a British Empire). However if you include Ireland, then the process with Wales is happening at the same time as Ireland in the same way (time is important here). So I could rephrase your statement "If we mention Wales why not England" as "If we exclude Wales then why not exclude Ireland". Look there is a very important point to be made here about the pre-process of Empire. I think it is strengthened by by cited references to Wales not weakened. Its a good article, this is a minor point about consistency--SnowdedTALK10:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A "practice run"? So the Normans, knowing that in a few hundred years time vast new lands would be discovered across the sea, decided to practice their skills of conquest and subjugation so as to keep their hand in for the glories that lay ahead? Basically, this article should never even have included Ireland. The BE was a phenomenon based on trade, and is definitely a post-1492 phenomenon. If we include Ireland and Wales, then by all logic we must include England too. Let it not be forgotten that the English suffered under the Normans just as much as everyone else. ðarkuncoll10:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It was in inverted commas i.e ironic TharkinColl. Overall I agree however (while not with the Kingdom of Mercia per se) that you either deal with the Norman, and then the Anglo Normans consistently or you exclude it. At the moment there is a paragraph on the domestic colonisation of Ireland, I added in Wales for consistency. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of editors to create a draft which covers the Normans. --SnowdedTALK11:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A humorous reference to the maps on your user page, linked back to your comment about the English suffering under the Normans.--SnowdedTALK13:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Snowded, you still need to provide more references than this. "Your citations reference Ireland but do not exclude Wales." is not an argument. My citations reference Ireland because the authors believe it to be the precursor to the empire. They do not mention Wales (or Normandy, or the Visigoths) because they do not believe those are part of the same historical phenomenon. They are obviously not going to enumerate all the things that were not causes of empire - such a task would be infinite. The burden of proof is on you as you are adding information to the article. You need to prove it's more than one historian with this theory and that it's not just you pushing your own OR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well let me ask you some questions in return so we can establish where we are. (i) Do you think that the evidence does not support the statement that the Norman conquest of Wales included plantation and that this plantation took place in parallel with that in Ireland? Are we agreed that this section does not relate to the British Empire per se, but to a paragraph that relates to "Domestic Colonisation" (to use the words of the original text)?. --SnowdedTALK03:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
My position is as follows. This is an article about the British Empire, not domestic colonisation by the English in the British Isles. "Domestic colonisation" in the form of plantations of Ireland is mentioned because all the cited historians connect it to the origins of the British Empire. Also, your reference needs to be updated to show the exact page number backing up this claim (currently it just references the whole doc). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt03:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Happy to note the point on citation page reference and I hear the argument you are making. We may at the end of the day agree or disagree on what should be in the article but I would like to make sure that we do not argue across each other. So I fully understand that you can, for example agree that the paragraph relates to domestic colonisation, but feel that only Ireland has sufficient citations to be included in that paragraph. I deduce that this is your answer to question (ii), I would appreciate your answer to question (i). I think there may be a better way forward on this that the two current sets of wording but I want to make sure what is agreed or not agreed as "component facts" first --SnowdedTALK03:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, put it this way... I don't disagree that the English colonised the Welsh, any more than the Normans colonised the English. But I feel that question (i) is a loaded question, if I answer "yes", then you will say "aha! well, logically, if Ireland then Wales etc etc", but this would be synthetsis (Synthesizing material occurs when an editor comes to a conclusion by putting together different sources. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.) on your part. Note, "if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article..." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt04:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Well the point I was trying to establish was the issue of plantation and the parallel period in history to that of Ireland. Its not an entrapment or an attempt to break rules on citations not the conquest per se. I actually think the one I found (completed) supports the text I inserted with the addition of the page and that it will not be difficult to supplement that. However I am currently thinking of different form of citable wording that provides a slightly wider context for this section (which I will propose here first) and was trying to check what was agreed. --SnowdedTALK04:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It was not the English who colonised Ireland or Wales, but the Normans. The English themselves had been colonised by the Normans - who built castles in England and imported people from the Continent who settled in towns around them. Take Nottingham for example, which famously had an English and a French quarter. What happened in England was the same as what happened in Wales. ðarkuncoll08:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
We had a similar discussion not so long ago. There was agreement that the article is about an "overseas" Empire, but there was some disagreement over what "overseas" meant.
The number of sources supporting the inclusion of Ireland hardly makes it the consensus view so I would suggest User:Snowded only needs to find the same number of sources for Wales as there are for Ireland. Three? Wiki-Ed (talk)
I would certainly and genuinely be interested in seeing more sources that put forward this view. I am not being closed minded towards this - if it can be demonstrated that there is a non-trivial school of thought which believes Wales was considered a prototype for the B.E., great. Let's include it. But let's make sure this school of thought genuinely exists first. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted, as there doesn't seem to be much forthcoming on this front. Please can I ask that we discuss and examine sources here on the talk page before changing the text? Again, I am not irreversibly opposed to mention of Wales, but when every book I have on the B.E. discusses Ireland in the "origins" section, and none discuss English colonisation of Wales, you can see my concern... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is an interesting and important discussion to have. And it turns on a difficult point: when did the Empire begin? Historians generally talk of the First Empire in the eighteenth century and the Second Empire in the nineteenth. Of course this is an arbitrary distinction. We could speak of an English empire before 1707, but we might also speak of it as the beginnings or origin of the British Empire. And even after the union of 1707 with Scotland and the 1801 union with Ireland there is a sense in which we can understand the BE as a continuation of the English empire. After all, those two unions were in effect legal absorptions of Scotland and Ireland into an English super-state. To treat of the colonisation of Wales is probably to press the point too much. For you then may as well go back to the Norman colonisation of England or even the Anglo-Saxon colonisation of Brittania.--Gazzster (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but it's important not to dabble in original research here, and instead to keep it verifiable. We keep it verifiable by looking at books on the British Empire. They all deal with its origins, and as I say, I haven't seen one yet that claims it lay in Wales. That is not to say that the English did not engage in the domestic colonisation Wales, but this is an article on the BE. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Equally the paragraph states that domestic colonisation preceded the birth of Empire and there is no doubt that this was near identical in Ireland and Wales and taking place at the same time. This is also cited (yes I know I need to put the page number in) in an academic journal so it is not OR. Restricting citation to summary books on the empire is mistake as such books are by their nature broad brush. Using academic articles in addition is not only normal but desirable. I really can't see why this is a problem. I think if anything we should extend this a bit as the Norman mode of contest in England and Scilly amongst others, created the template used by the British in the expansion of empire. In addition the colonisation of Wales was key in realising resources for expansion elsewhere (Henry II was restricted to a degree by this failure to gain "domestic" stability --SnowdedTALK08:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have inserted the specific page reference. Please note that this is itself a reference supported by other citations. --SnowdedTALK08:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(indent) OK I have removed one unnecessary reference to Wales (on reflection what matters is the common reference to Wales and Ireland which is cited and I have therefore removed the dubious tag). The importance of the Norman of conquest by license from the state (used in Wales and Ireland but then adopted by Elizabeth) is important and prestige the commercial nature of the empire. The expansion into India followed the same model. I found one online citation for this but there will be better and I think the paragraph I have inserted needs some editing, expansion and additional citation to make it better but is valid as is. --SnowdedTALK09:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I am putting this in bold because you ignored it. Please discuss here first BEFORE changing the text. This is a long-standing piece of text of the article. Again, I am not 100% opposed to it, but I have politely asked that we discuss it here first to reach consensus. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand your attitude here. I made the original change and provided a citation (in between your reversals). You added in the citation tag and the position stood. Today you decided a week later to revert. I thought about it, added in the page reference to the citation for Wales and also reduced a part of my original edit so that the text related solely to the citation I had provided (did you notice this) . This seemed to me reasonable. Your previous statement that more than one citation is required is not a valid statement as at least one editor pointed out. Also the citation I provided references other supporting material. I also added in a citation which added value to the article explaining the context. I am pleased to see that you left that in place. You do not own this article and while respecting the effort you have put in other editors are entitled to engage. Your use of the "dubious" tag was also incorrect as the citation was a valid one fully referenced. I am not going to revert immediately but will give you time to respond here. --SnowdedTALK12:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's deal with one thing at a time here. (1) Wales: I waited for a week for more sources (I and another editor suggested you provide more), and nothing was put forth. I have listed below several references which support my view, I suggest you do the same, in the same format. (2) That additional cited paragraph. What on earth is that, and what is this reference [4]? I'm not opposed to contrasting England v Spain/Portugal's colonies, but at least put it in the right place and find a decent source for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
References supporting the mention of Ireland, with no reference to Wales
Niall Ferguson, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Order and the Lessons for Global Power: "In the early 1600s, a group of intrepid pioneers sailed across the sea to settle and, the hoped, civilize a primitive country inhabited by - as they saw it - a 'barbarous people' - Ireland. It was the Tudor queens...who authorized the systematic colonization of Ireland...By 1673 an anonymous pamphleteer could confidently described Ireland as 'one of the chiefest members of the British Empire'."
Lawrence James, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire: "The first colonisation of North America was contemperaneous with the far larger settlement of Ireland...120,000 colonists arrived to help undertake what Francis Bacon revealingly called the "reduction to civility"...of the Irish. On both sides of the Atlantic the settlers faced sporadic but determined resistance..."
Nicholas Canny, Origins of Empire, The Oxford History of the British Empire: "Much has been written about [the] interconnections between British 'domestic' and 'overseas' colonization, which has sometimes been likened to the connection between the reconquista of Moorish Spain and the conquest of New Spain. In both instances, historians find it puzzling that procedures and justifications that they associate with overseas colonization were employed within Europe into the early modern period...[several pages later]...The most obvious oversight is the extent to which the plantation in Ulster which was the costliest British colonial undertaking of the 17th century, both popularized the concept of 'British' as opposed to 'English' colonization, and provided the first example of how a British colony and Empire might function."
Alan Taylor, American Colonies "Indeed, the conquest and colonization of Ireland served as the English school for overseas empire, the English equivalent of the Spanish invasion of the Canaries. In Ireland, the English adopted both the techniques and the rhetoric of colonial conquest. In Ireland, the English learned to consider resisting peoples as dirty, lazy, treacherous, murderous, and pagan savages, little if any better than wild animals, and to treat them accordingly."
T.O. Lloyd, the British Empire "The conquest of Ireland was the largest military undertaking of Elizabeth's reign...and a new wave of English landlords was able to gain estates if they could hold the rebellious Irish population in subjection. Some of the men who took part in this, like Sir Walter Raleigh and his brother-in-law Sir Humphrey Gilbert, were also attracted by the idea of getting lands on the other side of the Atlantic, and the success of the Spaniards encouraged them...."
The point is that conquest of Ireland was happening around the same time as overseas voyages to North America, by exactly the same men.
Actually the point of that section is domestic colonisation prior to the expansion of Empire. I am happy to accept that all of the above citations reference Ireland in the context of Elizabeth. I do not think you have made a case against the inclusion of two words (and Wales) with citation, and the addition of the final paragraph relating to the different form of Empire, namely licensed companies, privateers etc. --SnowdedTALK12:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I have read the whole article. The point was that the pattern of empire was established during the period of domestic colonisation and the cited para I introduced was valid. You could make a case to move plantations of Ireland to the first empire section (your point about parallel above) and leave all the pre-Elizabethian stuff out. However as currently phrased then (i) Wales should be included as cited and (ii) the Norman model deserves mention. --SnowdedTALK12:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Please do as I have done above, and write out the text of references that you believe supports your view. Anything else is original research. NB - some editors believed that Ireland should not be included at all. We solved it last year doing exactly what I describe above - citing references. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, the text of my additional paragraph was set out in the text so I do not need to repeat it. The text from my other citation states "Colonial studies and an emergent historiography of the "British problem," meanwhile, have highlighted diversities of culture that enlivened the exercise first of English and then of British power, with some works treating Wales and Ireland as proving grounds for colonial adventure" there follows a long range of citations which I will not repeat here. Its very simple I think, Include Ireland you have to add in Wales (two words and citation), if you change the emphasis to the Plantations in Elizabethian times, but remove the Norman Conquest piece then that argument does not apply. --SnowdedTALK12:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You beat me too it on removing the reference to the Norman Conquest or Ireland. I think that is a sensible settlement. Lets move on see next section. --SnowdedTALK12:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Ireland being called a subject of the British Empire is a fallacy created by Nationalists to try a seperate the Nation of Ireland and enhance there cause. You can't really include any of the home nations in an article about the British Empire since all 4 of them contributed heavily to its creation and development, Scots and Irish both formed large parts of the political and economic elite, and lead the way it such key points of the empire development as the conquest of India. However its is inherrently wrong to talk about a British Empire before the reign of James I/VI, and even that is dubious at best. I would suggest the best starting point would be after the long period of political turmoil caused by the english civil wars/wars of the three kingdoms, so probably the best starting point would be after the Glorious Revolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.180.42 (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Difference between the British and other Empires
I earlier made the edit below as part of the discussion on Ireland/Wales etc. I think that section (Plantations) is now fine. However the point made below is I think valid and should be included somewhere (albeit with different words). Comments?
The model of colonisation thus established was very different to the centralised policy of Spain or France. "Instead, the English crown awarded colonial charters to a wide variety of merchants, religious idealists, and aristocratic adventurers who established separate and profoundly different colonies"[1] following through on the Norman model
--SnowdedTALK12:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Here are the problems that I see with this addition. (1) "Thus" implies that the preceding paragraph entails the following - the reference does not support this. (2) Quoting verbatim sources like this is not how a good Wikipedia article is written, unless there is something explicitly important and notable about the quote/speaker/writer. (3) "following through on the Norman model" - again the reference does not support this, so it is synthesis. (4) "merchants, religious idealists, and aristocratic adventurers" are all covered in the text - the East India Company, the religious emigration to North America, the West Country Men. The one thing that you bring up which is missing from this article is comparison of Spanish and Portuguese colonies vs English ones. This should be mentioned, but we should find a decent source for it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that point (the contrast with the Portuguese/Spanish) is the important one. Its sort of there in the article but spread out. I really need to get on with writing a paper which is already overdue, but will have a look around and see what is there later. --SnowdedTALK13:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
This is discussed in Anthony Pagden's chapter in The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume I. There are various difficulties in attempting to do this - such as, how do we do this concisely? (Pagden points out similarities and differences). Who should we compare against - if Spain and Portugal, why not Holland and France? If we do it for the 16th century, why not subsequent centuries, comparing British colonies in Africa to, say, Italian ones? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
You are tempting me away from my paper on the far less interesting subject of weak signal detection in social systems. I did a brief study some years ago on the differences between British and French attitudes too torture post WWII (Malaysia and North Africa) and the contrasts are interesting. The British tended to be amateur, using serving officers while the French created a professional class of torturers. Its a similar sort of issue. Expansion by licensing free enterprise (with the East Indian Company being the greatest example) within a semi-structured or lightly constrained state system or state control and drive. The Norman model of promising rights of conquest in return for support was novel at least in its intensity and application and laid the foundations for what was to follow. One could argue that the British Navy with its system of "prizes" followed a similar model of distributed reward, cognition and reward. OK ramble over, thinking a bit too much aloud and overlaying complex adaptive systems theory onto history. Back to the point. One possibility is to add something to the end of the "Origins" section, i.e. restrict the period. I think you are right to say that Holland/France should also be included, especially at the Dutch model was similar with entities such as the Dutch East India company. How about this: The early years of empire were characterised by the granting of rights to merchants, privateers and religious groups by the crown, rather than a deliberate policy of conquest by the State. This characteristic was shared by the Dutch in contrast with the French, Spanish and Portuguese. Now that is supported by my original citation in part, and also the ones you added. --SnowdedTALK14:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
(indent) Ah, sorry see what you mean. The citation I gave on the original edit was to an online Pearson learning resource so that would stand and supports the first part of my proposed wording. While my study has many a book on Welsh and Central European History it does not have the specific books you referenced above so I can't check direct, but assumed (good faith) that in mentioning them you would have the page numbers to hand for the comparative point. --SnowdedTALK14:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I tried to fix that without taking/adding too much, and it's clearly in the wrong section - the Thirteen Colonies one, quite the wrong end of the continent. Not sure how much of a British Northwest/British Columbia section shoudl be added, but it's not jsut a footnote; also Nootka Crisis and Nootka Convention should be in there, and are not inconsequential events in thie story of hte Empire, or that part of British North America....Skookum1 (talk) 20:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg
The image Image:Mountbatten 4 august 1947.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.
Historians strongly prefer "Britain" instead of "United Kingdom" in historical articles, so I made the changes. UK variations are anachronistic and do not jive with the expert sources. Rjensen (talk) 05:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you need more support for that statement before you make any changes. United Kingdom clearly includes Ireland (in different manifestations) while Britain does not. Now it may make sense to change it, and it may (but I would like to see the evidence) be the way historian's work. If so then lets have some citations. --SnowdedTALK06:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
UK or Britain in copy and headlines for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (but note Great Britain comprises just England, Scotland and Wales) And before 1927 it was the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. You'll find Irish nationalists objecting strongly to Britain as somehow it implies they're British and they take exception to that. Since the UK and Britain is synonymous, better to use UK IMHO, you'll get less grief and it is after all accurate. Justintalk11:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Snowded. "United Kingdom" is not anachronistic for periods after the UK came into being. It is also more accurate, since the UK was and is a State, whereas Great Britain, following the Act of Union with Ireland, was and is a geographical entity rather than a political one. Aridd (talk) 09:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
UK is anachronistic because it was rarely or never used until post ww2. We are suppose to be basing the article on reliable sources (which use "Britain" and "Great Britain"). Of course, "Britain" and Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" are all short versions of the official name. Check the Shorter OED which explains the usage: Britain: "More fully (esp. as a political term) Great Britain. As a geographical and political term: (the main island and smaller offshore islands making up) England, Scotland, and Wales, sometimes with the Isle of Man. Also (as a political term) the United Kingdom, Britain and its dependencies, (formerly) the British Empire." Therefore OED shows it is NOT true that "Great Britain" only means an island.Rjensen (talk) 10:02, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
regarding what terms historians use, look at any histories of the British Empire. I have never seen one that prefers the UK usage. For example, The Rise and Fall of the British Empire (1995) by Lawrence James can be searched by words at amazon.co.uk. The term "United Kingdom" appears on only ten pages; the term "Britain" appears on 517 pages as shown here. Likewise for The British Empire: Sunrise to Sunsetby Philippa Levine, (2007) with 5 pages that use "United Kingdom" and 195 pages that use "Britain". You get the same overwhelming preference by the many historians who contributed the the massive "Oxford History of the British Empire, most of which can be searched using amazon.Rjensen (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I think its very sloppy terminology, but I suppose that politically it emphasises that the Empire was British, and therefore excludes Ireland which was too all intents and purposes a colony. So if you want to change it on common use fine, it will create a precedent as well which could be useful elsewhere. --SnowdedTALK11:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You are of course entitled to your opinion, but as we all know it's not the opinions of editors that matter. Per the Guardian style guide, "Britain, UK - These terms are synonymous: Britain is the official short form of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.". Doesn't get much clearer than that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Having read the Guardian for more decades than I care to remember, I am somewhat surprised to see it being taken as an authoritative source. The official name is UK of GB & NI, Britain is per several sources and accurately (in geographical terms) England, Scotland and Wales. Britain is frequently used as a short hand for the UK, as is England. Neither is correct. --SnowdedTALK12:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, you are entitled to your opinion. But we all know that The Guardian is a reliable source and your personal opinions on this count for nothing per WP's rules. It's a frequent starting point for an argument against something on WP - if the source disagrees with you, try rubbishing it. Well it won't cut any mustard with me! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
honestly Red Hat, you take your self far too seriously. I said above if you want to call it Britain do, its a common colloquialism although inaccurate. If I could be bothered then I could list a whole set of citations about the UK but its just not worth it. The Guardian style guide is not definitive, yes its a citable source but you know perfectly well it could be challenged. --SnowdedTALK13:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I still agree with Snowded. It's a matter of what is officially correct. Officially, Britain is only a part of the UK, and does not include Ireland; the two are not synonymous. Britain is not a country, and hasn't been since the Act of Union 1800. I prefer to use what is correct rather than something incorrect or sloppy that happens to be common usage. People come to an encyclopedia expecting accurate facts. It is a fact that the Empire was led, officially, by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (and subsequently by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). I don't see why we should be replacing something correct by something less accurate. (Incidentally, Irish people played a prominent role in British imperialism.) Aridd (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You are just plain wrong. You're confusing "Great Britain" and "Britain" there. "Britain" includes Northern Ireland, "Great Britain" does not. You can read up about the differences here Terminology of the British Isles. The introduction at United Kingdom has several times in the past been the subject of changes by editors who do not understand this distinction, those errors are always corrected though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a big deal but I think that Snowded is right too. During the 19th century it was common to use "Britain" when the UK was meant. In fact it was common to use "England" when the UK was meant. But we are writing this in the 21st century and should avoid confusion by using "UK", whatever the original sources may use. They used wording appropriate for their time; we should use wording appropriate for ours. -- Derek Ross | Talk17:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a lot of "I think..." going on here, not much source citing. Per the original poster, you just have to open virtually any book on the B.E. and see that the term used is "Britain" not "UK". Personally, I don't really care that much which is used, I find it annoying though when people post "their" views on a subject when they clearly haven't even done the most preliminary of research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Britain is a colloquialism for the UK, which is the officially endorsed abbreviation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If you don't really care then you won't mind if we stick with the existing consensus will you? Justintalk20:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a "consensus" as such. I wrote a large portion of this article and always used the term "Britain" in my edits, admittedly unconciously. I was probably influenced by my sources, which all use the term. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Try assuming good faith Redhat, I can't see any comment above which would justify your patronising final sentence. No one is disputing that "Britain" is used by a lot of historians the question is if the official term should be used or not. In most wikipedia naming discussions/disputes there are citations a plenty for most terms as there are here. It then becomes an issue of common use, or weight or meaning or whatever. Given that we all don't care much I suggest (on what is a good article) we leave it as it is. --SnowdedTALK22:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As the quotations above from the OED and Guardian Style book make clear, "Britain" is just as official as "United Kingdon"; furthermore--and this should be decisive for Wiki--"Britain" is overwhelmingly the choice of historians writing about the British Empire who produced the reliable sources we used. No reliable source prefers the United Kingdom version for historical topics. There seems to be a misunderstanding to the effect that "Britain" is somehow less formal. OED says Britain is as formal as United Kingdom as a short form of the long name.Rjensen (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I've read many books by historians on British history and the history of the Empire, and I'm well aware that they tend to use "Britain" as a convenient short form. (Rjensen has a point, but takes it to unfortunate extremes.) After all, it rolls off the mental tongue more easily than "United Kingdom" (two syllables to five), particularly when it has to be used repeatedly. I'm aware of both the casual and scholarly use of the word "Britain". Heck, I tend to use "Britain" a lot in front of my students, though I prefer to say "UK" when I think of it. I maintain, nonetheless, that "United Kingdom" is clearer, more precise and, on the whole, more accurate. I can understand if people don't agree (though I'm amused at the heated reaction of one editor in particular), but I don't see why we should feel the sudden urge to "fix" an article that ain't broke. There is absolutely nothing incorrect in using "United Kingdom" to refer to the United Kingdom, so why should we feel a compulsion to erase something that's right? At most, we may want to pepper a few "Britain"s in here and there for stylistic reasons (to avoid heavy repetitions of "United Kingdom"), but to want to delete all correct references to the UK just seems downright silly. To sum up: I don't care if we include mentions of "Britain", but I object to "purging" the article of any mention of the UK. It would be absurd to have an article on the British Empire with no mention of the United Kingdom as such. (To take an example, open Morgan's History of Britain (yes, "Britain") at a random page, and, lo and behold, you get: "The Great Exhibition of 1851 celebrated the ascendancy of the United Kingdom in the market-place of the world." Clearly he realises that using the word "Britain" doesn't mean one should ban all mention of the UK.) Aridd (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Aridd has a good point, and occasional use of the UK form is a good idea. It is a comfortable term for younger people in the UK who get their history from TV. However, it jars the sensibility of people who read history books and suggests that Wiki authors have been fiddling with history (since the reliable source we use rarely used the UK form.) Indeed it would jar people at the time, who (before WW2) seldom used UK. We of course are dealing with an entity, the Empire, that exists only in history. Rjensen (talk) 10:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
True enough, but the United Kingdom was officially the United Kingdom at the time, even if it was rarely referred to as such. So calling it by its name isn't "fiddling with history" in my view. Still, as I said, I don't mind the article alternating between "Britain" and "United Kingdom". The only thing I would object to is erasing all mentions (or most mentions) of the UK as such. (And for the record, I get my British history from history books, most of which do indeed prefer "Britain", but the term "United Kingdom" doesn't "jar my sensibility" - quite the opposite.) I think we can probably come to a reasonable agreement here. Aridd (talk) 10:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually if you are talking about history, various treaties will usually refer to the United Kingdom or alternatively to His/Her Majesty. Britain is not an officially endorsed abbreviation for the name of the state its colloquial. Justintalk23:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
History books and encylopaedias are not written in the language of treaties. And besides, the abbrevation "U.K." is no less colloquial than "Britain", is it now? You won't find any treaties referring to "the U.K." will you? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The "United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland" is the only official name, "United Kingdom" by itself was never official. The question is whether the best short version is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland" or "United Kingdom of Great Britain and (Northern) Ireland" and all reliable sources, reference books, publishers and scholars have shown a strong preference for the GB/Britain version. The editors who were looking at the reliable sources changed them inadevertently when writing this article, so that damage should be repaired.Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I've changed my mind - reading the article back to me it does now jar whenever I see "the United Kingdom", especially in the possessive form or when they appear repeated in consecutive sentences. I now vote we change them all to Britain. Per the Guardian style guide, they are synonymous, and perhaps more importantly we would be consistent with what historians of the B.E. use. Unless anyone has any reasons other than original research, I don't see why we shouldn't go ahead and do this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually UK isn't colloquial since it is an internationally recognised abbreviation for the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and one that is officially endorsed by HMG [6]. Whereas Britain is colloquial and as noted by the HMG website doesn't include Northern Ireland. So no I wouldn't change to Britain, its poor English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justin A Kuntz (talk • contribs)
That page is internally inconsistent.
If you look further down, you will see the words "Britain's 14 Overseas Territories" - so they belong to England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland?
And there is an advertisement to "Visit Britain". Is the purpose of that campaign to encourage visitors to England, Wales and Scotland, but not Northern Ireland?
Yeah I know even HMG's website is pretty inconsistent. So let me get this straight. Its colloquial and inconsistent, so you're proposing that we follow suit? Justintalk23:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm saying that the link you posted is plain wrong, "Britain" is no more colloquial than "UK", and the authors of the sources this article is based on use "Britain" and therefore we should too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
There we have it, actually Britain is definitely unclear whilst UK is a recognised abbrevation. Hence, my preference for UK. Its still the same state. I just don't like ambiguous language. Justintalk23:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The existence of an error on one website doesn't mean that it is "definitely unclear", it just means that the people who wrote that site got it wrong. Perhaps I should request some assistance from the folks at Terminology of the British Isles ("Britain is widely used as a political synonym for the United Kingdom") The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The confusion of terms is pretty much endemic, the language is pretty sloppy really. My personal preference is for a consistent unambiguous reference to the state involved. I don't have a problem with asking for outside help though, however, I rather suspect ask 1/2 dozen people and you might get that many responses. Justintalk00:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
My reference to "outside help" was just to convince anyone who thinks that "Britain" excludes Northern Ireland (or all of Ireland in ye olde days). As originally pointed out, ALL the sources refer to "Britain". This article should be consistent with the sources, and if it's good enough for the Number 10 and FCO websites to use the term, and good enough for Encarta [7] and Britannica [8], it's good enough for us. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Sloppy and inconsistent it is then. I'd endorse Snowded's comments below, its a common confusion but don't fool yourself that its either accurate or consistent. Justintalk08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Red Hat, UK does not equal UK although it is commonly used an equivalent. That said (to repeat an earlier comment) using "Britain" excludes the Irish from responsibility for Empire so we can probably count the change as one to the good. Thinking about it I would be really pleased if you went for the other common confusion and called everything the English Empire. Please, change it to Britain, its a common confusion, it fits the title but please don't fool yourself that it is accurate. --SnowdedTALK07:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually reverting is quite correct when someone seeks to circumvent consensus in an article. As to my comment, the Falklands War was definitely post-WWII and as noted above the term UK is in common use. Justintalk08:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Snowded to say to exclude` the Irish from responsibility for Empire is a good thing`; i find a confusing statement (unless you mean from your experience on the troubles pages), considering the Irish formed the backbone of the British army for most of the empire period. To be honest i don’t really mind whether the statement states U.K or Britain, as obviously the U.K would be the correct term in today’s world, but the rest of the world regards them as the same (which is obviously wrong). Which is made more confusing at events like the Olympics where the Great Britain team includes (Northern Irish) --Rockybiggs (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Using Britain or British seems quite appropriate for an article on the British Empire. However, I agree with Justin that, post WWII, UK is in common use. Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Rockybiggs - the Olympics was a disgrace (and got some bad publicity) but its par for the course, the dominant group always assumes that minorities will be happy to be assimilated. The English used Welsh troops against the Welsh in the 13th C. They used all three celtic nations in all their subsequent wars, along with Indian and Africa recruits. Rather in the manner of the Roman Empire. However in general they had English Officers (that includes the Welsh Regiments in the last century by the way), which is an imperial use. My semi-serious point is that I don't think any self respecting nation would really want to have the horrors of an Imperium in their history so if I was Irish I would happy to be excluded in this case. --SnowdedTALK12:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Of course, but needless to say they joined the army voluntarily just the same as the ones who went to America had the choice. As for the Scots and Welsh they were far more involved in Empire building (not just the army) and prospered directly. Anyway getting off the point, i don’t really mind either term, but would go with Justin comments to call the U.K after WW2, and defiantly should be called the U.K for the Falklands.--Rockybiggs (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed in part although the question of "choice" is an interesting one. Howevermy vote would go for UK, but its not something I can be bothered to argue about! --SnowdedTALK12:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This article covers a period of 500 years. For the majority of that time the country at the centre of the subject entity was not called "UK". Since the article actually charts the history of the evolution of the (current) UK I see no reason why the naming should not change at appropriate chronological points. That said, inconsistency does not make for easy reading so a more generally adaptable (read: "colloquial") term should be used. Since "UK" is more formal and narrowly focused I don't think it is as flexible as "Britain"; indeed it has a whiff of PC-ness about it. Also, the article is not entitled the UK-ish Empire. :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Edit war
I see a minor edit war broke out overnight (my time) on the UK issue. The article remains inconsistent in where it uses UK and Britain. For example the declaration of war in the 30s is the UK, then the subsequent history is a mix of UK and Britain. I'd suggest a compromise. Britain is the most commonly used term of the empire itself, but really from WWII we are talking about the exit and post-imperial stage. For this we should use UK. Both options (UK and Britain) can be supported by citation so its a matter of determining which is the post informative. Using WWII as a dividing line seems to me to make sense. --SnowdedTALK21:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This would be about right from a historical perspective I think. Although, perhaps 1947 might be a better date since during WW2 itself the term British was predominant. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
This situation reminds me of a similar argument I got into last year with someone who was insistent (in the face of a multitude of reliable sources, including the Act of Parliament that defined its status) that Gibraltar is a "UK" overseas territory rather than a "British" overseas territory. [9] It's amazing what some people can convince themselves. But back to this issue: I got reverted with the comment "definitely UK in 1982". Well, why does Maggie Thatch say "Britain" over a dozen time in this speech about the Falklands War in 1982 and the UK not once? Where, I ask, where is the source that confirms that this arbitrary dividing line of WW2 is a commonly acccepted standard, or a source that follows this style? Why do we have to follow this standard when other encylos do not? [10] Historians writing about the British Empire use the term Britain, those are the sources used in this article, this article should follow academic consensus, not some bizarre invention by editors here! Grr! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You're starting to get ownership problems on this article Red Hat. I think you have sources for the common use of "Britain" in respect of the British Empire and I can see that argument for the period of Empire. We also see both Britain and UK in use, especially in this century and the legal entity is the UK which is more accurate. Its not a bizarre invention, its the legal name of the political entity involved. Calm down a bit and engage with the argument and take your figure off the revert button. Post the 1940's you could even make a case for the Empire having come to an end and those sections being removed from the article, we are then just dealing with the residual aspects of having held an Empire. That's a part of the logic for using UK after that point. --SnowdedTALK22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
"you could even make a case for the Empire having come to an end" is (A) total and utter original research on your part and, frankly, (B) total and utter nonsense. I've said this before but in discussions like this, you are entitled to your own opinion, but it is sources that count. As for legal names, the legal name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Anything else, when referring to the country, is an abbreviation. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
When you are ready to have a conversation about this rather than using the intemperate language above let me know. --SnowdedTALK23:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well your definition of OR tends to be anything you don't agree with. You use it as a weapon of war. One of the functions of a talk page is to talk, not hector&lecture. Both UK and Britain are valid terms and can be cited. The question is what to use where in this article. Come down from the high horse and talk about it. --SnowdedTALK23:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Pas du tout. Not once have I levelled the accusation of WP:NOR at someone providing a source contrary to my viewpoint (that they have not reinterpreted themselves, which would then be synthesis. How could I possibly? I would clearly not understand WP:NOR if I did that, and I do understand it. All too well. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:19, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
You really are missing the point you know and you do interpret anything which is not a direct quote as OR or synthesis which is not WIkipedia policy. The issue here is to discuss what is the best thing to do. There was contention on the switch from UK to Britain (and remember you were happy with UK for a fair period of time), but if you check most agreed that this was OK given the various citations. However there is disagreement as you come into the 20th C. UK and Britain and both used in that period and while there is no ambiguity over UK as an abbreviation, there is some over Britain. My suggested compromise (and WIkipedia does involve those) was to accept Britain for the period of Empire, but then use UK in the second half of the 20th C. given that the UK dismantled its empire in a short period of time starting in 1947 this seems appropriate. --SnowdedTALK23:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with that compromise because it is based on an unfounded assumption: that "Britain" is somehow less valid than "UK", even today, either because of supposed inaccuracy (wrong) or anticipated confusion (the Terminology of the British Isles clears that up, if anyone needs it clearing up). If Niall Ferguson can write "Britain" in his populist book about the B.E., and Encarta can in its noddy encylopaedia, then so can we. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well I have a serious paper to finish and three to review so I'm going to get on with those tasks. Lets see what other people think about this particular storm in a teacup. --SnowdedTALK23:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Snowded has a good compromise: "accept Britain for the period of Empire, but then use UK in the second half of the 20th C."Rjensen (talk) 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I vote for a mix of Britain and UK (in its abbreviated form) in the second half of the 20th C, as best fits the containing prose. Whilst my preferred route is to follow the consensus of historians, if we really must have an arbitrary cutoff point, let's be reasonable about it and at least accept that "Britain" and "UK" are both acceptable terms after the cutoff. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"The term ‘Britain’ is sometimes used as a short way of expressing the full title of the country: the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (or, more simply again, the United Kingdom or the UK). ‘Great Britain’ comprises England, Wales and Scotland only. The adjectives ‘British’ and ‘UK’ are used interchangeably in this publication and cover the whole of the United Kingdom. As far as possible, the book applies to the UK as a whole, as the title suggests." (p.vii)
You can't get much more official than the Official Handbook! :-) In the mid-1990s, a similar note was the only item on the inside front cover, indicating that the editors understood its significance. The policy has changed since, and the book now refers strictly to 'the United Kingdom', but that doesn't delete the earlier usage. So there's an argument that the solution should be "accept Britain for the period of Empire, but then use UK from 2002 onwards". However, the essence of a compromise is that everyone makes concessions, and I support the consensus immediately above. Matt's talk04:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. If this "policy" has changed (probably some hopeless Nulab PC meme) recently it does not affect an article covering a period ending in 1997. I think the proposed compromise works. NB. Redhat - Wikipedia should certainly cite from published and reputable sources, but it does not need to be written in the same way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Possibly hopeless Nulab PC meme or someone who doesn't like sloppy language. Personally I'd prefer UK as a shortened form of the state name and be consistent throughout the artuicle but I'd go for the compromise of only using it in the late 20th Century. Justintalk11:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
No, as I pointed out on your talk page, 'Britain' is used informally, usually meaning the United Kingdom. i.e. colloquial and hardly the hallmark of a professional encyclopedia. Justintalk11:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you are missing the point a bit here. The article is called British Empire and the citations back up that use. UK is also legitimate and we have a sensible compromise which is supported by citation. --SnowdedTALK11:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Solomon Islands
Hello,
there is no mention of Solomon Islands in this article.
"British colonies share or shared certain characteristics" lack of references
The lack of sources in the "British colonies share or shared certain characteristics" (in which I had a part, I have to admit) troubles me. I think each claim needs a source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
That page is not a policy. It doesn't even pretend to be a policy. WP:V is a policy. You will find no such claims there. Articles need references. Period. ("The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.") The claims made in that section are not trivial ones. Take the Anglican Communion statement, for example. Neither Mexico nor Korea were British colonies yet we have the Anglican Church of Mexico and the Anglican Church of Korea. So where does the British Empire come into this? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Lots of such pages are not policies but they represent the opinion of other editors. If you are looking a cultural influences you can cite the existence of the Anglican Church, Cricket, aspects of the education system and so on. You have a very rigid approach to citation which does not match practice elsewhere in the Wikipedia and please try to resist the temptation to tell patronise by telling people they "don't get it" when they have the temerity to disagree with you. The fact that the Anglican Church sent out missionaries is hardly unlinked to the existence of empire --SnowdedTALK20:13, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not meaning to patronise you. I'm sorry, but I really mean what I say. You don't seem to understand the policy at WP - seemingly every debate we have, you demonstrate this lack of understanding to me, first with your theories on the Normans, then with your suggestion that "Britain" is inaccurate and that you are a better source than TheGuardian. You say "If you are looking a cultural influences you can cite the existence of the Anglican Church, Cricket, aspects of the education system and so on". So you are suggesting that the existence of the Anglican Church in certain countries is evidence for the cultural influence of the empire? Who reached that conclusion? If I'm not mistaken, you just did. So it's original research! What is the evidence for it? The fact that you say it is so. I'm sorry but that is not good enough! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is tiresome. We reached a compromise on the Normans but it was a good illustration of your pedantic refusal to accept anything which has multiple citations, I never suggested I was a better source than the Guardian (please try not to jump to unsupported conclusions its bad practice) but I did suggest that the Guardian was not a definitive authority. You used the non empire examples of the Anglican Church to make some obscure point, I made a comment (not an edit) that those exceptions did not support your point. You really need to realise that the talk page is for discussion and resolution of issues; Also that if you are right on this issue then we may as well stream in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica rather than creating something with multiple sources and editors which is more dynamic. I have no objection if you want to put in meaningful citations on this one, my comment was to say that I didn't think it necessary. Net result yet another of your little homilies. I admit that I am going to err on the side of common sense editing without citations every sentence, you incline the other way. That is not a bad balance, unless one party is determined to assert that it has the authority to determine who does or does not understand the rules. --SnowdedTALK01:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Apologies if I come across as rude, my comments are the result of several years of battle-weariness here at WP. I do indeed take WP:V very seriously. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by providing references, both in the articles themselves, and in discussions on talk pages. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that and I have my own battle scars of consensus being used to out weigh evidence. My original comments were simply to say I thought the para was OK without additional citations, but I have no objection to them being put in place if you have the time and can do it without making the para unreadable with multiple references. Talk pages should be more relaxed I think (rather like when editors of a refereed journal have conference calls to reference a part of my life). Whatever please realise that I have a lot of respect for you as an editor, and for you work you have done on this article to make it factual and achieve a neutral position. --SnowdedTALK02:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
The separate articles covering the topics in question are quite clear about their history. They also cover variations which it would not be possible to explain within a subsection of this article. For example, while it is true that many former British colonies drive on the left (or did in the past) this is not universal. Explaining and verifying the actual pattern would take up a lot of space. I do not think we should not try to explain such variations here so I would suggest the section stays as it is. Readers interested in the topics can find sources - where appropriate - in the linked articles. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting it be rewritten, Wiki-Ed, or go into any more depth than it already does. I am simply sugggesting that each claim has a source to show that it's not original research. If we nominated this article to be listed as a "good article" (let alone a "featured article", that is the first thing that would be pointed out that has to be fixed. It is not good enough to link to articles that are referenced - claims need to be sourced inline. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
My point is that this would be impossible. In-line citations can be used to support facts; they cannot be used to support a general description of a pattern, especially when the wording of the statement takes account of inconsistencies. User:Snowded's example of the "sky is blue" is a good one. The sky is not always blue - sometimes it's grey or white or black or orange depending on the amount of cloud cover, dust in the atmosphere, the position/presence of the sun etc. There are lots of factors that might be covered by a separate article, but no-one would seek an in-line citation for the original statement. References should not be used unless the statement is contentious, as per WP:V. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
This is a guideline page, not a policy page, but nevertheless it is sensible and what is linked to from the featured article criteria: Wikipedia:When to cite. It says, "Not every statement in an article needs a citation, but if in doubt, provide one.". These claims really do need references (and, per WP:V all I need to do is challenge them to make that unavoidably so). Anyway, I trust you will not remove references if I am able to find them? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
No of course I won't remove any references if you can find them. I am more concerned about you removing sections when you can't find them. :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Come on, let's not trivialise this. This isn't a matter of simply opening one's curtains. I politely request that you help find references, instead of goading me into placing fact tags! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Lets leave it, we have an agreement on the immediate, we have made our points, when goading starts to be mentioned its time to stop --SnowdedTALK21:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Partition in India and Palestine
I'm not convinced it was a good idea to combine the partition of India and Palestine, whilst it might be superficially similar there are significant differences between the two. For a start Palestine was not a colony, it was never part of the Empire; it was a League of Nations mandate. Neither was it a granting of independence and partition wasn't a British idea in Palestine. Justintalk21:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Both Ferguson and Lloyd (see references) deal with the two not only in the same chapter but one following the other, literally, from one paragraph to the next. Not only were the British facing similar issues of ethnic division, they were happening roughly around the same time, and in both cases the British left hastily, effectively leaving the problems for someone else to deal with. The point of the merging of the sections was to make the decolonization piece more free-flowing and connected instead of the disjointed list that it currently is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
It certainly legitimate to treat them in the same section but there are also substantial differences between the two. The League of Nations mandate, the very different histories. Justin is also right to say that to a large extent it was not a British decision. Its worth discussing and "free flowing" is not dependent on combination. --SnowdedTALK21:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, they might belong in the same section but the substantial differences between the two mean that I don't believe it is correct to consider them the way you have. Justintalk21:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Lloyd: "India and Pakistan settled down slightly more happily than the successor states after the ending of the Palestine mandate, though the two problems had looked rather similar. In 1947 the British government adopted what looked like the same policy as in India...but Palestine was much more of an international dispute than India had been...As in India, attempts at impartiality led both sides to say that the British were favouring their opponents." Ferguson: "(discusses India, next paragraph) In Palestine too the British cut and ran" The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:52, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Justin, please be reasonable here. Where did I, or my edits, ever say that these two situations were 100% exactly the same? Of course that is not true. They did, however, happen at roughly the same time, and even Attlee noted the similarities. But don't believe me, for I have a further reference, this time from the Oxford History of the BE, 20th Century Volume, page 336, where Palestine and India are again compared and contrasted in the same paragraphs: "In Palestine as well as in India the goal initially was to avoid partition. The quest for reconciliation can be seen in the work of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in Palestine 1945-6 and in the proceedings of the Cabinet Mission to India in 1946. When the British evacuated Palestine in the spring of 1948, the withdrawal was remarkably similar to the "Breakdown Plan" drawn up by Wavell two years earlier in India...The remarkable feature of these massive disengagements from India and Palestine, and it should be added, Greece, is that British forces emerged virtually unscathed...According to the minutes of the Cabinet, Attlee stated that there was a 'close parallel' between the situation in Palestine and India"...As in India, the pace quickened. In contrast to the partition of India, there was no division of assets, no question of splitting an army, and no continuity of the civil service."The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
OK so there are enough similarities to justify mention of the commonalities, and enough differences to justify two sections. --SnowdedTALK02:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I renamed the section and have attempted to follow the temporal division that the "dissolution of empire" chapter author in the OxHistOfTheBE suggests - (1) the pro-decolo Labour Gov 1945-1951 (2) the return of the pro-Empire Tories, Churchill and Eden, 1951-57 (3) Macmillan onwards. This makes sense as the changes of government did mark changes in policy towards the empire. Doubtless objections from the usual suspect(s) will ensue but I stand ready to discuss and defend these WP:BOLD changes. Again, my primary reason for these rejigs was because this section did not fit well with the rest of the article - it was far too "listy". And finally, please remember, whilst it takes a second to hit the "revert" button, it takes hours attempting to improve the prose whilst summarising decades of history in a manner that is verifiable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Did anyone even threaten to hit the revert button? No they tried to talk about it and achieve a consensus, you wouldn't have half the problems you do if you didn't set out to be so antagonistic. Justintalk20:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Well if you title the sections as per your description above then (i) it would make sense and (ii) you would be following the cited material (sorry could not resist that). Sub-sections as appropriate would then make sense. --SnowdedTALK02:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, in Lloyd's book, Palestine appears in a section entitled "Indian Independence". So if I follow your instructions.... (sorry, couldn't resist that one either...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A pleasure doing business with you! Seriously though, the headings you reference above are much better than the current ones. --SnowdedTALK10:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Is this your own view, or do you have a source that reaches the same explicit conclusion ("Palestine was not part of the British Empire")? The British Empire was composed of a set of territories with a variety of legal statuses - Crown colonies, Dominions, Protectorates and Mandates. Historians (and politicians of the time) treat all as part of the Empire (as you can see in my quotes above), and therefore so should this article. The article clearly states that Palestine was a "mandate", so there is no ambiguity there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
[12]By 1947 Palestine was a major trouble spot in the British Empire
[13]With the Versailles Treaty and the allocation of mandates by the League of Nations, the British Empire reached its apogee'
There was even a Palestine Pavilion at the 1924 British Empire Exhibition in Wembley [14]
No its not my own view, British Mandate of PalestineThe purported objective of the League of Nations Mandate system was to administer parts of the recently defunct Ottoman Empire, which had been in control of the Middle East since the 16th century, "until such time as they are able to stand alone." It wasn't considered British territory but hey, I'm done, own the article if that makes you happy. Justintalk11:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think this is a truth vs verifiability issue. Most sources will say it was part of empire, while it really wasn't. Sadly we have to favour verifiability over truth. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Things are normally verifiable because they are true (paceKarl Popper), not because they aren't. I'm sure the historians of the British Empire aren't all making it up! I think the problem here is that you and Justin are starting from the (false) premise that the "British Empire" only included British sovereign territory, which Palestine was of course not, and then reaching the (false) conclusion that the British Empire did not contain Palestine. Are you aware that a large chunk of India (the Princely States) were protectorates? Their inhabitants were not even British subjects (see Historical Dictionary of the British Empire By James Stuart Olson, Robert Shadle). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The lead needs to be longer - four solid paragraphs would be about right for an article of this length. Also, leads are supposed to be a summary of the entire article (with no new information), and so do not need references except for direct quotes or really controversial facts.
The See also section is really long. I'm sure many of these are linked within the article itself, so please try to shorten this to only the most important links.
Please make your World War I and II section headers consistent. I.e., either have them as First World War and Second World War or World War I and World War II.
The biggest problem with the article right at the moment is the lack of referencing. I noticed recent discussions on the talk page about not having the cite "the sky is blue" type facts. However, there is a difference between what you think is a "blue sky" fact and what other people think it is. For example, check out the Horse article to see the level of referencing there. A lot of the information in this article is a "blue sky" fact to anyone seriously involved with horses, but we still have to reference it because people outside of the equine field have no idea whether or not these things are true.
There are fact tags that have been in place since March of 2007. These must be taken care of before this article is promoted to GA status.
There are some sections that are completely unreferenced. For example, Abolition of slavery, the Cape Colony, the Suez Canal, Home rule in white-settler colonies, etc, etc, etc. In general, the rule of thumb is to have at least one reference per paragraph. If the same reference covers the same paragraph, then that's great, just put it at the end of the paragraph and everything is good. However, having successive unreferenced paragraphs and even sections is not good enough for GA.
Current ref #2 (Gordon) deadlinks
Current ref #6 (MacMillan) deadlinks
Web references all must have publishers and access dates. Only the title should be linked.
Because you link to some books multiple times, I would suggest using a split reference format for your book references. This makes the notes section easier to read, since you are not repeating non-essential information (publisher, isbn, etc) over and over again. Also, all book refs need ISBNs where they are available.
Either always use cite templates or never use them. It is a personal preference whether to use them or not, but you have to be consistent.
There seems to be some rather heated discussion going on recently on the talk page about various topics. It doesn't seem to have escalated to the point of edit warring on the article itself, so please keep it that way. Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
There are some serious issues with the referencing compliance of this article that need to be overcome before this article can be promoted to GA status. I haven't done a full review of the prose, because I would like to see that there are editors interested in working on the concerns outlined above before I do so. If you have any questions, please drop me a note here on the review page or on my talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Dana boomer. Thank you very much for your initial comments and for taking this on. I will definitely be interested in working on the concerns outlined above, and I hope others will too. I will try to address your suggestions over the next few days. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look at redrafting the stuff in (1) if you're going to look at (2). However, I'm not sure the reasoning provided is valid. "The sky is blue" example was picked because everyone on Earth (i.e. our readership) should be aware of this and the statement should not, therefore require validation. Looking at the suggested example, the article on horses does not provide any validation for the number of legs on a horse (the average, of course, is less than four). Perhaps more relevant to this article is the unreferenced assertion that the English-speaking world measures the height of a horse in hands. Do these claims need references? I don't think so, but since I've just challenged them I've created a whole lot of work for someone. Is that what Wikipedia is about? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the assertion that horses are measured in hands is referenced (it's ref #19, which is a little farther down the paragraph), which actually makes my point perfectly. The fact that horses are measured in hands is never questioned in the equine community. It just is. If you told in the equine community someone how tall a horse was in inches, they would look at you like you were absolutely insane. However, many people outside the equine community don't know this, and so they question it. Likewise the fact that "Joint Anglo-French financial control over Egypt ended in outright British occupation in 1882." might be well know to people who study that region/time period, but it's not well known to me and so I have no idea whether this is actually true or if this is just an editor blowing smoke. Make sense? Especially if you plan to take this article further to FA, they are going to require that everything be cited. I'm just asking for most. Dana boomer (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Are you sure that source relates to that specific claim? Obviously I don't have the book in question, but I would be surprised if a source on horses covered the precise pattern of measuring systems applied across the English-speaking world - for starters, what does it mean by "the English-speaking world"? The main article on Hand (length) suggests a much more limited number of locations. The point here is that validating every statement is futile, particularly for historical articles. If that is what "Good" or "Featured articles" require then I'd rather his article was neither, because it will no longer be of any use to anyone studying history. Moreover, this practice discourages synthesising sources and promotes original research, hammering single "validated" sentences together to form a mismatched paragraph that does not reflect any school of thought. In-line citations should be reserved for demonstrably (i.e. academically) controversial statements, as per WP:V. The Wiki links and references at the end should be enough for anything else. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
If you are firmly enough against in-line citations that you would rather withdraw this article from GA consideration, then please let me know and I will do so. Any reviewer you get is going to tell you that you need to have far more citations now than you do currently. Please just let me know what your thoughts are. As for the source in the article, although I don't have the specific book in question, I suspect that, as with most books on the subject, it simply says something along the lines of "horses are measured in hands". Period. Which is even less specific then what we currently have in the article. Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I have started tackling the more mundane suggestions above (would be nice to get some help on that...), and several the introduction has been lengthened thanks to the contributions of several editors. Though it's not complete, I would be very grateful if we could start to take a look at some of the prose. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I am keeping an eye on the article with regards to this GA review. However, I'm not going to begin on a review of the prose yet. The main reason is that as you are going through the article referencing, you are making significant changes to the article, including removing and adding information, rewording sections, removing or renaming section headers, etc. I am not complaining about this - it is no doubt good for the article. However, any prose review that I do now is going to be made moot as you go through and change everything...
To be honest, I would like to know your thoughts on closing the nomination for now, with the agreement that I will review the article ASAP when you renominate it. This article still has a long way to go before it reaches GA status, and I know from my own personal work on top-level articles such as this one that the process of moving an article from severely under-referenced to GA class can be long and tiring, even with multiple dedicated editors. If you are willing, I would like to close this nomination, and then have you take a few weeks or even a couple of months to work the article over completely - making sure that the headers are as you want them, that the correct information (not too much, not too little) is included in the article, that everything is referenced, that prose looks good, etc. This is not a process that should be rushed through by editors on a deadline...
As I said, if the review is closed now, I will agree to re-review as soon as I can when it is put up for re-review. Let me know your thoughts. Dana boomer (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
OK - that's fair enough. I presume, as I nominated it and noone else seems to be quite as eager about it as me that others will not mind me agreeing with you to close it for now. Thanks for all your help and advice on this. Hopefully we'll be able to renominate in a few weeks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Allright, I'll go ahead and close the review. Drop me a note when you renominate it, and I'll review it as soon as I get time. Dana boomer (talk) 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
To Infobox or not to infobox?
I added a sparse "country infobox" to the article, in order to have a Union flag and the map neatly at the top right of the article. I know these infoboxes attract overeager editors like flies round the brown stuff who like to fill in data that doesn't really make sense for something like the British Empire. Sure enough, within hours we had a national anthem, a set of (incorrect) dates and currency.
What do the other regulars here prefer?
1. Back to how it was before with no infobox and the maps. [16]
3. An extended "former country" infobox with the whole shebang - dates, anthems, leader, currency etc. [18]
I go for number 2. I think it looks neater and in an article on the B.E. the Union flag really should appear somewhere given how many places it flew around the world. 1. just looks messy with both maps there and 3. is silly attempting to compartmentalise a thing that lasted 400 years. If others agree with (2) then we could place a comment inside the info box asking not to expand it with more information.
Your option #2 looks really good and improves the look of the article. But, it will be amended on a regular basis by editors who don't understand its purpose here. If you're sure you have the patience and stamina to revert the inevitable 'improvements', then go for it. Maybe a trial period? Yours, Daicaregos (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Option 1 please. Revert to how it was or with only one map. Option 3 with a large info box has been tried several times before and removed for generality or inaccuracy every time. Option 2 shows a flag and a map; the flag is wrong for more than 60% of the period this article covers (1497 to 1997) and was not an "imperial" flag. Also I don't see why the primary source map has been moved again - a single IP editor is not a consensus. Having two maps did look messy, but if you're going to use the diagram please can you use crimson or rose rather than blood red. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't want this to turn into a silly argument about triviality that so often plagues Wikipedia (too much time gets spent on petty debates that don't really improve articles) but the Union flag is clearly "associated" with the British Empire - you just have to Google-books-search for the phrase "union jack flew" or Google image search "British Empire":
The Union flag appears on the flag of every single colony and still appears on the flags of many former colonies. Its latest incarnation was the version during the two centuries of the empire's greatest extent, both in terms of land area and population (in 1801, the B.E. was still getting started). If any one image symbolises the British Empire, it is the Union flag. Surely it has a place on this article? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Benny Hill? I think the examples you've linked only prove that a union flag does have some association with the Empire. I don't think I was disputing that. That the illustrators for books and DVD covers use the current Union Flag should come as now surprise, but it does not mean they are accurate. The first version only came into being after 200 years, and the current version after 300 years - Cabot did not plant a Union Flag in Newfoundland; the American colonists did not fight against redcoats marching under the flag as we know it today; nor did Clive conquer India under that flag (as shown in a picture in the article itself). By using the modern Union Flag we would be generalising as much as the editors who put "God Save the King" in the anthem box, or the editors who use the English coat of arms. Both of these could be "proven" in exactly the same way and they would be incorrect for exactly the same reasons. I think keeping this flag image would be hypocritical. The other empires do not have an info-box (so I do not see why this one should) and where flags are shown they are put in context. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
The Union Flag has evolved over time to its current form. It is however most recognised as a symbol of the former British Empire. Red Hat makes a good case for its inclusion and I'm sorry but the argument against it is largely one of semantics. A wikilink to the Union Flag article would more than satisfy such concerns. Justintalk11:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Weirdly it is the flag of Great Britain that I always think of when I think of Empire, but then that ignores the massive expansionis of the Victorian era. If it is about what flag goes into the info box, can someone make a montage of the English, Great British and UK flags? Maybe even toss in the HEIC flag in there? All bases covered there. --Narson ~ Talk • 11:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
wiki-ed, Unfortunately the page is called the British Empire, not the First British Empire or the Second etc (like the French Empire pages). Therefore we are talking about a generalized period of well over 300 hundred years. Therefore i feel the flag of today generally fits this page as this flag covers the greatest period of the empire, and lets face it, it`s only slightly different from its predecessor of the previous hundred years--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
500 years. Anyway, apparently Wikipedia is not about generalisation so let's say I slap a "citation needed" tag on the flag. The Google book search wouldn't help (some of them openly contradict what is being claimed) and neither would Benny Hill. Further up this page we have lots of talk about references in respect of generalised comments and yet here we think it's okay even when the assertion is known to be factually inaccurate. If someone has the skill to make an animated flag which morphs from the English flag to the first Union Flag to the current Union Flag then it would be fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I can do that no sweat with an animated .gif file, I could even time it so that the period of the flag is scaled accordingly. Is that what is wanted? Justintalk13:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
If wikipedia is not about Generalisation, lets split the article then, English Empire, First British Empire etc. or go with the changing flag --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Busy week, so I probably wouldn't get a chance to put it together till Friday, let me know which flags and what period you feel are appropriate. I can knock a prototype together from the Union Flag article. Justintalk15:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
(Benny Hill was a little Easter Egg, glad you found it.) Please, please, please, no animated map. Animations look totally unprofessional and just distract the reader's eye like an annoying banner advert does when you are trying to read a news article. If Wikipedia beaurocracy prevents us from plonking the Union flag there, I would vote for no flag at all instead of an animated one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC) ps I wish this level of interest was displayed when the more mundane issues arose here during the GA nomination process. The talk page went curiously silent when someone pointed out that there was real work to be done on this article. Change a flag or a map and everyone descends like a flock of pigeons on a load of bread crusts thrown by an old lady.
I see someone (not me) has now done to the French Colonial Empire what I did here. Personally, I think it looks pretty good, with the flag and the map. It would be nice if a "European Overseas Empire" infobox could be created and used on all the articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The flag is wrong there too! The Tricolour is only ~200 years old and the article covers a much longer period. I agree that a fast-moving animation could look a bit cheap, but if it is done carefully it should be no more distracting than the nice slow-moving animated maps, eg. on the French Colonial Empire page. :p I think we should at least see what Justin comes up with (as long as it's not too much work!). Symbols are quite powerful things in the human pysche so it is perhaps not so surprising that more people get more upset by their usage than by the lack of referencing in the section on the Cape Colony. Talking of which... Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
New Map?
thumb|left|300px|New map?
The "old" map is often the target of people that don't like it. Once again it got removed and replaced, so I moved it down to the Imperial Century section, to which it best relates.
However, the "new" map is missing the Caribbean. So I started on a new anachronous map, simpler than the original one. It's not yet complete, but before I spend too much time on it, I was wondering if others like it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt15:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Simple is not necessarily good. I thought the anachronous-by-date one was pretty good. Having labels for dominions that only became "dominions" (and so on) in the last century is generalising a bit. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
This is getting catching, I rather like the new map, it does delineate the differences in status between different elements rather well. But I still have reservations about including mandates. Justintalk11:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Why is libya on the map as a British mandate? I understand it was ruled by the British after it was taken in the second world war, but, why not include sections of germany and Italy if that is the case? It seems ill fitting. --Narson ~ Talk • 13:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Think you may have a point Narson. A further point as well is North America Lands, the U.S.A regions are bit genereous to. --Rockybiggs (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Libya: I copied directly from a map the Oxford History of the British Empire, which includes Libya. (See this link, and go forward one page to 348 [34]) The British occupation zones of Germany and Italy were not colonies of Britain (you won't find a single book on the B.E. that says otherwise). Libya was a colony of Italy that feel under British administration.
America: was again based on a map in a R.S. - this one from Smith's British Imperialism. It was meant to be everything east of the Mississippi - difficult to pinpoint on that Wikipedia map so I may have it a bit wrong. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
[undent]Vancouver Island is shown as a colony, which indeed it was, but it should be shown as part of the Dominion of Canada. Also, the former British claim on the Columbia District/Oregon Country should be shown, since the Thirteen Colonies are; though not formally a colony that's t he only way to designate British claims in the terms of reference of the map (for those who don't know, the area in question is what's between California/42nd Parallel and BC, west of the Continental Divide; Protectorates such as Hawaii should also be shown. The sliver of land leased from the Russians in the Pahnhandle is too slender to show....maybe (1839-1867 most of t he Panhandle was effectively British, at lest by rule if not in ownership terms).Skookum1 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Timeline
Wiki-Ed, you are wrong (as was I actually, four, not three months later), but yours is the more serious error.
You reverted me and wrote "The Japs invaded British possessions *before* Pearl; which was *four* months after the Charter; the US entry was not abrupt and certainly should not be simplified like this."
I also do not see why you disagree with the word "abrupt". A surprise attack preceeding a declaration of war was not an abrupt way to bring a country to war? There are plenty of instances of the use of this word in this context [35]
I think it was on the same day in fact - but on the other side of the international date line. I may be wrong about this, but that is my recollection from memory. PS- "Walked" is slightly unfortunate hyperbole for a battle resulting in 5000 casualties. Did the US army "walk" on to Omaha beach? (= ~3000 casualties). Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
In fact, having sniffed around the web a little, the Japanese invasion of British Malaya did begin slightly before the first wave of aircraft reached Pearl Harbour, as suspected. Badgerpatrol (talk) 12:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The Japanese attack on British imperial possessions in South East Asia occurred before Pearl Harbour was attacked - the date is misleading. "Abrupt" is also misleading because the US had been fighting, de facto, the Germans in the Atlantic, even if war had not been declared de jure. Her stance of armed neutrality pre-dated this and the inter-war developments in the Pacific certainly took her down the path to war a long time before the fighting actually started there. You can't summarise these things easily, and complex details of the US entry into the war are not really relevant to this article, hence me cutting it down to the bare essentials. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The complex details that you describe are not relevant, true (your interpretation of those details also verges a little on original research, I fear) but Pearl Harbor was a pivotal moment in world history and must be mentioned, not least because of Churchill's glee that America was now brought into the war. Ten years later, on the subject of attack on PH, he wrote: "No American will think it wrong of me if I proclaim that to have the United States at our side was to me the greatest joy. I could not fortell the course of events. I do not pretend to have measured accurately the martial might of Japan, but now at this very moment I knew the United states was in the war, up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all! ... We had won the war. England would live; Britain would live; the Commonwealth of Nations and the Empire would live." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
It's not original research at all. The articles I linked to (and the articles they link to) cover these topics. I'm sure you could find plenty of independent sources as well. However, the expanded section is accurate, although I wonder (still) if we are not concentrating too much on the political history of other countries at the expense of coverage of other elements; this was a very significant chapter in the Empire's history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Some of the background might sit better in the inter-war period section; talking of which, the Irish Free State is far too detailed - larger than the equivalent section on the independence of India/Pakistan. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Even though the article is divided up chronologically, in order to avoid disjointed and choppy sentences, it sometimes it does not make sense to stick rigidly to the divisions, as I'm sure you understand. Sometimes, geographical "interconnectedness" trumps chronological "interconnectedness", but it is very tricky getting the balance correct. With regard to the situation pertaining to Japan, the events leading to the invasion of the B.E. began with the First Sino Japanese War - that was when Japan began to carve out its Pacific empire, and when Britain began to have to deal with Japan as a potential imperial rival. So, I believe it makes sense to deal with this as a contiguous chunk even if it's slightly out of chronological order. How do you feel about that? I agree on the overly detailed discussion of the IFS though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. However, it's not so much the order as the level of detail. A quarter of this section (118 of 449 words) is really Japanese background history. To be honest I do not like the structure or coverage of this section - a legacy from much earlier versions of this article. With sufficient background in the Inter-war section it should cover, in order: the initial declaration of war ('39); use of imperial troops to defend the empire in the west (up to '41); the Japanese invasions and how the empire did not (and then did) defend itself in the east ('42 to '44); and the effects of the war on the empire as a global power (social, military and economic) including some mention of essential US economic support (1940-45). This would lead straight into the next section. Although some bits are covered already, I will have a go at inserting the missing details. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about British Empire. 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.
b (MoS): 
b (focused): 
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
![[19]](http://www.dapple.plus.com/003105.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NbMgvz6sL._SL500_BO2,204,203,200_AA219_PIsitb-sticker-dp-arrow,TopRight,-24,-23_SH20_OU01_.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://www.aglabs.org/the-commonwealth/img/empire_map.jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://eee.uci.edu/programs/humcore/images/India/British_empire_Color.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.originofnations.org/British_Empire/image002.jpg){kind=link}
![[24]](http://www.literacyla.org/Map%20of%20British%20Empire.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](http://www.littlebrown.co.uk/assets/images/EAN/Large/9780349119205.jpg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/kenanderson/histempsequel/_wp_generated/wp3cb1fd6b.jpg){kind=link}
![[27]](http://www.libraryvideo.com/images/britempirecluster.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0c7gcqw12l2uO/340x.jpg){kind=link}
![[29]](http://www.empiremuseum.co.uk/images/store/bookcovers/the_british_empire.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms2/soldiers-queen-1897.jpg){kind=link}
![[31]](http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms2/defenders-empire.jpg){kind=link}
![[32]](http://i00.twenga.com/v/79/59/47959vb.png){kind=link}
![[33]](http://www.dvdtvshows.com/catalog/Sm_Benny_Hill_Best_Of_ABE14719.jpg){kind=link}
