Talk:British Empire/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

FAR copyedit/questions

As I mentioned in this article's FAR, I am going to conduct a copyedit of the article and post comments, concerns, and questions below as I go along. I am going to make mistakes and some of my edits might not be productive or unintentionally change the meaning of sentences; please check my work to make sure my changes are helpful.

• "The British Empire was composed of the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states." I think "its predecessor states" is ambiguous; is this referring to the colony's predecessor states or the UK's predecessors? I think this needs to be clarified and rewritten.
• "as the sun was always shining" perhaps could be "as there was always daylight shining"
• " Germany and the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead." -> "Germany and the United States were challenging Britain's economic lead."
• " India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence as part of a larger decolonisation movement," I was confused by the decolonisation movement. I think there needs to be a sentence in the lede explaining what this movement is. Does it refer to a wider decolonisation movement throughout the world?
• "and the transfer of Hong Kong to China in 1997 marked for many the end of the British Empire" Who considered it the end of the empire? Historians, British government, international press?
• "The foundations of the British Empire were laid when England and Scotland were separate kingdoms."
• "five years after the European discovery of America," I don't think this is necessary for this article.
• "No further attempts to establish English colonies in the Americas were made until well into the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, during the last decades of the 16th century." I don't think we need this sentence, as later in this section it talks about England's first overseas colony in Ireland.
• "The Protestant Reformation turned England and Catholic Spain into implacable enemies." I don't think we need this.
• "This effort was rebuffed and later," By whom?
• "By this time, Spain had become the dominant power in the Americas and was exploring the Pacific Ocean, Portugal had established trading posts and forts from the coasts of Africa and Brazil to China, and France had begun to settle the Saint Lawrence River area, later to become New France." Why is this information important for the British Empire article?

I will continue later when the above points have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

good ideas. 1. try "administered by London" 2. Keep the sun shining--it's standard rhetoric used in all the reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 17:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

For 1, just clarify the predecessor states: England and Scotland. I wouldn't use "administered from London", because it masks the point that Nova Scotia began (briefly) as a Scottish colony. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Are England and Scotland the only predecessor states to the UK? Or is Britain also a predecessor? Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

ENgland and Scotland were separate up to the Act of Union of 1701. By the treaty of union, the new country was "United into One Kingdom by the Name of GREAT BRITAIN". Ireland was technically a separate country with its own Parliament, but was subject to the English and then British Parliament until the Act of Union of 1800 (came into force January 1, 1801), at which point the name of the country was changed to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

So in the first sentence, does predecessor states only refer to England and Scotland? In that case, should the topic sentence say, "administered by the United Kingdom and its predecessor states of England and Scotland."? Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

First line: I think you're opening a can of worms. It's either "predecessor states" and we skirt around who that applies to or we avoid 'predecessor' and 'states' altogether with: "...administered by the United Kingdom and, previously, by England or Scotland".

Germany/US etc: "had begun" is correct and is reflected in the sources. "Were challenging" suggests they were established competitors at that point in time (debatable).

Decolonisation: This is fairly well known and there's a pipe link. We don't need to explain it in any level of detail in this article's intro. You could change "large" to "global" if that would aid understanding?

End of empire: Yes, you could clarify this is mainly historians. The line between British Government and journalists is currently rather blurred.

Foundations: Not sure what you're proposing here.

"Five years after European discovery": I'd argue this is useful context. This section starts by illustrating there was intent to keep up with other countries at first, but that this didn't translate into action until much later.

"Implacable enemies": Again, useful context for the next two hundreds years.

"Effort rebuffed": Good spot. Not sure where that came from. I don't think it's correct in relation to either privateering or to slave trading. Perhaps remove entirely.

European progress: Again, context on how the continent was being explored, setting the scene for later sections which touch on the conflicts that arose as a result of this effort by Spain/Portugal/France. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

First line: yes I know it's a can of worms, but it needs clarification. Do you want to add your proposed language?

Decolonisation: I see that the decolonisation article states it mostly focuses on the 20th century. I think I'm OK with leaving it as-is.

End of empire: would you like to make that change Wiki-Ed?

Foundations: Sorry, I didn't complete the thought. I don't think this sentence is needed. It feels like an introductory sentence in an essay and not encyclopedic.

European discovery: I am suggesting things to cut because this article is too long, per WP:AS. When I review long articles at FAC I ask myself if there is information that is not necessary for the reader to understand the concepts in the article. A long article also sets a higher bar for what is included in the prose. Also, it's preferable that things are set up in the same section, paragraph, or even sentence as readers will sometimes skip sections, especially in larger articles. I think information about other empires needs to be kept to a minimum. Some context is necessary, but I don't need to know everything that Spain, Portugal, and France are doing to understand the British Empire. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Decolonisation: I prefer process to movement. Predecessor states: we should avoid jargon. It should be clear that it is called the English Empire until the union of England and Scotland, when it is called the British Empire. Hong Kong: different people use different end dates. Another view is that it was renamed the Commonwealth, hence has not real end. Protestant reformation: yes it important that this turned England and Spain into enemies. They were the two world powers until France replaced Spain. TFD (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

After reading the above comments, it seems that there is resistance to delete text. At 64kB of readable prose, WP:ARTICLESIZE suggests that the article probably needs to be divided. There are also editors at this article's FAR who support delisting because the article doesn't give enough coverage to certain aspects of the empire; if this information is to be added, it will make this article even larger. Personally, I am not motivated to review the whole article if lots of suggestions to delete or summarize prose are rejected, as I consider that a major problem in the article. So, I want to ask editors: Where, if anywhere, can the prose be reduced? What can be deleted or summarized more effectively? In sections where text can be summarized, what would the new, reduced text to look like? Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

There's a lot that can be removed. For example, while it is important that some see turning over Hong Kong to China as the end of empire, we don't need to know that Thatcher travelled to China to negotiate the transfer, the legal basis on which Hong Kong was held, the details of the transfer agreement or the fact that the Prince of Wales attended the handover ceremonies. Similarly we don't need details about the constitutional changes in Canada, Australia and NZ in the 1980s. Instead of having its own section it could be mentioned in "Changing status of the white colonies," saying something like, "With the establishment of Dominion status, Canada etc. became effectively self-governing, although some legal ties to Westminster remained until the 1980s. International recognition of the dominions as independent states in the teens and twenties, the Balfour Declaration of 1926, the Act of Westminster of 1931, the establishment of separate citizenships in the 1940s, changes to the title of the monarch after WW2 and patriation in the 1980s are of course important and should be mentioned, but the details place excessive focus on de jure as opposed to de facto changes. TFD (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply The Four Deuces are you interested in reviewing and removing the extra information? Once this is complete I can copyedit those sections and offer feedback. Z1720 (talk) 22:00, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @The Four Deuces:. Other editors can also clean up this section using TFD's analysis above. Z1720 (talk) 16:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Re: Nova Scotia. The Scottish colony of Nova Scotia in the 1600s was not part of the British empire. Nova Scotia became part of the empire following conquest from France in 1710. All the possessions of the empire that had been acquired before the union of England and Scotland were English. All territories acquired after the union were subject to the laws of England at least to some extent rather than Scottish law. TFD (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to get some opinions on including the consequences of colonisation in the legacy section because I think there is merit to including a brief mention of negative consequences and not just highlighting the positive legacies. I realise the article size is an issue, but that is mostly from the other sections with extraneous details. My intention was to include two sentences about negative economic effects that colonisation may have had on India. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Why pick solely India? This is an article about the British Empire not specifically India and if I may be so bold, that whilst your edit encompassed two opposing viewpoints it seemed a bit contrived to be a WP:COATRACK to include some fairly controversial opinions. Seeing as you did pick India, may I ask were you aware of the considerable opposition to industrialisation in the Raj by native peoples, who feared that traditional cottage industries such as spinning would be overwhelmed by industrial cloth production. It was also part of Ghandi's strategy for seeking independence to reject industrially produced textiles. WCM_email 23:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

India is potentially one example and there may be better ones. I wasn't aware of the opposition to industrialisation in India and of Gandhi's views, but it makes sense that there would be opposition to new changes, processes, and methods that could disrupt existing systems. I would argue that opposition existed during various periods in the UK and many other parts of the world as well, and that doesn't take away from the fact that there were negative outcomes and consequences arising from the colonisation period. I don't think it's appropriate to compare the addition of this type of content to the coat rack analogy, since a comprehensive in-depth article should include a discussion or mention of negative outcomes, rather than just glossing over them. Instead of specifically mentioning a country, an alternative could be "In the modern postcolonial period, areas formerly ruled directly by the British perform worse economically and have significantly less access to various public goods, such as health care, public infrastructure, and education" cited with this reference. Other potential options could include a summary from this source and it does a better job of summarizing some of what I think could be discussed in this article better than I could explain. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 06:04, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

A polemic opinion piece in a newspaper is not by any degree of imagination a reliable source to be used on wikipedia. The Richard Gott article is not a reliable source for anything other than Richard Gott's opinion. To draw the conclusion you have from the paper you cited is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN, it's not possible to extrapolate that to the entire British Empire from India. What you need is a general source, which I fear will give the opposite of the edit you seem to wish to make. WCM_email 07:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Global Policeman

WP:BRD I believe should be mandatory reading for all wikipedians. After a bold edit is reverted, you discuss, you don't revert war.

As a result of the FAR, I spent a lot of time removing links ref the comment about overlinking. It was literally hours of dull work going through, examining all the links, removing duplicates, removing links that had at best a tangential relationship. Personally I would object to adding the link to the fairly poorly written article global policeman, which to my mind seems to be largely a collection of WP:OR. Bringing it here for further discussion. WCM_email 17:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think it was an especially bold change myself, and thought your reversion was a mistake – to be honest, I read into your revert and your tone in the above section frustration at my tagging of the article, and thought a clearer edit summary on my part might help clarify my rationale for the link, which is why I opted for WP:BRB. I'm sorry as this appears to not have been the case.

That said, I do think it's a particularly relevant concept per the MOS guidance on what generally should be linked, and I'd appreciate others' views on whether the link is appropriate or not. Jr8825 • Talk 17:28, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Do RS say the Empire was a global policeman?Slatersteven (talk) 17:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

The text is already there, which is why I was trying to add the quote marks and wikilink to indicate it's a specific concept, rather than just a wikivoice description. Jr8825 • Talk 17:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. If it is there why not link to it?Slatersteven (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you thought my revert was a mistake, you'll find a ready link to my talk page where you could have asked me. I personally would oppose a wlink to a fairly poorly written article that doesn't really explain the concept and mentions the BE in passing with a reference to the West Africa Squadron. The Pax Britannica article is a more logical link IMHO and the global policeman article is already linked there. WCM_email 17:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it is clear, I have not come down on either side in this. If RS say it we should link to that article, if RS do not say it we should not even mention it. But the Pax Britannica link would be better, and change the wondering here from GLobal policeman to Pa Britannica.Slatersteven (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, perhaps I didn't make myself clear, the Pax Britannica article is already mentioned along with a wlink, in the same sentence we would be essentially adding links to two different articles that referred to the same thing. Hence, my desire that we don't have add the second wlink. WCM_email 18:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Omissions/systemic bias

I came here from the FARC discussion, as I made a great big list of things that seem to be missing and they're more helpful here.

Structural problems and omitted topics/issues/themes

Overly skewed towards historical events during and between the world wars and decolonisation (despite not covering decolonisation adequately). Dedicates the same amount of words to discussing a 30 year period as it does the preceding 100 years of the empire's height Three paragraphs on the Suez Crisis – there are far more valuable ways to use those words. Too much attention given to the dominions; I count 883 words in paragraphs exclusively discussing them. A paragraph on Dominion soldiers in WW1, but no mention of soldiers from colonies (e.g. Indian Army during World War II and 600,000 Africans in WW2...) Colonial administration not discussed (at all, really) No discussion of 'indirect' rule (co-opting local elites in order to rule indigenous populations, particularly in Africa, but elsewhere e.g. Malaysia too; there's extensive academic discussion on how British rule differed in this respect from more direct French or German rule) Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate: No mention of the princely states No mention of the Indian Civil Service Social issues not discussed: Colonial police forces not mentioned (47,196 results on JSTOR for "British empire colonial police") Discussion of white settler minorities absent (no mention until legacy section) No mention of Anglo-Indians Settler/native social dynamics not mentioned Cultural impact of settler minorities not mentioned Mass migration of colonial British subjects overlooked (one sentence in legacy deemed adequate) Trade only mentioned in the sections covering the empire's early history, no coverage of imperial trade/economics Imperial Preference not mentioned Political debate over tariffs vs. free trade, the main political issue within British and imperial politics in the early 20th century, not mentioned British imports/exports ("workshop of the world") needs coverage Causes of decolonisation not fully explained Cripps Mission/Quit India Movement not mentioned Reading the article, it would seem post-WW2 bankruptcy was the sole primary reason for decolonisation, rather than one factor among many Highly notable controversies mentioned in any modern coverage of the British Empire missing, although to the article's credit the lesser-known Mau Mau uprising camps are covered Bengal Famine not mentioned Second Boer War concentration camps not mentioned The (not particularly positive) impact of decolonisation on the social and political structure of decolonised countries is not mentioned/summarised, despite a wealth of academic literature on this Military issues not discussed. Gurkhas? Gunboat diplomacy??? Maxim gun? Fuller discussion of the role of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines? More easily resolved are biased, overly rosey/editorialising lines such as: Later, under direct British rule, commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect (reads to me like a whitewash, implying that bad administration was a company problem resolved by the Raj; the source (which I can't get access to until I return to my university campus), is a glossy Illustrated history of the empire published in 1996; sounds like an outdated coffee table book to me, rather than a serious academic history. Britain's fears of war with Germany were realised in 1914 → should just be a factual statement. No mention of the Anglo-German naval arms race. Britain's resolve in defending its remaining overseas territories was tested [Falklands...] contributed to reversing the downward trend in Britain's status as a world power. Inappropriate tone, sounds like an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. For Churchill, the entry of the United States into the war was the "greatest joy". He felt that Britain was now assured of victory, but failed to recognise that the "many disasters, immeasurable costs and tribulations [which he knew] lay ahead" in December 1941 would have permanent consequences for the future of the empire. - this isn't Churchill's biography; tone issues. Great man theoryish. When the urgency of the situation and risk of civil war became apparent, the newly appointed (and last) Viceroy, Lord Mountbatten, hastily brought forward the date to 15 August 1947 instantly absolves Britain of responsibility for the partition's execution; it 'had' to be brought forward because it suddenly "became apparent" the Indians were going to tear themselves to pieces. This is one (valid) historiographical narrative, there are others which are far more critical of the British. Either this article sticks to the basic facts when it doesn't have space to expand on events, or it covers all the major interpretations according to their weight, not just the one that presents the empire's administrators in the most favourable light. Steadfastly avoids the word "imperialism" (only use is "American anti-imperialism") I mean c'mon, "imperialism" is even in the title of a bunch of the cited sources. Lots of superfluous info, whose space should be used to say all of the above, such as: ...the War of the Spanish Succession, which lasted until 1714 and was concluded by the Treaty of Utrecht. Philip V of Spain renounced his and his descendants' claim to the French throne, and Spain lost its empire in Europe. France ceded the Ionian Islands, Malta (which it had occupied in 1797 and 1798 respectively), Mauritius, St Lucia, the Seychelles, and Tobago; Spain ceded Trinidad; the Netherlands ceded Guyana and the Cape Colony. Britain returned Guadeloupe, Martinique, French Guiana, and Réunion to France, and Java and Suriname to the Netherlands, while gaining control of Ceylon (1795–1815) and Heligoland. The British Parliament retained the power to amend key Canadian constitutional statutes, meaning that effectively an act of the British Parliament was required to make certain changes to the Canadian Constitution. The British Parliament had the power to pass laws extending to Canada at Canadian request. Although no longer able to pass any laws that would apply as Australian Commonwealth law, the British Parliament retained the power to legislate for the individual Australian states. With regard to New Zealand, the British Parliament retained the power to pass legislation applying to New Zealand with the New Zealand Parliament's consent. WP:SUMMARYSTYLE! We've got the whole British Empire to cover here.

Please share your thoughts. Where do you disagree? (Which things do you think should remain excluded because of length constraints; have I mistakenly listed things that are already covered)? Which omissions are the most severe/need to be added more urgently? Can you think of practical things that can be done to fix some of these issues? I hope to spend a good chunk of time helping on the article itself, but unfortunately I won't be able to do so for at least several weeks. And yes, I'm going to slap a systemic bias tag on this, because I think systemic bias is the cause of these omissions and the result. More precisely, I think these holes are caused by a sympathetic treatment of the empire as a benign institution – almost certainly with the good faith intention of producing a neutral article – and clearly biased content has mostly been revised by other editors to make it more neutral, but that doesn't remedy the substantial gaps in what should be covered by a neutral, up-to-date encyclopedia entry. And just to spell it out, I'm not a post-colonial scholar, and I'm not saying we need to call it evil. Jr8825 • Talk 18:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Got caught up in an edit conflict here. On systematic bias, I think there are areas that are a bit euphemistic, but I don't think it presents the Empire as a benign institution on the whole. A major point of discussion in the FAR was that the Empire wasn't an institution. On specific items we might consider positive or negative, I would say there's quite a bit of both throughout, although I'm not sure that's the best framing. Anyway, my thoughts after this I wrote before some of the recent edits, so I've missed a few points, but thought worth posting anyway:

Replying on the specific points (very briefly, considering many could be their own discussions), the princely states are mentioned, although not explicitly with that term, in "First" British Empire (1707–1783)". This section also mentions direct vs indirect rule in this specific instance, although I agree a wider coverage/weaving of governance in various areas is well worth considering. The other specifically Indian aspects, Anglo-Indians and the Indian Civil Service, I see less "urgent" than the other issues you bring up. Large settlers movements are mentioned at various points, I am unsure how much weight should be given to smaller minority settlers and other population movements within the Empire. On the one hand I would personally take population movements within any polity as somewhat of a given, on the other hand many efforts were specifically intentioned and perhaps those could do with a greater mention. On settler-native interactions, there are some specifics mentioned throughout, so I suppose the question is what instances are deemed missing and/or if wider conclusions should be drawn and listed. I am not sure that there is a need for detail on police forces.

Free trade is briefly touched upon with an Adam Smith mention, but I would be inclined to agree it is missing from later sections of the article and is among the more urgent items you mention. On Indian decolonisation, it currently has a specific long dedicated paragraph, so I see the need for specific moments to be mentioned as not urgent, although it would likely be possible with some tweaks if desirable. I would disagree that the article presents bankruptcy as the sole reason for decolonisation, it also mentions a loss of military prestige, geo-politics, anti-colonial movements, and the broader cultural wind of change.

On "controversies", I would note in addition to the Mau mau rebellion there is quite a bit of information on the slave trade and a mention of some famines. However, I do not think seeking controversies in the right framing, especially as it got the FAR off to a poor start. On the specific items you mention, the Second Boer War barely gets a mention and I'm not sure it is due that much space within the context of this article. On the 1943 Bengal famine, I think there is a stronger argument to include as part of a better coverage of the impacts of the war throughout the empire. The current Second World War section focuses on the impacts of the war, rather than what happened during the war. By the impact of decolonisation, are you referring to the specific process of decolonisation or the broader impacts of the removal of British rule? In either case, that seems like information that should be contained in the Legacy section, and thus would need to be considered against other aspects there. Military issues in general I do not find urgent.

I appreciate the mention of an area that could be shortened for balance, and would not object to a shorter Suez. As the issues under discussion come down to weight within an article with this scope, such suggestions of pointing to things that could be shortened might be a useful practical exercise. An area I would propose for shortening would be the initial colonisation of the Americas, which at some points goes into year by year detail (and it has a main article to focus detail within). CMD (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the edit conflicts, and the continuous adjustments. I'm done now, and will read & respond to your comment shortly. Jr8825 • Talk 19:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: thanks for responding in such depth. Just to clear up my point about the article's overall narrative, I agree with you that the end result doesn't present the empire as a benign institution, but I do think the 'lens' of seeing it as a benign institution has resulted in systemic bias within the article; consequently it's not as comprehensive or objective as it should be, with significant sections framed from the point of the view of the empire itself (i.e. this was going well for the empire, this wasn't going so well for the empire), and from the outdated (or at least less widespread) approach of treating history as an examination of wars and their victors/losers. While you were writing your comment, I added more precise examples of where clear bias is contained within the text, but my broader concern (which I think is the greater issue) is the selection of the facts (i.e. bias because of what isn't in the text). There is coverage of events which reflect badly on the empire – but equally, major events are not mentioned at all and a number of less positive events are presented in a slanted manner or glossed over. To respond to your other points:

• re: princely states, the mention in the "First" British Empire section isn't adequate because they remained a central aspect of the British Raj (it only discusses their role in the establishment of company rule); to quote our own lead, they "covered 40% of the area of pre-independence India and constituted 23% of its population".
• re: "population movements within any polity" seems like a bit of an understatement to me, considering the scale of migratory flows in the empire (non-white subjects as well). I pointed out Anglo-Indians and the Indian Civil Service as examples to demonstrate how much info is missing (I'd expect to see a passing mention of, and consequently a wikilink to, these things as they're covered within broader discussions), not as things that need to be covered in depth by themselves. I think the best way to do this is a restructure. A section of population flows and a section on colonial administrations, for example.
• re: decolonisation, I was probably too harsh in saying it presents bankruptcy as the "sole" factor (I've struck that through). However, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you regarding the presentation overall, which I think is notably skewed towards the suggestion that European ruin and bankruptcy was the primary and most important factor.
• re: the Second Boer War, I strongly feel the article glances over it precisely it was controversial and overall seen as negative event in the empire's history. It was won with considerable difficulty, humiliation and loss of prestige through scorched earth policies and the invention of modern concentration camps, it deserves a sourced sentence to this effect. It was a turning point in imperial history, hence modern comparisons with Afghanistan. I can't quote sources at you on the spot, but I'm happy to dig them out when I'm able to return to this article at a later point. Regarding decolonisation, I'm thinking more generally in terms of the impacts of the removal of British rule, which leads onto the inadequate legacy section...
• I agree that seeking to add "controversies" for the sake of portraying something negatively is poor motivation (and against policy). That's not my concern here, though, my concern is a generally uncritical treatment of the empire throughout the entire article, despite some exceptions in specific sections, with the consequence that "controversies" (negative stuff) aren't adequately covered to the extent they are in more modern scholarship. I feel like it's worth spelling it out a bit more, but I don't see the empire as some evil monolith, and I don't want to "paint it in a bad light" – I'm concerned we're currently doing the opposite. There's no summary of historians' assessments, and consequently, no direct mention of criticism of the empire in the entire article, which is quite astounding as there's a mountain of quality sources to mine on positive, negative and ambiguous assessments of its legacy. The legacy section isn't fit for purpose and needs to be expanded into multiple sub-sections. The current section would mostly fall under a cultural impacts subsection. Jr8825 • Talk 20:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposals to add brand new sections and subsections runs into the issue I mentioned of finding due weight. The argument, for example, that an aspect covering just over a a fifth of the people of one colony needs to be more extensively covered than it already is is not something I find persuasive. India is of course a major part of the empire, but this is reflected in already dedicated paragraphs in four separate sections, plus various other mentions. If something is often regarded as a turning point in imperial history that is a much stronger argument. On Historiography, I find it the opposite of astounding that it is not included. That would be one of the first items I would expect to go when considering what could be trimmed. CMD (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is primarily a weight issue, because the current article hardly covers aspects of the empire that aren't political/military events. I don't think we need to cover princely states "extensively", but I do think it's essential to outline how the British ruled India (and their other territories too). 2 passing mentions of "local rulers" in the section on the conquest of India the century prior isn't "coverage" of the princely states system. The current sentence that should contain this information reads "The following year the British government dissolved the Company and assumed direct control over India through the Government of India Act 1858, establishing the British Raj, where an appointed governor-general administered India and Queen Victoria was crowned the Empress of India. I mean for starters the EIC was nationalised, not dissolved (it continued to exist until 1874), and Victoria didn't become Empress of India until 1876, unless I'm mistaken. And then you have the overly simplistic "assumed direct control over India" which misleadingly implies the government took direct control of the whole subcontinent, when it was really taking over direct control of Indian affairs and the Company's interests. It didn't directly manage all that territory, 500 or so princes ruled much of it with some degree of autonomy. That's not mentioned!

The current sentence can be corrected and it doesn't need many extra words to do this, but I can equally envisage a 2 or 3 paragraph section called "Colonial administration" or "Colonial governance" summarising the empire's governance across different territories and time periods. Given the examples of substantial unimportant waffle I've highlighted in the collapsed box above (possibly added after you'd read it) there's plenty of space to make room for it (and proper overviews of migration, economics, historiography etc.). It could include information like: "Following the 1857 Indian Rebellion, the British government took direct control of Indian affairs, absorbing the Company's interests in India to establish the British Raj. British rule on the subcontinent was subsequently divided into directly controlled territories, largely inherited from the EIC, and a patchwork of self-governing dependencies known as princely states, which enjoyed varying degrees of internal autonomy. The British managed the external affairs of these states, while the doctrine of paramountcy allowed the colonial administration to interfere in their internal affairs individually or collectively, or to issue edicts that applied to all of India when deemed necessary." (It's not properly sourced because I just strung it together from on-wiki info & I nicked the last sentence from our article on Princely states; it would need to be compiled from sources.) I fail to see how a 100 word summary like the one above isn't essential info in an article about the empire, without which the article gives the reader an inadequate understanding. Equally, it needs a couple of summarising sentences on colonial administrations in the African colonies, and in Malaya. Jr8825 • Talk 02:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

If your issue is that there is too much coverage of political/military events compared to others, that is explicitly a weight issue. You're suggesting there is too much weight given to political and military events, and too little weight given to other aspects such as administration. I suspect small shifts such as potential removals as given in your edits and a few sentence additions as given just above would be easy to discuss among editors who participated in the FAR, bigger overhauls such as new sections would be more involved and far more source-heavy discussion. CMD (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

You're right it's a weight issue by nature (any question about what gets put in and left out of an article is), what I mean by saying it's not really primarily about weight is that while the degree each missing issue should be covered is a question of weight, the overall problem is that this article isn't remotely near a general overview/summary of the topic, and is therefore an inadequate encyclopedia article – WP:5P1. That's the structural problem here. I think the cause and result is it fails WP:5P2 (NPOV, systemic bias) and the solution at the section level in remedying systemic bias is by working through the sources. But the issue of not discussing administrative, social and economic aspects of something as impactful in each of those areas as the British Empire (59,825 JSTOR results for "british empire migration", 75,398 JSTOR results for "british empire colonial administration" – these are massive academic fields central to this topic which are hardly mentioned at all), and the issue of the article being written as a (rather unitary) narrative of the British Empire's history rather than a neutral, factual overview of its complexity and nature is a big, broad problem. Jr8825 • Talk 12:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Pointing to very specific topics by simple raw numbers is meaningless unless that is placed within some consideration of the corpus of potential material. Every academic field is hardly mentioned at all here, that's the nature of fitting this topic into 10,000 words. As I mentioned initially, a practical exercise would be noting fields that are over-covered. That no new ideas have been put forward on this front in multiple replies is indicative of the issue here. I do think that if your initial position is that the current state of the article is not "remotely near a general overview", then you will probably be disappointed with the outcome of discussions here. CMD (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I agree it's quite a "far" initial position, but as I think a large amount of work needs to be done, there's no point in not saying so. The raw numbers aren't meant to be absolute proof, just an indication of the scale of what we're missing. I don't think it's necessary to prove that an encyclopedia article on an empire should cover how it was governed; when I (or others) get round to writing that content, the proof will be in the abundance of sources. This article is an outlier right now because it doesn't cover these things. This is a broad conversation because I want to lay out what I see as the problem (I'm not the only editor who thinks this, I saw others raise similar points at FARC) and suggest how we might approach addressing it. Obviously I'm keen for other editors to get on board and participate in this process, hence this conversation. I'll be disappointed if I end up having to come back to this talk page to justify every addition because others don't think change is necessary, but I'm happy to do that in good faith and engage here wherever others disagree, if that's what's required. What's over-covered? I've pointed out the Suez Crisis and the Dominions; more generally, coverage of wars is over-detailed, as is the history from 1914 onwards. I've also pointed out examples of how the text contains chunks of superfluous, non-essential information mixed in. I'm not concerned about length, personally, because I can see lots of ways to make more space. When I'm ready to start working on this, I'm happy to put together a cut-down version of the page in my sandbox to demonstrate how much I think can be removed from the current text without affecting key content, if that's helpful. Jr8825 • Talk 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions for actual edits? We cannot (as editors) read everything about a subject, so of course there may be stuff we miss.Slatersteven (talk) 12:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I can see three potential ways to develop the article:

1. Retain the same structure (purely chronological, which follows the structure of most monographs on the empire's overall history) and attempt to rework social/administrative/cultural history into it (which I think is feasible, because much of the text is quite flabby at the moment and could be significantly cut down while losing very little key information). I'm not sure this is ideal, though, because one-volume histories of the British Empire will be exactly that... general histories, whereas we want to provide an overview of the entire topic and there appears to be a lot of academic output on individual aspects of the empire.
2. Largely retain the structure, but adding short overview sections on Government, Economy, Culture and Society (or similar) that provide succinct summaries of each these areas, probably after the history section, with most detail held within the history section, which has social/administrative/cultural history reworked into it.
3. Complete restructure, with sections on Government, Economy and Culture/Population/Society fully fleshed out and a spin-off of much of the chronological text to "History of the British Empire", so that the remaining history overview is relatively equal in status to other sections, which are each fuller discussions. This possibly has the benefit of needing to weave in less additional content into existing chronological sections, and much of the current text can be preserved in that article (yes, I saw the similar failed RM, but reading the discussion it looks as though many objections were about moving when there was nothing to replace it).

I currently prefer options 2 or 3, and they also bring it more in line with our treatment of comparable historical states such as the Ottoman Empire, Qing dynasty and Russian Empire. Other potential sections could include Science and technology, Military, Migratory flows/Migration (probably a subsection of Culture/Population/Society(?)). Unfortunately, as I mentioned above, I have too many IRL commitments to do much work myself on this over the next week. Jr8825 • Talk 13:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Note: Advertised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Empire and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries Jr8825 • Talk 13:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That does not tell me what it is you want to add.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a big list of things I think are potentially missing at the start of this section. But to spell it out again: I want to add coverage of the empire's governance, economy, society and culture. Yes, they're broad things. As others said at FARC, the article is missing coverage of broad things and is lopsided as a result. Jr8825 • Talk 14:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

And I asked for specific examples of what you want to add, not generalities. Sorry but I cannot agree to vague suggestions.Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In terms of structure, I would favour a broadly chronological structure. Very few of your readers will have the detailed knowledge of what happened when that you have (or will have when you will find some decent sources and progress the thing as you suggest.) A major switch away from "chronological" would be almost impossible to achieve without leaving your more casual readers scratching their heads. And you might easily come back five years later and find someone had returned to "chronollogical". But yes, I much prefer your Option 2.: "Largely retain the structure, but adding short overview sections on Government, Economy, Culture and Society...." If matters then develop as (on a good day) wikipedia can, they will be added to and can then be floated off into their own separate articles with a couple of summarizing paras staying with this "main" article for the benefit aforementioned casual reader. Maybe that will be time to realise we've ended up with (or at least wishing to glide seamlessly towards) your Option 3, buut that's not for now, methinks. As for the systematic bias coming from the sources chosen ... yes, of course. But the historiography for the European colonial empires has changed a lot over recent decades, and the international nature of wikipedia gives us a wonderful chance - far beyond what most of us had at school or uni - to compare and contrast English perspectives of the British empire with those from India, Ireland, Jamaica, the different corners of the DisunitedSA, China...... In other words, there are a lot of newer works that are less biased or at least differently biased which can serve as necessary correctives. But always with history, what you read about the history of (for instance) the nineteenth century will tell you at least as much about the period and place in which the stuff you are reading was written as it tells you about the nineteenth century. Thus the fun of history. By the way, thank you for voluntering to take the lead with what looks like a massive task. Success Charles01 (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the tag, for starters slapping a tag on the article and then stating you're not going to be able to discuss changes for 7 weeks is disruptive. Secondly, if I understand it correctly you're planning that we should add "Government, Economy and Culture/Population/Society". Well that's been discussed extensively at the FAR and no one has been able to suggest how this is actually going to be done. Nor have they addressed the tension between the observation in the FAR that the article is already too long with the suggestions that it be massively expanded to include new topics in overview article that few academics attempt to tackle because it's too complex. And finally and frankly when I see someone coming to an article and the first thing they do it tag it alleging bias, I have rarely found that editor to be interested in writing to a NPOV. WCM_email 15:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: Just to clarify, I think you misread "several" weeks as "seven" weeks. I also didn't say I can't discuss changes during this time – I can discuss things right now, I'm just unable to immediately start extensive research so I'll need to talk in general terms. I've since looked at my schedule and realised I can probably start work on this sooner, so I said in a later comment above that I'll be unable to make substantive changes "over the next week" because of work deadlines. I can probably start highlighting areas for potential cuts/shortening in my sandbox, something I suggested above, next Saturday.

Regarding your comments that "no one has been able to suggest how this is actually going to be done", "nor have they addressed [length]" – I listed three possible approaches above as to how this these topics can be integrated into the article, and I've already discussed a number of ways to reduce length, with some examples and proposals. I won't repeat it all here, but I'd be grateful it if you could read the above discussion and offer feedback. Implying I haven't put forward any new or constructive suggestions in this conversation is gaslighting.

When I see someone coming to an article and the first thing they do it tag it alleging bias, I have rarely found that editor to be interested in writing to a NPOV – I agreed with a number of editors at FARC about the article not meeting FA standard, so I came here to provide a list of issues for discussion in good faith, so we can remedy them. I'm not a newly registered user come to POV push, and I'm sure you know it's inappropriate to comment on editors rather than content. Doubly so since we've not had much interaction in the past. I think it's unlikely every potential issue I raised is correct, but I do expect editors to engage with them in good faith, even if they disagree. Your rationale for removing the tag was invalid and insufficient ("there is no dispute") but I won't re-add it because in hindsight it seems more likely to irritate editors who've worked on the article than promote constructive improvements, which is the point of it in the first place. I'm happy to begin by focusing on missing themes and topics. I appreciate you've now engaged with one of the suggestions at FARC, although it's probably more helpful to hold the discussion here. I hope to get back to you on colonial policing on Monday or Wednesday. Jr8825 • Talk 16:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

In reply, adding the tag could have only acted to irritate editors, especially when you're doing so to raise issues which established editors have already discussed and pointed out the issues with what you propose. Tags can be removed when its not clear what the issue is and no satisfactory explanation has been provided. You were asked on several occasions to clarify your proposals and you did not provide such clarification. I don't generally comment on editors and am aware we generally focus on content. You might like to think on what it is like for editors who have worked on this article for years to be accused of a systemic bias. And I'll stand by my comment, my experience is that when the first thing an editor does is allege bias, they rarely have the interests of the project at heart.

I specifically raised the issue of the "British empire colonial police" on the FAR page, it was something you also raised here. There is a very good reason it was not mentioned in the article, there was no such thing. Each individual element of the Empire had it's own police force; all very different. Its very much evident of a skim read approach that you even thought such a thing existed.

I'll raise another issue now, Suez, you say that 3 paragraphs related to Suez is excessive. I fundamentally disagree with that assessment. Suez resulted in a national humiliation and marked a transition between the old world order of European Empires and the domination of the US/USSR. As such it does warrant such attention.

And finally, we're already being told at FAR that the article is too long, yet you're proposing to massively expand it. You also seem to forget this is supposed to be an overview article and by its very nature you have to be somewhat ruthless in the topics you can cover. If you're proposing to work on this article you need to square the circle with the fact that the comments in the FAR are fundamentally contradictory. WCM_email 17:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

This is killing my productivity and I have a pile of uni deadlines on Monday, but I'll respond to a couple of more points here. Regarding upset over tagging, it's something that's not supposed to happen in an ideal wiki-world per WP:OWNERSHIP. But I agree adding it was a mistake – it was naive of me to presume it would promote a constructive discussion, so I'm not going to fight over it, despite the fact I think it's quite valid. You're right that in this day and age allegations of "systemic bias" will be taken as an insult, rather than being the inevitable result of trying to build a tertiary source. I apologise for not spelling it out more clearly, which was a lack of consideration on my part.

I firmly disagree with your belief that any editors that allege bias are unlikely to "have the interests of the project at heart". I personally think this view is a negative one, and that calling out bias is a good way to serve the wiki. We may have to agree to disagree.

Re: colonial police, you're reading into my JSTOR search that I had the false impression there was one police force was incorrect. I do not think that and never have. I might not yet have done the same breadth of reading as others here, but I'm still pretty up to speed the subject.

Finally, I don't propose to massively expand the article, I propose to adjust its focus while retaining a very similar overall length; I've discussed the need to provide an "overview" quite a few times in the above conversation. I know how SUMMARYSTYLE is supposed to work – I quoted it in my first post and I don't quote guidelines and policies unless I've read them! Regarding Suez, I think it's best to discuss it once I have a shortened proposal for you to consider. I think I may have a solution to differing proposals at the FAR, and I also think I can change the article for the better. I've signed myself up to do a lot of work and experimentation here, so that others can consider the changes. I hope you'll keep your patience with me and trust in my good faith. Jr8825 • Talk 18:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you're under pressure on uni deadlines, then you shouldn't be editing. It seems your stress levels is causing you to lash out at other editors and accusing them of being unpleasant for discussing routine editing matters. I suggest you also wind back the accusations of ownership as it seems a bit of a non-apology to do that and you were wrong to not follow WP:BRD. I'll start to believe in your good faith when you start to believe in mine. I'll also comment, I'd like to see how you propose to change the focus to allow you to make the changes. For the benefit of others, I have looked at the list above here. I have to say I disagree with many of the criticisms and consider we have an appropriate level of coverage, others are diving down into a level of detail that is inappropriate or asking for coverage of topics too complex to cover in an overview. WCM_email 20:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I respectfully ask that you don't comment on my personal circumstances. The suggestion that my judgement is affected by, or less valid because of, other commitments is wrong and condescending. The comment on ownership was in direct response to your remark about the effect of a tag on "editors who have worked on this article for years" and wasn't intended as an accusation. Considering how far apart we are on content issues, I don't think there's anything productive to add until I have the time to gather some sources on this talk page for others to examine. I'm sorry for my part in the way this conversation developed today, and I hope you'll add further comments at that time. Jr8825 • Talk 21:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

If you don't wish me to comment then don't mention it as an excuse and with respect it is rather obvious you have been getting worked up. I don't particularly enjoy editors accusing me of being unpleasant for simply engaging in talk. I do note my comments rather reflect what other editors have been saying to you, you might like to think about that and consider your proposals rather better. WCM_email 22:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Info box

why is only the flag and map allowed in the Infobox? It doesn't make any sense. I added the years 1497 - 1997 for people who want to know how long the empire existed and it gets undone —aaron106 (talk · contribs) 20:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Well for starters there's no formal start or end date for the empire. Cabot's 1497 expedition didn't mark the beginning of the empire – it didn't directly lead to any immediate settlements and was marginal compared to the profitable trans-Atlantic trade networks the Portuguese & Spanish quickly set up. It was almost two centuries before England started pursuing significant overseas interests (late in the reign of Elizabeth I). The first successful North American colony in Virginia (1607) would be a possible starting date, although that was modelled on existing English/Scots plantations in Ireland (some would count the English conquest of Wales and Ireland as the start of an "English Empire"). As for an end date, while 1997 is the most obvious and widely discussed date, you'll notice that the article actually reads 1997 marked for many the end of the British Empire. Others would argue that the empire ended at an earlier point (e.g. 1980s), others would argue there's still an empire in some form or another (e.g. overseas territories, treatment of indigenous populations in ex-dominions, global-scale British foreign policy etc.). Jr8825 • Talk 23:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to ping, aaron106. Jr8825 • Talk 23:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I mean 1497 is debatable for sure, I think 1997 is commonly agreed on by historians. but why can't we have the years up in the Infobox? That I don't understand. --Aaron106 (talk) 23:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

The infobox is a summary of the absolute basic facts in the article. There is no room there for ambiguity or explanation. Seeing as those dates are not certain they are not used. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

1997 (the return of Hong Kong to China) isn't commonly agreed. Some say it was Suez, others Crater City. In which year for example did Canada cease to be a part of the British Empire? TFD (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

It pretty much is just like Portuguese (return of Macau to China) in 1999. They added it up on their wikipedia page as the final year of Portuguese Empire. --Aaron106 (talk) 14:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

1999 was the last possible date the Portuguese Empire existed because it was the year its last remaining colony was transferred to China. In reality, the empire had long since ended. The UK is different because the British Empire was renamed the Commonwealth and still exists, although it could not be described as an empire, while Britain still retains colonies, although they were re-named British Overseas Territories and are self-governing (i.e., not really colonies.) TFD (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know from the 1960s to 90s that Empires were 'really gone' but usually the last hand-over marks the official end of the Empire. the Commonwealth is a political association of former Territories its separate. --Aaron106 (talk) 18:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Both of the books by historians I've just read [Black, Jeremy (2016). The British Empire: a history and a debate. London: Routledge. ISBN 9781315614151. & Samson, Jane (2001). The British Empire. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192892935.] treat the end of empire as a process rather than a date, and both discuss how this process continues today even though the empire itself no longer exists. For Jeremy Black, a self-described "conservative historian", the empire ended when Britain lost independent capability for military action after the Falklands War but continues to have political significance. Jane Samson, who's not quite so forthright about her politics but reflects the general movement among historians in recent decades to examine the cultural history of empire in addition to its political and economic history, also agrees that the empire in substance ended in the 1980s, although its social implications continue, saying: "Britain still retains a handful of tiny dependencies, and even its former colonies still struggle with the legacy of imperialism. Perhaps, in this sense, the story of the British empire has no clear ending" (p.7). So no, historians don't treat 1997 as the end of the empire, officially or otherwise, even if it holds that position in popular consciousness. Jr8825 • Talk 19:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes they do. "In 1997 Hong Kong returned to Chinese administration. Though Britain still maintains overseas territories, the handover marked the final end of Britain's empire". The Cold War has debate among people whether it ended in 1989, 1990 or 1991. But they still put 1991 as the final year on Wikipedia. If they took the years down it would be controversial and people would be asking why? Because of a dispute with editors on Wikipedia --Aaron106 (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your original question was disingenuous. You didn't just add dates: you tried to change the map several times; you tried to add a capital and an anthem; and then you tried to remove the note clearly stating not to add additional information to the info box. This has been discussed several times before - and the note should be a sufficient clue - and the reason remains the same as it has ever been: if a factoid is contentious/debatable then it shouldn't be presented as fact in something as simplistic as an infobox, even if there some sources which might support the claim. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aaron106: which historian is that quote from? You didn't say. Jr8825 • Talk 22:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

yes you are correct I thought this page hadn't been updated in 15 years so I added information because people visit here and there is basically nothing on the Infobox of the biggest Empire in the world, with so much history. And I don't understand why we atleast can not have years, If we are not allowed too add the capital or anything other. You guys are doing a disservice to this page when other empires on Wikipedia have their information boxes sorted out --Aaron106 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Aaron106, if by former territories you mean countries that have become independent, these territories were considered to be part of the empire as late as 1944 imperial conference. But the term Commonwealth was used as early as the 1923 conference. In fact these terms were used interchangeably. Similarly the term British subject was changed to Commonwealth citizen in 1981. The UK parliament also lost its function as legislating for Canada, Australia and NZ in the mid-1980s. The term commonwealth was thought to better represent the relationship of autonomous states than empire.

If you think these things are distinct, can you tell me at what date Canada left the empire and what date it joined the Commonwealth.

TFD (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't know when Canada joined or left. All I know is that the end year of the British Empire should be 1997. And to have no information on the Infobox about anything is very sad. Even stuff you can confirm as facts like London being the capital, not allowed --Aaron106 (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we follow what the best sources say, not what we think is self-evident (see WP:RS). If you could demonstrate that most experts on the British Empire agree it ended in 1997, then it would be a straightforward change. But I don't think you'll be able to, because I'm reading through a collection of historians' books and essays on the empire right now, and they don't say that. Jr8825 • Talk 22:58, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Why does the Portugese Empire Wiki have their final year as 1999? Why has nobody taken it down if it is self-evident --Aaron106 (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Simple, reliable sources agree that the Portuguese Empire ended in 1999. They don't agree about the British Empire, so we don't put anything in there. I think it is time to drop the stick and step away from the deceased equine. WCM_email 06:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aaron106: please refrain from making comments about other editors. There are strict Wikipedia policies on civility and no personal attacks. Jr8825 • Talk 14:32, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aaron106: ah. I think you've misunderstood that comment. Wee Curry Monster wasn't calling you that, he was referring to a widely quoted Wikipedia essay called "Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass", which is about walking away from discussions when they're not going anywhere. Jr8825 • Talk 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Aaron106: Please remove the personal attack. WCM_email 14:56, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to walk away from this discussion too. I'll see you later --Aaron106 (talk) 14:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

The article has the date 1999 because a Wikipedia editor decided that it ended with the transfer of Macau. (See: Talk:Portuguese Empire#End of the Portuguese Empire.) I don't know if there are any agreed beginning and ending dates for the Portuguese empire, but the end date is not sourced and therefore is original research which is not allowed in articles. But note the logic used was that the Portuguese empire ended when the last colony became formally independent. That hasn't happened in the case of the British Empire. Furthermore, British colonies that became independent were usually still considered to be part of the empire, which did not happen in the case of Portugal. (Hence the dominions attended "imperial conferences," later renamed Commonwealth conferences.) TFD (talk) 11:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

User:Aaron106, please stop this! Infoboxes should only contain simple, unambiguous and undisputed facts. Your suggested changes clearly can't be so descibed. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well the rest of Wikipedia disagrees with you. Because they details in their Infobox whether it be country, empire or celebrity. this is only one of the rare pages that doesn't --Aaron106 (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

As others have pointed out, there was no formal founding of the British empire, in fact in a sense it did not officially exist. So any date (be it 1497, 1601 or any other at) is arbitrary.Slatersteven (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

You should read of the discussion before you commented we're not talking about the formal founding we are talking about the end of it --Aaron106 (talk) 14:54, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

". I added the years 1497 - 1997 for people who want to know how long the empire existed and it gets undone", you raised both the removal of that start and end date. And my point still applies to the end date, there was not formal end to it either.Slatersteven (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

"I mean 1497 is debatable for sure, I think 1997 is commonly agreed on by historians. but why can't we have the years up in the Infobox? That I don't understand." I conceded 1497 is debatable. Most of this conversation has been about the end year --Aaron106 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I can add no more to what has already has been said. What you think is irrelevant we need RS to say this is the generally agree date (and even then it is only one of many). You said you would "walk away from this discussion too", this is not walking away. There is also an issue of what to say, it was neither dissolved nor disbanded.Slatersteven (talk)

Well I don't know what to say to you man if you think the British Empire still exists, thats on you. --Aaron106 (talk) 15:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

First off, I did not say that I said there is no official end date, so we can't act as if there is one (a lot of experts say it ended in the 60's, technically the monarch was the emperor of India the Empire of India ended 1948, etc, ect). Secondly [[1]].

Always daytime

A minor change, I think, but I personally preferred GOLDIEM J's wording; I think it's clearer than the existing wording (which is also quite repetitious) and possibly more precise too, for those monsoon days... Why do you think it isn't an improvement Wiki-Ed? Jr8825 • Talk 21:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

TBH I didn't think it was an improvement either but chose not edit what was a matter of personal preference. It's a rather hackneyed phrase and personally I would remove the whole sentence. WCM_email 21:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

If we're going to use a historical quote it then it's better to use wording that more closely reflects the hubristic way in which historical figures used the phrase. If we change it to "daytime" then we're creating a new interpretation which reflects the fact it might, indeed, have been raining... and which is somewhat less romantic than the Victorians might have liked. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ellis Is.

In the map, there is a Pacific island territory labeled "Ellis Is." I think it's a typographical error and is supposed to be "Ellice Islands" as in "Gilbert and Ellice Islands," the former British territory that would become the modern nations of Kiribati and Tuvalu respectively. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Wehai

I'm wondering if the territory labeled "Weihai" on the map should more properly be labeled "British Weihaiwei" since "Weihai" (also called Port Edward) was the name of the capital of the leased territory. Even if the two names are in some contexts synonymous or interchangeable by some standards (I'm not aware that they are), I would think "British Weihaiwei" would be less likely to cause ambiguity or confusion. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 13:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Bringing it here for a centralised discussion. Could @Bullhuss5: cite which authors consider it a "controversy" that the handover of Hong Kong marked the End of Empire? WCM_email 06:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: I know it's so stupid --Aaron106 (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Upper Yaffa

Why is there no Upper Yaffa on the map? SPRVTL (talk) 15:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

it sort of is, as it will be part of the area covering the Aden protectorate.Slatersteven (talk) 16:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I see that various Wikilinks seem to be re-added following a general purge of overlinking during the FAR review. Is this something we want to work on? WCM_email 10:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

A number of geographic links were added in this diff. Quite of a few of them seemed too broad (and the contemporary states were already linked), so I've removed most. Some are still left and you might want to link over them yourself as I'm not convinced the remaining ones are necessary either. More broadly, non-specific links (i.e. those not pointing to an event/state/war directly connected with the empire), such as slavery (Atlantic slave trade, Triangular trade and History of slavery are already linked), mortality rate, religious persecution etc.) could perhaps be cut. They might help readers with less general knowledge though, so it's a trade-off. Also, I can also see a few piped links that make their target unclear (e.g. "laden with treasure", "Parliament decreed in 1651", "while on a scientific voyage"), maybe the text should be adjusted slightly so their target is explicitly named? I don't think it'd take much work, so I'm happy to do this if you think it helpful. I've also removed a few duplicate links. All that said, as long as the links aid the reader I personally don't mind slightly heavier linking than normal, given that it's such a broad overview article. Jr8825 • Talk 13:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think a number of unhelpful changes were made because of that misbegotten FAR, including supposed 'overlinking'. In my view, in a large article, it's quite difficult to find the single permitted hyperlink for a given term that I want to follow up on. I then have to type it out, which is annoying. And more generally, in relation to the policy, removing hyperlinks kind of undermines one of the primary benefits of this whole 'internet' thingymajig... I don't think we should spend personal time being too pedantic about this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm still fairly raw about the FAR myself but after we worked hard on getting this article to FA status I really don't want to let it slide. It's noticeable that those commenting on the FAR appear to have disappeared, I'm still waiting to be shown how to treat the topics it was claimed were needed. WCM_email 08:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have a map that is a more detailed list of territories that were ever conquered or claimed by the British no occupations are inculded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Universal Deus (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox country should be added!

I suggest that an infobox country should be here, just like other colonial empires! 109.166.130.207 (talk) 08:13, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

No, its not appropriate, its been discussed many times before. So unless there is a compelling new argument, you will not get consensus. I would suggest you view the archives before making such a suggestion - note I assumed good faith and that you weren't just trolling. WCM_email 09:00, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wales and Ireland: English/British invasions and Opression

I included an edit summarising invasions of Wales and Ireland starting from the 11th century. This continues to 15th century penal laws and civil war in Ireland. I don't see any reason why these two timelines should not be included on this page. This page also includes headings of English colonialization and plundering overseas before the formation of the UK and before it was referred to as the British Empire. Wales and Ireland are well known as the first colonies of the `English kingdom/British Empire and the period of unrest and opression spans both periods. Arguably Ireland wasn not a colony after 1800 Act of Union although this process was controversial.

Definitions of the British Empire:

Dictionary.com "a former collective term for the territories under the leadership or control of the British crown, including those in the Commonwealth of Nations and their colonies, protectorates, dependencies, and trusteeships."

Cambridge Dictionary "the group of countries that in the past were ruled or controlled by the U.K"

Collins Dictionary "(formerly) the United Kingdom and the territories under its control."

Based on these definitions, historically Ireland and Wales easily qualify for being part of the British Empire. (Scotland was also part of the British Empire but voluntarily joined the UK in 1707 in the act of union, rather than being forcefully made part of it like Wales. Ireland is a bit more complicated as I mentioned)

If you are discontent with any part of this edit, please discuss here before removing or reverting. I am very happy to accommodate various opionions, views and changes. I am happy to make any required changes myself.

Thank you all for your time. TG11TG15 (talk) 14:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@TG11TG15: basing article content off your understanding of a dictionary definition is synthesis/original research. For example, none of those definitions explicitly mentions Wales or Ireland. Do any of the sources added in your text directly mention the British Empire? If not, it's synth. What determines inclusion is whether expert/scholarly sources on the British Empire discuss Wales and Ireland. The English conquest of Ireland – and possibly Wales, I can't remember – is sometimes discussed as the contextual background of the empire's origins, which is why our text briefly mentions it. It might be DUE to also mention Welsh conquest in the same succinct manner if sources directly link/discuss it in the context of empire, but I'm not sure whether this is the case. I'll try to have a look at the books I have to jog my memory. Either way, at most it would be mentioned in a couple of words as background, your section is completely disproportionate and off-topic. Jr8825 • Talk 14:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable feedback. I do doubt that all references used on this page include a citation of the word Empire or colony, but yu raise a valid point.

Here are mulitple sources that cite Wales and Ireland as part of. British Empire and/or colony of England/British Empire; 1. "On a world historical scale, Wales might be considered as the first colony of an expanding English state"

2. A whole book dedicated to Wales as England's first colony; "Wales was England’s first colony and its conquest was by military force. It was later formally annexed, ending its separate legal status. Yet most of the Welsh reconciled themselves to their position and embraced the economic and individual opportunities being part of Britain and its Empire offered."

3. "The fact that Wales has itself suffered historic injustice at the hands of the British State should not blind us to our own role in one of the most murderous enterprises in human history, the British Empire."

4. "Wales: England’s oldest colony. Subjugated and marginalised, the Welsh have refused to be dominated."

5. "Ireland was England's first colony. We lived as part of the English, and then British, Empire for over 700 years."

6. "The modern British state, as Michael Hechter has influencially argued, resulted from the internal colonization of of Wales, Ireland and Scotland, building its economic strength on the systematic underdevelopment and impoverishment of these domestic colonies."

7. Two scientific articles on colonialisation of Wales and Ireland

Plenty of evidence here. I can add reference to some of these sources in a re-edit. Thanks. TG11TG15 (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

How can Ireland and Wales both be the first colony? TFD (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It is debatable which came first. The Anglo-Norman invasion and partial colonisation of the country was around same time, which established the lordship in parts of Ireland and established the Marches in South Wales but neither conquered the whole of either country. Arguably this partial colonisation occurred in both countries around the same. Complete conquest occurred in Wales first in 1283 but Wales briefly regained independence in approximately the 1400-1413 period under Owain Glyndwr, whereas in Ireland it could be argued that this occurred in 1800 with the controversial Act of union. Simply put, it depends on your definition of colony. TG11TG15 (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Since Ireland was invaded from Wales, it is fairly clear! Most definitions of colony exclude both. Apply this sort of talk to the medieval & EM history of the rest of Europe & it becomes clear using the term this way is just unhelpful - look at the expansions of France, Burgundy, Prussia, Poland, the Papal States etc etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

This has been discussed on and off since 2003. To save another debate: the consensus view has always been that this article is about overseas-colonisation-by-people-from-Britain - not England - and not about conquests and feudal possessions in Europe. There is, of course, a historical progression of ideas and actions from one period to another, but one has to draw a line somewhere. The sources don't all agree where to start, but they never start earlier than 1497 with Cabot and Newfoundland, and so that's where we begin. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, despite the dictionary definitions, the British Empire is considered to date back only to Cabot's voyage to Newfoundland, at the earliest, and maybe not until the early 1600s. TFD (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Surely the plantation of Ulster which began in 1609 a form of colonisation during your defined period of the British Empire? Also surely the penal laws in Ireland in 1695 are a form of English/British oppression in Ireland? Perhaps I could insert a link to "British rule in Ireland page" and a "British Rule in Wales" page instead and expand on these ages instead. There should at least be a reference to Ireland and Wales in the early part of the "British Empire" page. TG11TG15 (talk) 23:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ulster is mentioned in proportion to its relevance. The Norman conquest of Wales is not mentioned because it is not relevant. We don't invent stuff, we use the existing sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Robert Clive

Wiki-Ed has been reverting consensus by Rjensen and myself stating a fact with explanation from more than 5 independent and university sources.

The Battle of Plassey in 1757, in which the British under the command of Robert Clive defeated the Nawab of Bengal and his French allies, left the British East India Company in control of Bengal and as the major military and political power in India. This victory would pave the way for the creation of the British Raj. Therefore, Robert Clive has been widely considered a founder of the British Empire in India.Foorgood (talk) 21:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ref 14 does not say that he was called the founder of the Raj because of his victory at Plassey. SYNTH. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me it's taken from source 11 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Clive/Fa5W22HrlboC?hl=en

"Robert Clive (1725 1774), later 1st Baron Clive, is widely considered the founder of British India. He arrived in Madras as a clerk for the East India Company in 1744. Through timely promotion and a clear affinity for military leadership, he proceeded to consolidate the company s commercial and territorial position in South India before doing the same in the northeast in Bengal. In 1757 company troops under his command defeated the nawab of Bengal at the Battle of Plassey. This victory set in motion the East India Company s ascendancy over much of India, paving the way for the 1857 creation of the British Raj, which would last for another ninety years."Foorgood (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

May I suggest as prior reading WP:BRD, no there isn't a consensus for your editing Foorgood and the fact you may have another editor agreeing with you isn't a good reason for edit warring. Wiki-Ed has not been reverting the private consensus you've made with Rjensen, he raised a concern with your edit and the onus is now upon you to discuss it and convince other editors.

I disagree with the edit you're making, the premise of which starts out by removing the comment that the process that led to the formation of the British Empire began before the union of the Scottish and English crowns under James VI of Scotland. I would also support Wiki-Ed's point that Clive is not the sole person responsible for the British Raj, though obviously he plays a major part in it; let us not forget your very source states that he started out as a clerk for the East India Company and you may wish to credit the founders of that company with a role in founding the British Raj.

I would also point out this article is intended as an overview of the British Empire, not specifically the British Raj and we should be mindful of not favouring or over burdening the article with factoids such as this. To my mind this could be guilty of both over detailing and of over simplifying the formation of the British Raj. Quite a remarkable achievement. WCM_email 19:57, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

So now you and Wiki-Ed are both removing something that is claimed in more than 5 independent and university sources. Wiki-Ed actually wanted to insert this in Robert Clives page "He is credited along with Warren Hastings for laying the foundation of the British Empire in India" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Clive&type=revision&diff=1077266185&oldid=1077167085. So actually he would like both men included as founders which I am fine coming to that consensus with him. It can say "Warren Hastings and Robert Clive have been considered to be some of the founders of the British Empire in India." Foorgood (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not a game of finding sources with Google. Anyone can do that. Each source needs to be considered in context and weighted, and then we need to decide whether it fits with the rest of the content. So, as per WCM's comment, this is an unnecessary factoid which does not need to be included in this overview and - in the simplified form proposed in your draft - is actually misleading. Expanding to include two people would not make it any less misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand how something that is mentioned specifically in university publishers is misleading if we include all the explanation for why he is considered one of the founders of the British Empire in India. I believe the intro should then similarly be changed from "foundations of the empire were laid" to "the search for overseas settlements began".Foorgood (talk) 21:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree that Clive is considered important in the retrenchment of the East India company in India, it's rather misleading to claim he was a founder of the British Empire, or even the British Raj, since this wasn't founded till after the mutiny of 1857. The first steps towards the founding of the Empire too place before he was even born and the Raj long after he was dead. Whether to mention him, or not, is a judgement call and in writing an overview we do have to be rather ruthless about the depth of detail we can include. I am of the opinion, which out of courtesy I did review the literature, that mention of the kind you envisage is giving undue prominence for an overview.

You also need to separate WP:FACT from WP:OPINION, what you are suggesting is put into wikipedia's voice as fact, is the opinion of several authors. As such we could include it with attribution but not without. This also leads me to conclude it is too fine a detail for an overview. Writing an overview is quite nuanced and when we find ourselves including these little factoids we can find ourselves giving undue prominence to certain facts, which gives a misleading impression of their importance to the topic. Another reason to prune them.

Finally, you suggestion of the change to "the search for overseas settlements began". I am implacably opposed to such a change, it is incredibly misleading to imply there was any planning to the establishment of the British Empire. There never was a plan, it grew organically and more than author has commented on how the British gained an Empire by accident rather than design. WCM_email 08:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Britain had parts of France

If you are counting before the empire or even before Great Britain was formed than ignore this but England had a lot of territory in France during the 100 years war. The territory included Normandy and Anjou.

Thank you for reading. 79.64.4.61 (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think they ever did. Kings of England had territories in France which they had held before ascending the English throne. William the Conqueror for example was Duke of Normany before becoming King of England. This would put France in a similar category with Hanover, which was ruled by the Hanoverian kings but was not considered to be part of the Empire. TFD (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"England had a lot of territory in France"? I thought France had a lot of territory in England, with some claiming it still does. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I own several coins which show the French coat of arms imposed next to the Scottish/Irish/English ones, but the French coat of arms was removed 200 years ago when Britain dropped its claim to the French throne. --2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:14BC:1454:BB6C:619C (talk) 12:29, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Henry II was King of England, while at the same time being Lord of Ireland (papal title) duke of Normandy, Duke of Britany, Count of Anjou, and Duke of Aquitaine (by marriage) Sheikahh (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

description should say England/United Kingdom

early colonies of England prior to the acts of Union such as Bermuda and Jamestown are generally considered as an early form of the British empire and thus should be mentioned. description should probably also have dates such as 1607 - 1997 for example. (Not definitive dates) Sheikahh (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It already says this in the second line. But it would be wrong to simplify the short description to say what you proposed without the explanation provided by that second line. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Section: Americas, Africa and the slave trade

Sentence: Forts and trading posts established by the HBC were frequently the subject of attacks by the French, who had established their own fur trading colony in adjacent New France.

Because "Forts and trading posts" is grammatically, a compound subject, then both these entities had to be addressed i.e. "Forts" on its own is fine with "were frequently the subject of attacks" but "Forts and trading posts" needed to deal with there plurality and so I changed the sentence to "were frequently the subjects of attacks". Although this is grammatically correct Wee Curry Monster reverted saying it introduced incorrect grammar without stating what the incorrect grammar was. I then changed it to "subjects of attack" which is also structurally correct and what I presumed was WCM's objection. Again WCM reverted back to the original and made no attempt to address the compound subject within the sentence and summarised the revert with don't be silly. I then decided to change the sentence to remove the effect of the compound subject altogether and provided "Forts and trading posts set up by the HBC were frequently attacked by the French, who had established their own fur trading colony in adjacent New France". This avoided the compound subject issue and also removed the double "established" word. My edit summary at this point reflected my frustration at two unexplained reverts and being described as "silly" but regret my own inappropriate wording. Again WCM reverted for the third time without explaining the reason for the revert but telling me to take it to talk, so here I am. Bill Reid | (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The existing sentence is grammatically correct and based on what my understanding it appeared your changes were incorrect. So just to check I put all three versions into a spelling/grammar checker and I was surprised to find all three are correct. It's still a silly thing to edit war over, even sillier to call another editor an asshole for pointing it out. If I may suggest in future you follow WP:BRD as its excellent advice for avoiding frustration over editing. WCM_email 18:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Forts and trading posts" can be seen as a compound noun and can be seen as two separate nouns - it depends on the context and how the reader is taking in the information. There is no right or wrong here. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

WCM,

1. Please explain the reasoning of why the existing sentence is correct grammatically or maybe more importantly, since you reverted it, why my edits were grammatically incorrect?
2. I did not edit war, you did. I modified the sentence hoping to get agreement from you but your response was to revert, revert, revert. No explanations. So again, please, tell me why the suggested sentence (your third revert) that provides a no dubiety solution should not be used?
3. As regards my edit summaries, since you don't want to deal meaningfully with the dispute here I've already said that I regretted that part of my summary, but it was, if you re-read it, describing your edit summary, not you. Whereas yours was directed at me. Bill Reid | (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Roger, the "Forts and trading posts" isn't a compound noun but a compound subject of a sentence. I agree they are separate nouns but crucially, they are connected by an "and", and that makes it a compound subject. I have to say that how a reader takes in the information really doesn't have a bearing on this. So sorry, but there is a right or a wrong here. Bill Reid | (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Bill Reid, living languages develop and change all the time which is why we are not writing in the English of the Renaissance, or why we can use different grammar, vocabulary and spelling in different WP articles written in national variants of English. There sometimes is no right or wrong but only an "it depends". I am not sure if your comments here are an indulgence in self-mockery but if not then a friendly word of advice is that your posts come across as petty and those of a pompous twit, words that undoubtedly do not describe the real you, just your edits here. Whatever point you may have had in changing 'subjects' to 'subject' has been totally lost. If you want to make constructive contributions to this encyclopedia there is an almost infinite number of ways to do that beyond wasting time arguing over a misplaced comma, a preferred mood or tense. That sort of editing becomes important if the intended meaning changes or is unclear, which in this case it does. I look forward to your future, productive, improvements. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 10:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Well Roger, I must have touched a raw nerve. Plenty I could respond to in your comment but I resist the temptation. Have a nice day. Bill Reid | (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Since "forts" is actually plural, once would expect to see "subject"as plural too. We wouldn't say for example "Forts were large building." I have seen both versions in reliable sources. For example, in a BBC article: "embassy compounds in the Middle East were the subject of attacks" and "Military personnel in civilian settings have also been the subjects of attack."[2] There may be a rule for when to pluralize subject. If someone can find one, I would reconsider the wording. In the meantime, we should keep the original wording as it sounds better and there is no evidence that it is grammatically incorrect. TFD (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said I did run them through a spelling/grammar checker and it appears that all 3 versions are correct. I'm not really sure what you hope to achieve here Bill but I suggest you take a look at my talk page header, for some time I've had this note there:

“ As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting. ”

I said it was a silly thing to argue about and in response you called me an arsehole. Even then I resisted the temptation to reply in kind and simply politely suggested you take this to talk to explain your concerns. If you still feel there is some unresolved conflict here, next time I'm back in Scotland I'll look you up and buy you a beer and we can sort this out. Otherwise, seriously man, let it go. WCM_email 15:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

You said it was a silly thing to argue about and so it was and I'm not going over what I've already said. But, advice to you going forward, if you're going to revert any good-faith edit, then make sure that you give an edit summary (es) that allows the initial editor to make adjustments—ideally you would have corrected the first edit yourself without reverting. If you've reverted a good-faith edit a second time, you should have thought about why you've felt the need for that, and say so in your es. A terse "don't be silly " is unacceptable. A third good-faith edit that has been fully explained in the es (albeit with a robust criticism of the quality of your edit summaries) being reverted can be viewed as a bad faith revert but then to tell the initial editor to argue his case on the talk page when it should have been taken to the talk page by the reverting editor—ideally after the first revert with a note to the initial editor to join the discussion.

You invited me above to use WP:BRD and contained in that is WP:BRB Bill Reid | (talk) 17:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit on the British Involvement in the Partition of India

Section of the edit - subsection "Initial disengagement"

Add after ".....desired a separate Islamic state for Muslim-majority regions" and before "Increasing civil unrest and the mutiny of the Royal Indian Navy....." the following paragraph.

The divide between the two major parties reflects the religious tensions between the Muslims and the Hindus. This religious divide found its root in the British “divide et impera (divide and rule or divide and conquer)” strategy. . Some historians asserts that the British Raj instigated the divide between the religious groups through “define[ing] ‘communities’ based on religious identity and attach political representation to them” .

Reason for edit

In the current description, the British involvement in the partition and its consequences on the subsequent political development on the subcontinent is not established. Currently, this paragraph reads "after the partition, people on this continent fought against each other because they have religious conflicts", omitting the fact that "the way it was partitioned by the British empire" had significant impact on the outcome as well. Fallenleafinspring (talk) 10:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

• I'd object to this dubious Nationalist meme being added. The claim that the British invented religious divisions in India has always been convenient wishful thinking, & looks increasing absurd 70+ years after they left. Nor is it exactly relevant to the run up to Partition, which the British certainly did not seek. Refs include aljazeera and the Congress politian Sashi Tharoor. Where does the article say "after the partition, people on this continent fought against each other because they have religious conflicts"? It doesn't (nor should it)Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

  I believe that wikipedia should be a place where multiple popular points of views could be presented instead of being dominated by one point of view. The "after the partition, people on this continent fought against each other because they have religious conflicts" comes from the original paragraph on the current version:

  Millions of Muslims crossed from India to Pakistan and Hindus vice versa, and violence between the two communities cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

  As per your interpretation, it "should not" be represented this way. The current perspective is strongly biased towards the British Empire in its description, which risks underrepresenting different points of views and silencing the historically oppressed.

  In addition, I would love to see your engagement with the refs as currently you did not criticize their credibility or the content of the source. In addition, I want to challenge your point about this view being "convenient wishful thinking". When multiple sources pointed out a different ways to look at an issue which is inconvenient to the colonialist status quo, it should be dismissed as wishful thinking? What about evidence that supports the view that the British government did NOT have to do with the religious conflicts? Fallenleafinspring (talk) 10:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

  It would be more relevant to this article to add earlier on that the long-standing religious divisions in India enabled the British to take over north-western India rather easily, a succession of religiously-based empires (Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, plus assorted Muslim invaders) having fought themselves to a standstill over the 18th & early 19th centuries. All the nationalist leaders also supported the over-hasty timetable for partition, wrongly believing they could control their people. Johnbod (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

References

Adding citation for the casualty for the partition of India

Change the following paragraph in the section "Initial Disengagement"

Original: Millions of Muslims crossed from India to Pakistan and Hindus vice versa, and violence between the two communities cost hundreds of thousands of lives.

Edited: Millions of Muslims crossed from India to Pakistan and Hindus vice versa. The chaos ensuing the British Raj’s haste decisions and planning for partition led to violence and cost an estimated half-million to two million lives.

References

Reason for Change The original version has a ambiguous number that is not cited. Fallenleafinspring (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Not done, per comment above, this is deliberately introducing a partisan POV to the article. WCM_email 20:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I would love to understand how this is partisan POV. I'm merely correcting the numbers of casualty and establishing the connection between the British Raj's decision to its consequence with appropriate citing. Please point out how the sources do NOT support this POV and provide sources on how the British was NOT responsible for the casualties. Fallenleafinspring (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• On the narrow point of the number of casualties, the article gives only what seems to be the low-end of estimates. We should follow Partition of India, which gives a range reaching up into the 2 million range in the lead, though Partition_of_India#Missing_people below is not exactly in harmony with this. That article has better refs than those suggested here. Johnbod (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Happy to change the figures along the line you suggest John, remain opposed to the finger pointing the OP suggested. WCM_email 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

• Great, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 04:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No negative aspects of the Empire discussed

Concentration camps, massacres of civilians, economic devastation of vigorous economies, enforcement of the trafficking of drugs to populations, attempts at genocide are but a few of the less-discussed legacies of the British Empire. Why is there no discussion of the negative impact of the British Empire on the world on this page nor on the pages in the list of topics related to the British Empire? 90.251.107.140 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Minor and there is. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 19:29, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Most of it and more are mentioned but it's written in a dispassionate tone, which is a requirement. TFD (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Slaves

How were they treated in the new world? 86.14.196.134 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo's views on Hong Kong in the 2010s

Are irrelevant to the subject matter of this article and damage the prose of the 'End of empire' section, which could neatly end on "marked for many the end of empire" (which it did until two days ago) rather than a sentence about the actions of an unrelated government twenty years later. There were long discussions on keeping the topic of this article focused on a high-level summary of the related subject matter. The views of a US Secretary of State on China in the 2010s ain't doing that. See also Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, if a new insertion is reverted, editors should not restore the insertion. They should go to the talk page and get consensus for the new content. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm well aware of WP:BRD I suggest you review your edit summary, you asked me to provide a cite, I did. I would suggest you dial down on the confrontational attitude, its not conducive to collaborative editing and puts me into stubborn mode. If you treat me reasonably I will reciprocate.

I believe it is worth mentioning that the deal with China over Hong Kong, which guaranteed autonomy for 50 years has been reneged upon. That autonomy has been stripped away. Its relevant to the end of Empire. WCM_email 16:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree I do not see why Pompeo's views are relevant, he is not a historian or political scientist is he? Slatersteven (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My edit summaries do mention relevance: "The article is about the British Empire not the one being created by Chinese communists" and "This is not '... relevant content' because it ... is not about the British Empire". Celia Homeford (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

My edit wasn't about Mike Pompeo, it simply noted that China had essentially reneged on the deal. That was simply the first source I found to confirm it, I had been looking at others eg [3]. So it seems you are arguing against your own strawman. I haven't changed it as it seemed like an attempt to needle me into reverting you again. But I would propose to remove mention of Mike Ponmpeo and go back to the original simple edit I made supported by additional cites if need be. WCM_email 16:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not about Pompeo. That's just another strawman. It's about "the actions of an unrelated government twenty years later". Lots of tragic things happened in former colonies decades after the British left. We don't go around the article listing them. They're not relevant. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Original edit [4], as modified by the person complaining of reference to Mike Pompeo [5]. Your strawman not mine and rather silly to claim otherwise when the record is there. Really I do suggest you simply back off with this confrontational attitude, its completely unnecessary. Just to make the point again, my edit had nothing to do with Mike Pompeo and I would have been happy for the repetition I had inadvertently added removed. As to your point, this is more than a little different, the deal to hand over Hong Kong gave guarantees, it is a significant fact they have not been honoured. WCM_email 16:25, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What does this tell us about the British empire? Slatersteven (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That the way of life under the British Empire was guaranteed until 2047 but removed by 2020. WCM_email 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

In one place. There are still plenty of parts of the "rump" empire that are not under Chinese rule. So what does it tell us about the empire, not Hink kong or China, the empire? Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I presume you are talking about BOT? They are still considered in the article. The point being Hong Kong for many marked the end of Empire but that the influence of British rule was supposed to continue for another 50 years. WCM_email 16:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That reads like OR as I can't find that claim in the source, the implication this marked the end of empire. Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

'SILLY'. I'm not the one with the confrontational attitude from where I'm sitting. Celia Homeford (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the last territories after decolonization is too insignicant to mention. The U.S., Canada, Australia, South Africa, India, Pakistan, Nigeria and many other former colonies are certainly more significant. The section should instead be about the dicussion as to when the empire ended or whether that is a meaningful question. TFD (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Ireland colony or not

Struck text from user evading block
The only people who claim this are Irish Nationslists. Ireland was no more a colony of England or the UK than Hannover was, or England was an overseas colony of France. It is confusion medieval titles and holdings with colonial empires, it is completely misleading to include Ireland. 82.33.24.203 (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unsure as it seems to be it was settled in a colonial way. Slatersteven (talk) 10:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

[6] Its cited to the Oxford History of the British Empire, its difficult to argue against an authoritative source. WCM_email 10:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Phooey; the only bit to use the word much seems to be the article by Jane Ohlmeyer, dealing with the 17th century, and covering British "colonization" in Scotland as well. It is not normal for historians to decribe Ireland as a "colony" under the British. The colonial aspect of settlement mostly related to today's Northern Ireland. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: Nonsense. Whether or not Ireland was a colony remains an open question for historians. The suggestion that there is near-consensus against the claim—that those historians who refer to Ireland as a colony are doing something "not normal"—is frankly misleading. Stephen Howe describes the debate in relation to modern Ireland:

"The ensuing controversies have been intensely politicised and multifaceted, with argument over the place of colonialism in Irish history intertwined with the long running dispute between so-called 'revisionists' and their opponents (surely a tired and tiresome dispute by now, but one that refuses to go away) [...] [Irish studies is] dominated by two starkly opposed intellectual camps: revisionist and postcolonialist. As Linda Connolly has recently lamented, in some quarters it now appears as if Irish studies is postcolonial studies—a view that is perhaps especially prevalent in certain North American academic circles, [...] these are also, in significant measure, both inter- and intra-disciplinary battles. Literary scholars and cultural historians have tended to be far more receptive to colonial frameworks for understanding Ireland than have political, social or economic analysts. It is among some of the former that colonial and postcolonial paradigms have become the reigning 'common sense' in the way that Connolly (and, indeed, the present author) have criticised. Among the latter, they are still quite widely repudiated, dismissed or just ignored.

— "Howe, S. (2008) "Questioning the (Bad) Question: 'Was Ireland a Colony?'" Irish Historical Studies 36(142): 141–2."

Terrence McDunough devotes an entire book to the question—McDunough, T. (2005) Was Ireland a Colony? : Economics, Politics, and Culture in Nineteenth-century Ireland. Dublin: Irish Academic, 2005.

A couple of examples of authors who refer to modern Ireland as a colony:

• McCaffrey, L. J. (1979) Ireland, from Colony to Nation-state. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
• Honda, S. (2002) 'Tadashi Yamamoto: 'Kingdom' and 'Colony' : Ireland in the Early Modern British Empire', Study of Economic History, 6(1): 161-72.
• Moore, S.D. (2010) Swift, the book, and the Irish financial revolution: satire and sovereignty in Colonial Ireland. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Ohlmeyer, J. (2018) 'Eastward Enterprises: Colonial Ireland, Colonial India', Past & Present, 240(1): 83–118.

Separately, and as you are no doubt aware, it is usual—albeit this is not an uncontroversial convention (yet a convention it remains)—to refer to the Norman presence in mediaeval Ireland as "the colony" when distinguishing it from Gaelic Ireland.

If we refrain from calling Ireland a colony we are taking a partisan stance within an ongoing historical debate; there is no overwhelming bias among historians (i.e. in WP:RS) overall towards or against this language, except among mediaevalists where there is a strong bias towards it.

Kilopylae (talk) 14:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

In your long quote from S. Howe, nowhere does he call Ireland a colony or say that anyone else did. Furthermore, whether or not the Normans referred to the Pale as the Colony is irrelevant. We might refer to the Muslim colony in Dearborn. This is all synthesis. TFD (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean by "nowhere does he [...] say anyone else did"?—what about "argument over the place of colonialism in Irish history"; "it is among some of the former that colonial and postcolonial paradigms have become the reigning 'common sense'"; and, er, in the title, where "was Ireland a colony?" is treated as an established question. (Of course Howe himself doesn't think Ireland was a colony). Re the Normans, I said that historians (not Normans) refer to the Norman presence in Ireland (not the Pale; references to "the colony" include Kildare, Ormond and the Red Earl's lands) as a colony. It doesn't feel much like you read the same comment as I wrote. Kilopylae (talk) 16:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I vaguely recall a discussion (>10 years ago?) which led to an editorial decision on Ireland. I think it came down to semantics: we defined the article's scope as Britain's overseas empire - where 'overseas' should be read to mean 'a long way away' (i.e. not the distance between the Mull of Kintyre and Torr Head). I can't remember but would assume the decision was made largely to avoid the article getting drawn into the detail of the unresolved debate you refer to. I don't think we should say any less than we do. But should we say more? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The text actually says that England established its first overseas colony in Ireland, a reference to the Irish plantations, rather than that Ireland as a whole was a colony. But even that misrepresents the sources which say that the plantations were England's first practice of colonization in the modern era. Neither source refers to the plantations collectively as a colony. And in a legal sense it was not a colony because it remained part of Ireland legally. So I re-phrased it.[7] TFD (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

References

They weren’t a colony, they were a subject and later a union member with the same representation as England and Scotland Faxspitter (talk) 04:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Kingdom or Colony? English or British?: Early modern Ireland and the colonialism question is a good introduction for those unfamiliar with this topic.  Tewdar  14:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• Ireland and the British Empire: An Introduction,, Kevin Kenny, 9780199251841, pp 1-2: This book offers a history of Ireland’s relationship to the British Empire from the early modern era through the contemporary period. In seeking to determine the nature of this historical relationship, it moves beyond two conceptions that stand at opposite extremes in much popular and academic discourse. The first of these holds that Ireland was never, properly speaking, a British ‘colony’, or that it was at best unique, bafflingly anomalous, or, more vaguely, ‘semi-colonial’. The contrary position asserts that Ireland was always and self-evidently nothing other than a British colony. Neither position is of much use to the historian. Both posit some ideal colonial form against which the Irish case can be judged as either adequate or deficient, but no such form existed in historical practice. So, yeah, what @Kilopylae: said.  Tewdar  15:55, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Introduction on The Rise and Growth of the British Power

Introduction on this topic. 2409:4053:884:A5C1:0:0:1FAB:80AC (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The "New" British History and the "Colony" of Ireland

While it's apparently vogue on here to discuss Ireland as a "colony", British scholars today tend to focus more on how individual groups within the United Kingdom -The English, Irish, Scots and Welsh -experienced and contributed to Empire. And in the case of the Irish, there was considerable involvement[8].

What's the rationale for referencing Ireland only in the context of early "colonization" rather than direct involvement with the British Empire? If Ireland is to be mentioned just once in this article, what's so uniquely significant about the Ulster plantation and describing it in "colonial" terms with clear analogies to overseas colonization projects? Surely this framing of the conversation is itself historically and politically controversial.Jonathan f1 (talk) 00:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it was (in a sense) an early model for later colonies, and was unique within the British isles as a colony, rather than as an "equal" member of the union. Slatersteven (talk) 11:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

From the linked article: Ireland was thus both 'imperial' and 'colonial' at the same time, 'colonizer' but also 'colonized.'  Tewdar  11:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It says that part of Ireland was colonized, which is a reference to the Ulster plantation. Most people can see parallels between the plantation and later settlements in the overseas empire. But the concept that Ireland became a British colony upon its conquest by the Normans has no mainstream support. It bears more similarity to the feudal empires of Europe than to the capitalist empires that would emerge in the modern era. No one says for example that England became a colony of Normandy or France in 1066. TFD (talk) 12:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• We're confusing three different periods of history here: the High Middle Ages, the Early Modern Period, and Modern Irish History. To blur together Early Modern Ireland (the transition from Medieval history to Modern history) and Modern Ireland is essentially to conflate two largely distinct areas of historical scholarship; to speak of "English colonization" in Ireland as beginning with Medieval "Normans" is even worse. The only period of Irish history in which Ireland (or at least parts of the island of Ireland) can conceivably be called a "colony" is the Early Modern period. The oft-cited works that make references to "colonialism" to describe Ireland after the Act of Union and "postcolonialism" to describe the 26 counties after 1921 were almost entirely authored by Irish literary critics, who've been refuted by historians of Modern Irish history for more than 3 decades now (p.516[9], and also [10]).

But even describing Early Modern Ireland (or more specifically, Ulster) as a "colony" can be problematic without context. Early Modern Europe was characterized by the emergence of modern nation-states, which was a process that involved the annexation and bureaucratic control of small territories by larger and more powerful neighbors and the absorption of different ethnic groups into a common political and cultural mainstream. In this sense Brittany was a "colony" of France and Belgium was a "colony" of Spain and France; Northern Italy was "technically" colonized by the Austrians, and then annexed by Napoleon. So the context or analogy for Early Modern and Modern Ireland is European -not colonies of the Global South or indigenous tribes in North America[11].

• More problematic is the fact that Early Modern Ireland was not a single nation or even a confederation of tribes (like what was to be found in North America). It was a kingdom, a fiefdom and a wilderness of clans all at the same time, depending on which part of Ireland you were in. The resistance to the Tudor scheme was most fierce around The Pale, where the Old English attempted to preserve their feudal order; most of the Gaelic lordships, on the other hand, consented to the Tudor king (surrender and regrant) and sided with him against the Old English feudalists. It's hard to determine just who was colonizing whom.

In Ulster it was much the same story. Quote:

"Jane Olmeyer argues that late sixteenth-century Ireland does not lend itself so conveniently as a laboratory for empire as some scholars have proposed. Many ‘Irish Catholics proved reactive and responsive to imperial schemes’, and although sections of the Irish were perceived as barbaric and uncivil that view was by no means the monopoly of the imperialist: ‘Where Catholic and Protestant writers disagreed was how a civilising agenda might be best implemented’. Gaelic and Catholic aristocrats such as the earls of Antrim encouraged the plantation of English and Scottish settlers on their lands in their eagerness to become ‘improving’ landlords. Those ambitions were transferred abroad as early as the mid-seventeenth century; for example, in Montserrat the majority of colonisers were Irish Catholics, and according to a citation from Donald Harman Akenson’s study of that island’s colonial history ‘they well knew how to be hard and efficient slave masters’."[12]

So again we have a much more nuanced history than simplistic "colonial" analogies allow for. When Ulster was being "colonized" by English and Scottish settlers, Irish Catholics were establishing colonies in the British Leeward Islands (and as agents for other European empires in the Caribbean).Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Changes to the legacy section

Hello again all. X-Editor, GreenCows and myself have made additions to the legacy section over the last day. As significant changes to this article are often controversial, I invite scrutiny/peer review/comments from other editors on these revisions, so we can work together to ensure there's consensus for them. Best regards, Jr8825 • Talk 22:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

To be a bit more explicit, I think it's likely these changes will be controversial, particularly with regards to due weight over "common criticisms" (sourced to the Independent article added by X-Editor). A source review (e.g. [13]), and attempts to find compromise/nuanced wording may be necessary. Jr8825 • Talk 22:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jr8825: Some of the sources are a bit less adequate, so thanks for making the changes. X-Editor (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@X-Editor: I don't think this edit is a positive change, because Elkins' work has also been reviewed positively (e.g. by Erik Linstrum in History Today, which is available via the Wikipedia Library), and Ferguson has equally been subject to both praise and scathing criticism, so I don't think it's balanced to only include criticism of Elkins. My understanding is that Elkins and Ferguson represent the two poles of contemporary historians' attitudes to the empire, and consequently they both receive strong praise from those supportive of their views and strong criticism from those who disagree with them. I think it's better to simply summarise their views as there's not room here to include critical responses (which is better off at the sub-article on historiography). Jr8825 • Talk 23:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Why have you inserted historiography under legacy? I'm not sure it should be here at all since we have a separate article on historiography of the British Empire, but if it is then I would suggest it comes under its own heading with a pipe link to the main article on that topic so readers are taken to a more fullsome treatment of the topic(s). Also, while I understand why you've picked polar opposites to illustrate contrasting views, I'm not sure that's compatible with WP:N which emphasises proportionate weighting (NB I don't what the correct weighting is, just pointing out this isn't the right method for establishing it). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)