Talk:British Empire/Archive 12

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Image

This rather nice image was added today [1] but unfortunately it breaks the manual of style (the following of which is a requirement to reach FA status) because text is now sandwiched between two images. I'd say having two antique style maps from 1897 and 1898 is too much - which should we keep? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm... the original. It's centred on the mother country and has more detail. And looks nicer. And is a map not a stamp. Was that a trick question? :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh... OK... just checking. :-) I'm concious of myself reverting here too much based on the "ownership" feedback I got a while ago. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The deed has been done. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Papua was not a mandate

In http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/BritishEmpire1919.png/220px-BritishEmpire1919.png Papua is shown as a mandate. Only the former German colony of NG was a mandate. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1815 map is wrong re Canada

for one thing, the label should not say "Canads", which referred only to what is now (lower) Ontario and Quebec, and as a term did not include Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, or Rupert's Land; maybe the term "British North America" should be used, although it wasn't current at the time but at least it is collective rather than inappropriate. Also the Rupert's Land boundary doesn't go anywhere near far enough west, i.e. to the Rockies. Whether to designate the North-Western Territory, Columbia District or New Caledonia is maybe moot, as those weren't formally incorporated as part of the Empire, though being active trading areas of the HBC (Rupert's Land was actually titular, which the other three were not). The 141st longitude boundary with Russian America was extant by then, though not formalized until 1825, though later Russian maps showed Russian claims extending to Great Slave Lake and beyond; but all those areas were "British claims" if not "British territories". And also, if added to the map, like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia they should not be labelled "Canada".`Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

I wanna see a graph of HDI vs. time since the beginning of British colonization for each of the countries that were formerly part of the British empire. --Jwray (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Plantations of Ireland

Regarding this edit [2] phrases like "are seen as", "is seen to have" are a kind of unsupported attribution per WP:WEASEL. In the light of the "was Ireland a colony" debate which SGGH is concerned about representing both sides of, I changed that paragraph to remove the viewpoints entirely, so it now sticks to the facts of the matter - that (a) Englishmen were "settling" Ireland (no mention of "colonising") and that (b) some of these same Englishmen went on to colonise North America. This lets the reader make up their own mind as to whether Ireland was being "colonised". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems a fair way of balancing it. SGGH ^ping! 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FLORIDA

Flordia should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.148.142 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It already is mentioned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oman

There is a discussion on the Talk:Oman page regarding whether Oman was a part of the British Empire. 88.106.67.84 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning Spam

Cleaned triple post by 86.157.91.112 -Woobie--88.112.25.38 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No end

The British Empire has not ended. There is still a British empire tday, it's just much smaller than it was. Places like Gibralta, Bermuda, the falkland isles and various others are still overseas territories that for he empire of the United Kingdom. In addition to this although nowhere near as gigantic as it was during its height the British empire is still the largest in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.91.112 (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S

I didn't mean to write it twice don't know why that happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.91.112 (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for starters, the current French overseas territories (that is: the parts of France that aren't in Europe) are more numerous and more populous than the current British overseas territories. I suspect the same may even be true of American overseas territories, again depending on definition! David (talk) 23:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

And the Empire was never a legally definable entity: it was a mind set rather than anything else. The term 'Imperial government' was simply a synonym for the government of Great Britain. We can't define the moment when the Empire ended. It quietly and subtlely declined and faded into oblivion. But I suppose it was most notable after WWII. Retaining some overseas territories does not an empire make. If it were, as Dpaajones has said, France, the USA, Denmark, and even Australia and New Zealand have at least as great as claim to empire.Gazzster (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Attrocities

There should be a section on crimes, atrocities, assasination, exploitation, theft on resources, famine due to forced export controls by the govenor, genocide, ethnocide, slavery, degradation and ‘divide/rule’ Prudish (talk) 08:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I should not even be responding to you because you should be serving a lengthy ban for your racism. But lets be clear, the article covers matters like slavery and what you may perceive as genocide, there is no need for a full section simply to push a certain POV. This article has achieved Featured Article status, so clearly the community feels the article is balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

--That may not be the same individual as banned. Secondly should they be banned, I will take up where they left. There is a large post on about this on one of the black nationalist forums. So many people have been interested in this. We do have grievences against the British Empire for the position we are now in. I think it would be incorrect of you to not address those on here. There are various historical texts that can back that up. I will be helping to create that section if need be. The idea of wikipedia is that we all strive to create an evolving body of text reflectant upon the truth. Supercede (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Which black nationalist forum, do you have a link to the debate please? BritishWatcher (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to the forum would help prove people are separate editors and not the same person evading his block because thats what it seems at the moment with similar edits within a short space of time. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I would not have a problem with a mention of Divide and rule, a vital military and political tactic although it would deserve nothing more than a sentence in a relevant section somewhere. But i will be opposing all of your suggestions until you have served your block. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 09:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be unwise. As said before there are grievences and maybe this section should be titled grievences. Supercede (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Also you cannot play down the past by saying it deserves nothing more than a sentance. That's just mundane. You have to understand and accept other peoples' view on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercede (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that there is merit in a separate article. We after all have one on mass killings under communism and several others. There are a large number of documented atrocities over the years of Empire, including accidental genocide, or genocide by neglect. I agree that it is not a section here however. --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

agreed in principle Supercede (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What I am trying to relay here, is that there are ample possibilities for expansion on this article. British people should be both proud and dismayed at the empire. It cannot and must not be just one sided with achievements. For instance the British Empire extended railways across India which is a great accomplishment. However forced labour was used, marshal law was imposed in some states and the indigenious population was bled dry to perform that work. My understanding is that BritishWatcher considers himself as a member of the the indigenious population the UK. From your previous posts, it seems abundantly clear to me that you wish certain minorities to respect the will of the majority. However as you can see that same belief you hold was not upheld in India by your very own people.Prudish (talk) 10:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It would need some work in a sandpit. Basically develop a list of events etc. by geography I would think. That includes specific events )the post mutiny massacres in India, Opium Wars in China, the Tasmanian herding of aboriginals to their death, concentration camps in South Africa, the Black and Tans) as well as generic material relating to racism etc. Getting a structure and list together would then allow individual events to be filled out with references. That article could then be referenced from this one. If people are interested I will happily set up a working area. --Snowded ^TALK 10:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow this is getting to be a very POV conversation already. Let me say this this article is for an overview of the British Empire. The actions taken in particular places, and even those actions themselves, have their own articles. This page should stay a summary. If a new page was to be created called atrocities of the British Empire then it would have to be worded very carefully indeed, although it could be created. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say its POV, its very common on WIkipedia to provide summary pages with links when there is a common theme. All Empires end up carrying out these sort of actions and the British one is no different from others, it just occupied more continents! This article is not the place to do that though, other than a reference to it as a linked article. It would be POV if it was a rant, but its not POV if it links to other articles and/or provides referenced material. --Snowded ^TALK 10:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably contributes to NPOV to have more material on atrocities committed in the BE, provided the material is accurately written and well sourced. This article is structured as a sequential timeline, so any additions in the current structure would need to fit into that flow, rather than be as a seperate section. Sometimes things that are pinned at the door of the BE are, when analysed closely by historians, more complex. The book Late Victorian Holocausts goes into this in great detail and could be referenced. We also already have articles like Genocides in history and Australian_genocide_debate#Genocide_debate (Snowded mentions the Tasmanian massacres) that address some of these issues. In some cases, disease introduced by settlers (as with the Spanish conquests of Central and South America) killed far more than direct killing. The word "genocide" is also a modernism that is not always applied accurately or with sufficient thought to past events and their contexts. We also need to avoid the "blame game" - Wikipedia is an encylopedia, not a platorm for expressing deeply-held personal views. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I do think it would disrupt this article (and its hard won status) James, better to have a new one. The genocide issue is an interesting one, OK its a semi-modern phrase and you have the issue of sins of omission and commission argument (is it as bad to let something happen as to do it). Atrocities might be too emotive a word, a lot of the events were consequences of imperial ambition and by the standards of the day normal practice. Fancy working on it? --Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

James what you have just said there is key. A platform for expressing deeply held personal views. When you read the British Empire article from start to finish it comes across as a deeply-held personal view of the great things of the empire. The article needs to be more neutral and more balanced. As I am sure you will agree that not everybody can be satisfied by its neutrality. Supercede (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to be specific --Snowded ^TALK 10:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow this is getting to be a very POV conversation already. Let me say this this article is for an overview of the British Empire. The actions taken in particular places, and even those actions themselves, have their own articles. This page should stay a summary. If a new page was to be created called atrocities of the British Empire then it would have to be worded very carefully indeed, although it could be created. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC) I have no issue with this being a summary and am open to more ideasSupercede (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If theres any specific changes you want to make to the article to make it more WP:NPOV, feel free to bring it up in this talk page! Mention specific changes, not a general idea for a change please. Makes it easier on all of us :) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd encourage everyone to read what this editor (who is posting under two account names) posted here as an anon IP. [3] Highlights are "I hate the white man" and "I live and breathe to undermine the country that I live in." If anyone thinks they'll be able to have a rational conversation with them about what is and is not NPOV, good luck. I know I won't be contributing to the discussion.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thoroughly amused by that little tirade, showed me another side of life. Good job figuring out its the same person.Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally do not agree with what the first editor commented on, and its because of some the discussion posts by the likes of professor kambon that encourage that kind of thought. Wikipedia is not the place to write those comments. In any case I have been busy compiling a list of sources and information that I hope to submit at some point and it would be great if others could help..Supercede (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I did check it Red Hat and I hold no brief for that that type of comment. The fact remains however that this subject does come up from time to time, sometimes associated with stupid comments, sometimes less so. I think we need to address the content issue somewhere. --Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a serious issue, no matter how mad the messenger. The "what constitutes and constituted a genocide" debate is wiki-wide and affects a whole number of article areas. Probably needs a guideline fighting about for it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually highly uncomfortable when people throw around modern words with their connotations on historical events. Sometimes they are accurate, other times they seem to distort the reality of what happened. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Judgements like these about the British Empire are really a matter for historiography: they change over time. As the Historiography volume [4] of the Oxford History of the British Empire says "...opinions have changed dramatically from one generation to the next on the nature and role of imperialism generally, and the British Empire more specifically." In fact, while Googling for the URL of that book, I just found this article: Historiography of the British Empire. I'd suggest that is the right place for this kind of matter, where views (both past and present) on the British Empire can be reported in an encylopaedic and neutral way, rather than editors themselves collating and classifying events as "genocide" or "atrocities". The act of collation itself is a form of original research and should be avoided - I think those articles mentioned above on "Communist atrocities" are terrible: even the title is value laden and therefore not neutral. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright then, a sentence or two should be left at British Empire#Legacy which states that opinions about the British empire and its effect are varied, and link to that article you mentioned. Agree? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that seems to be like an appropriate location to cover these sorts of thing rather than a whole separate article which is likely to become flooded with POV pushers. If that article is not linked or mentioned anywhere in this article/see also section it should be added.

I am slightly concerned we are having this debate right now at all though considering what has caused it. A racist, potential block evader and some canvassing on some militant black nationalist forum by the sounds of it, it hardly gives one confidence about where all this may lead. lol i had to stop half way through typing this to stand for the national anthem. GSTQ! :) BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

It is like reading an extreme newspaper. I am slightly concerned that you are not interested in a debate or editing the British Empire to have neutral views. Where do you get of on this idea that 'some canvasing on some militant black nationalist forum.' I think that is despicable and offensive to say that. Do you have any proof to what your saying. What has the national anthem got to do with it? I prefer to chime to GSTB! You may not like where this debate is heading, but that is something your going to have to deal with. You opened a can of worms so deal with it. Supercede (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I just noticed that this article was already in the "See Also" section. I'm not sure I agree with putting it in the "legacy" section though: the legacy of the British Empire is a different matter to its rights and wrongs (in the same way that, say, determining Lenin's "legacy" to the world after his death is not the same thing as determining whether what he did during his life was morally correct. I vote that the link stays in the "See Also" section and anyone in future raising this issue be directed towards it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Other major expansionist states have similar articles, as for example in the case of Soviet Union has Human rights in the Soviet Union, Soviet war crimes, the Great Purge, etc. I'm not directly equating the BE eith the Soviet Union, but there's no valid reason why an extensive article detailing the BE's many faults can't be added, provided it is all sourced, NPOV, verifiable, etc. Similarly there's no reason why we can't have Merits of the British Empire if it can all be verified and written up neutrally. As you probably gather, I'm not a deletist. :-) Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

James is right. If you google British Empire legacy, you will see some articles all covering the good and the bad. That is what the legacy is about. Please look at the R.Gott article in the guardian. Then there are text books by Davis, Wilcoms etc. that deal with warcrimes and human rights. Then there are those who worked for the British Empire who have memoirs and comments. I am not doubting that there may have been some good in the legacy, but there is also a lot of bad. This needs to be carefully written up not in a 'see also' section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercede (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to take a bet that the articles about Soviet atrocities were not created to make a better more neutral encyclopaedia! But that's beside the point. The effect the British had on their subjects is an undeniable part of the legacy of the British Empire. The historiography is a reflection by people now of what the empire did. It fits perfectly within the legacy, and is probably worth a mention there. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunk - Exactly. The British empire affected over 1/4th of the land surface of the globe. If Redhat et al would like to create a section on the legacy of the British Empire in England then I shall not object that. But the empire had a profound affect from the caribean to the indian oceam to the middle east. From a historical point of view we are seing that unfold right now before us in the middle east, in Sri-Lanka, in India, in Pakistan, in Afghanisthan, Ethopia, South Africa, Jamaca etc.. Afterall we are all British citizens. Everyone who ever lived inside the nations of the empire was a citizen of that empire even if they were second class or third class. Supercede (talk) 14:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

second class citizens 'In East and Central Africa demand for independence from British rule represented a threat to the large number of white African settlers who owned large farms and businesses there. The British government tried to find ways of giving countries like Kenya and Rhodesia independence without creating a situation like the one in South Africa where black Africans were second-class citizens. Equally, they did not want white Africans to become disadvantaged. African nationalists were frustrated by the slow progress towards independence. In the 1950s Kenya was rocked by the Mau Mau rebellions against British rule. The British resisted the Mau Mau, but eventually it was clear that they had to withdraw from Kenya. In fact by the 1960s the British were ready, even keen, to pull out of most of Africa. Kenya became an independent state in 1963, led by the nationalist leader Jomo Kenyatta. Somalia, Uganda, Tanzania, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho and Swaziland all gained independence between 1960-1968.' This shows that a legacy of the empire was acknowledgement that us blacks continued to be relegated to second class citizens, not only in south africa but even in Zimbabwae. Whats more. Also the downfall of the empire should also list the succesful rebellions and I quote the same source where '.....had to withdraw from kenya...' Supercede (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What I read from that source is that the Empire tried to create countries of equals in its empire, to prevent a south africa, but each to his own i guess. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

lol yes BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In the spirit of good faith and cooperation Supercede are you willing to provide us with a link to the forum where this matter was discuss?, you mentioned a large post at a black nationalist forum earlier. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You have shown none (calling us black militants is something I do not take kindly to) and if you could kindly post such comments on my talk page. An appology and a retraction of some of your statements could go a long way BritishWatcher Supercede (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong end?

I understand that many people say that in 1997 the UK lost the 'last major territory', but isn't it exaggerated that it was the 'end of the empire'? I mean they still have 14 left (thats a fair number!) so why hail it as 'the end' when a quatre of a million people still live in these overseas territories? Bezuidenhout (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think its fair to consider it the end and all the stuff in the article is sourced. The ceremony was very moving to watch. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Quarter of a million is less than the population of Aberdeen. Even with the Falklands, etc. I agree with BW that the Empire ended when the British government gave Hong Kong back to the Chinese government. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Prince Charles who made the famous statement at that ceremony that it represented the end of the British Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

UN as the cause of decolonization

This edit [5] is not good in my view. First, it is synthesis to plonk tha reference in there to support the claim made. Second, it's not even true - for example, the leadup to decolonization in India started well before the UN even existed. And it was the Vietnamese who precipitated the withdrawal of the French, not the UN. I think the original text should be restored. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should give him a chance to find a proper reference which claims what he asserts. A whole subsection of the UN website is not specific enough, but I can imagine that somewhere it might make a claim of that sort, whether it's true or not. (Which it isn't of course...) Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on the person adding material to provide references so I'm reverting this change and letting him know about it on his talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MrTranscript - this Britannica article [6] is as good as any explaining why decolonization occurred: (1) opposition to colonialism by the USA and USSR; (2) independence movements in the colonies themselves; (3) lack of domestic support for maintaining empires. Sure, the UN was, as part of its charter, opposed to colonialism [7] and there is a Special Committee on Decolonization, but to imply that the British Empire or indeed any other empire ended due to "UN pressure" is completely wrong. The UN is toothless as far as decolonization goes, as, for example, Gibraltar's continuing presence on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories attests to. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look for sources. I just feel that the sentence implies that decolonisation ended with Hong Kong, when in fact it didn't. Also, dispite the odd exception as stated above, European nations did not want to completely decolonise, but the UN wanted them to. MrTranscript (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Atlantic Charter initiated by the US and a somewhat reluctant Great Britain was a major impetus toward de-colonisation and formed a cornerstone of the nascent UN. However references should be sought for that demonstrates how the US practically applied the Charter to territories of Britain.Gazzster (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Ball Games

Given the brief mention we are only able to devote to profound events in world history such as the Palestine crisis or the founding of the USA, do we really need a lengthy sentence on the history of ball games? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It is lengthy.

"Ball games that were developed in Victorian Britain—association football, cricket, rugby league football, rugby union football, lawn tennis and golf[182]—were exported and formed the basis for popular variations especially in English-speaking countries, notably American and Canadian football."

Why not just change it to "Ball games developed in Britain were exported and sometimes adapted into local variations."? The list is unwieldy. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Invention of football and rugby or a minor conflict in another part of the world.. Hmmm i know what i think is more notable lol, and western media would agree. On a serious note, i wouldnt oppose the legacy section being expanded to talk more of the legacy, such as creations of states and the major troubles like Pakistan/India and Palestine vs Israel etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Palestine? What's Palestine?"

You do have a point though BW. I've read essays and even books on the legacy of the British Empire. Come to think of it, I'm surprised it doesn't have its own article. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In any case they're not all ball games exactly. For instance ice hockey (which developed from shinty) uses a puck; curling, which developed from bowls, uses stones. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well they're not mentioned in the list so as it stands it's correct; it could always be rewritten as "Sports that were developed..." though. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that they're not mentioned in the list but then it isn't a particularly complete list. It doesn't include sports events such as Highland Games. As for the rest of the section, some of the cultural stuff, such as common law or Anglicanism, is mentioned but not others such as Presbyterianism, or cultural organisations such as Pipe bands. The whole section is rather hit-or-miss. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that one sentence is too much. The sporting/cultural legacy of the Empire is worthy of this small inclusion. A statement that "some sports were exported or adapted" is too vague and wouldn't inform the reader of much of anything. LunarLander // talk // 18:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence in its entirety while this is disputed. First, two points of order: (1) the first of the supplied references is not a reliable source per the guidelines (seems to be self-published, and the author is not even attributed); (2) ignoring (1) for now, neither mention anything at all about the British Empire, so the claim here that they are a legacy of it is pure synthesis:

Referenced statement 1: rugby, football etc were a legacy of the British Empire

Referenced statement 2: American football developed from rugby, football etc

Claim in article: American football is a legacy of the British Empire NO! that's synthesis

Ignoring (1) and (2), as far as American football is concerned, it was invented long after US independence. Unless everything that happened in the United States is attributed to the British Empire (the BE put a man on the moon?), this is not a "legacy" of the British Empire. The exporting of football and rugby was the legacy, and then after that things took on a life of their own. Of course, I'd be happy to be proved wrong, if someone can put forward a reliable source stating specifically stating that American football is a legacy of the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The spread of football and other sports was part of the legacy of empire. Maybe it should avoid directly mentioning AMerican football if thats what it said, but stuff about football should remain. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's a long standing section, I've put it back for the time being. However, Pat has a reasonable point; it would be useful to identify exactly which sports are clearly linked to the Empire. Cricket and rugby are obvious examples; what else is there? Black Kite (t) (c) 22:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Black Kite, not that it really matters, but to address the tone of your edit comment, I originally added this "encylopaedic content" which you are tacking onto the end to. Anyway having got home and found my copy of the (Olson, Historical Dictionary of the BE [8]) reference on which I based it - this is what it states: "Most organized team and individual sports originated in Victorian England....and many games followed the flag to distance places, such as South Africa, India, New Zealand and Canada. Victorian Britain's chief contribution was the development of ball games, particularly soccer (or association football), cricket, lawn tennis and golf. Of these association football (or soccer) and its offshoots, rugby and American football, have been the most important from an international point of view." So I propose keeping the original reference to source the entire sentence, drop specific mention of Canadian football - then we do not have a case of synthesis. Then we shorten it to something like: "Individual and team sports that were developed in Victorian Britain, particularly ball games such as association football (from which other sports such as rugby and American football were derived), cricket, lawn tennis and golf—were exported." Also, I suggest that linking to the Football article suffices instead of listing rugby football, rugby union etc etc (although some people like to be anal about the distinction between RU and RL, this is an article on the BE). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Hat, Olson may not be the most reliable source to use in this particular instance as he erroneously thinks rugby and American football are offshoots of association football. I support the retention of the article's current list, though maybe with improved wording, but should the consensus be to reduce it, I suggest "...ball games including several codes of football, cricket..."

While Canadian football may be less notable worldwide than American football, it seems a little wrong to remove it from an article on the British Empire; especially when it was proto-Canadian footballers who inspired the Americans at Harvard to send away for a rugby football rule book following a challenge match. LunarLander // talk // 02:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Codes of football works for me. Whatever reduces the listcruft. We need the Olson ref (he's just the editor btw) because it ties the sports to the BE. We certainly don't need to be getting into what came from what in this article, though, and the Olson ref shouldn't be thrown out because of this sporting technicality. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, change made per suggestions and agreement here. I think it reads much better than both the original and the modified version. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

USSR & USA Reason For British Decolonisation?

'Both nations opposed to the European colonialism of old, though American anti-Communism prevailed over anti-imperialism, which led the US to support the continued existence of the British Empire.' Who is writing this garbage? The two main factors which led to Britain decolonizing was economic and home-grown (Great Britain) ideological reasoning (see Darwin's British decolonization since 1945: A pattern or a puzzle?) to suggest that the USSR or America has some sort of say is frankly ludicrous. The reality is that the British people's themselves abandoned Empire due to both economic and ideological reasons, much as how slavery was abolished two hundred years earlier then it's abolition policed worldwide by the Royal Navy.Twobells (talk) 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that sentence is referenced so you can check it out yourself. In case you can't locate a copy of The Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century search inside at Google Books here, page 330, I'm pasting in the text here: American assistance allowed the British Empire to revive before it collapsed. The American support of the British Empire was an arrangement neither side cared to publicize, the British because it was humiliating to be so dependent on the United States, the Americans because the support of empire seemed at variance with historic principles...In the American mind anti-Communism always prevailed over anti-imperialism and thus gave the British Empire, at least, an extended lease of life. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC) ps if you think the US had no say at all, have you heard of the Suez Crisis?

If the USA was propping up the British Empire, it did rather a bad job of it. They did not prevent the independence of India, friendly to the Soviet Union for a while, nor the collapse of the African empire from the fifties to the eighties. Nor the independence of Cyprus with all the tension that occasioned. Thousands of Americans were supporting the IRA. Remember that the dismantling of empire was one of the conditions of America entering the European War in 1942 (Atlantic Charter). Ideologically the US was geared toward self-determination of peoples, albeit only when it served its interests. It's probably more correct to say that the US supported Britain's interests when they coincided with their own. The Suez is a case in point. Suez was as just as much about trade and oil as about keeping the Soviets out of Egypt. Gazzster (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

As this talk page is supposed to be a discussion about the article rather than a general debating forum for airing one's personal theories, are you proposing to change the text? If so please put forward some reliable sources. You (not me, or the article) mention "propping up". But here's a quote using that term (from the same author as I quoted above, in a different text) p. 456 "By (1947) the Americans were doing a great deal to prop up the Empire, especially in the eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East." But regardless, all the article says is "the US (supported) the continued existence of the British Empire". The article does not say that the USA was the "reason" for British decolonisation (to address the original poster who seems to be confused) and nor does it say that it was actively working to somehow stop specific acts of decolonization (to address your post). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can quote Robert Louis Red Hat, but who is he? Is his opinion any more personal than mine? The text in question is ambiguous. You've just clarified it,(according to your own mind) by a personal commentary. But the sentence as it stands could be read to mean the USA backed the Empire. Full stop. In fact it's the most obvious reading. Gazzster (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are both of course equally entitled to your personal opinions, but the big difference is that William Roger Louis is an established expert in the field making his opinions reliable sources, whereas you (like me) are just some guy who is contributing to Wikipedia, making your opinions original research. Wikipedia articles are written using the former and not the latter, for the simple reason that it's the only way to write a trustworthy and reliable encyclopaedia. The easiest way to get into this mindset is to ignore what you think on the subject, do some reading on the topic (Google Books and Amazon.com allow you to read a vast amount for free so you don't even have to leave the computer), and then only allow yourself to make a non-trivial edit to Wikipedia if you have the text on which it is based in front of you. On that note, if you can provide reliable sources which differ with his opinions, then we have a discussion on our hands. I'll respond by providing other sources - he's not in a minority of one in holding this view. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Louis is but one source. With historical articles such as this one, events are subject to the analysis and interpretation of historians, who will inevitably disagree. Louis, respectable as he may be, is offering an interprtetation of events according to facts as he interprets them. It may be the only logical interpretation. It may not be. History is not an exact science. But I'm not so much arguing what he says as how it matches the assertion: 'both nations opposed to the European colonialism of old, though American anti-Communism prevailed over anti-imperialism, which led the US to support the continued existence of the British Empire.' This is a statement which lends itself to some ambiguity and could be modified. That's what these discussion pages are for. I don't need to be as expert as Louis or anyone else to observe this. The USA did not support the British empire per se. Ideologically the US is anti-colonial. The Atlantic Charter was a major decolonising factor. The Monroe Doctrine remains US policy. Former colonies of the empire were backled by the US as long as they were pro-Us or at least anti-communist, such as South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Fiji. The Suez Crisis, which you have cited, is precisely an example of the US not supporting British imperial interests. In this case Eisenhower was wary of conflict with the Soviet Union. Not only did he not support Britain, he tried to thwart British efforts, as this article discusses. When the Soviet Union was not involved the US showed no particular concern in supporting the dependencies of Britain unless it served US interests to do so.The obvious proof of this is the wholesale dismemberment of the empire after WWII, in which the US aquiesed. Neither you nor Louis assert that the US supported the continuing existence of the empire per se. Fine. But the text suggests otherwise. I am proposing modifying the text to say that the US supported British foreign interests as a means of checking the communist bloc. Which is not of course the same as saying the US supported the continuing existence of the empire. And if we are going to modify the text we ought to provide a variety of supporting references.Gazzster (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I repeat, please put forward some reliable sources. Your interpretations of history are irrelevant (as are mine). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand you. We are agreeing aren't we, that the US didn't support the BE per se? And didn't I just finish my comment by saying, 'if we are going to modify the text we ought to provide a variety of supporting references '?If your interpretations are as 'irrelevant' as mine, then so is your reference. So surely the impetus is just as much on you to support your interpretation of the text (whatever that is now). And didn't I just refer to the Suez Crisis, which this article discusses with sourced material?! What exactly is your objection?Gazzster (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

All I'm saying is you need to put forward references rather than rubbishing the existing reference based on what you "know". Personally, I'm comfortable with the existing wording, but then I authored it (based on the Louis reference). To repeat the reference I based it on, "American assistance allowed the British Empire to revive before it collapsed. The American support of the British Empire was an arrangement neither side cared to publicize, the British because it was humiliating to be so dependent on the United States, the Americans because the support of empire seemed at variance with historic principles...In the American mind anti-Communism always prevailed over anti-imperialism and thus gave the British Empire, at least, an extended lease of life." Nowhere does that sentence add the proviso you want, so if you want to change the text, provide a reference which does. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:08, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read what I have said rather than making assumptions, which is what you appear to be doing. As I have said, I am not objecting to the reference. I am questioning the wording of the text to which the reference is attached, and whether that wording actually matches what Louis is saying. Because in the context of the reference the meaning of the text is ambiguous.Gazzster (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If more specific examples of how the USA did this could be provided from the source, that would be useful. Maybe it would be better clarifying that the USA liked it as a barrier to communism. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found some sources which explicitly make the proposed claim. Will post here shortly so we can agree on an acceptable wording based on what those sources say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's one, from [9]: "After the war, however, when the Soviets emerged as a potential rival on the world stage, American attitudes to European colonialism tended to be shaped principally by Cold War imperatives. Where colonialism was viewed as a bulwark against communism, the USA was happy to allow its retention." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

A variation of that text might be more balanced --Snowded ^TALK 07:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. Yes, that's what I was trying to say, Red Hat, though perhaps not clearly enough.Gazzster (talk) 12:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How dis? [10] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cool.Gazzster (talk) 00:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyperpower/superpower/great power

I just reverted a change to pipelink to hyperpower instead of great power, for the same reasons I stated before [11]. Also, a quick back of the envelope search in Google books (I realise this is very imperfect, but it's a good indication nevertheless):

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

btw once upon a time I think "power" linked to Power in international relations. Perhaps that is the best choice of all as it avoids picking one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on the different types of power, from the project homepage it goes... "In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of powers, which include the following: Superpower – In 1944, Fox defined superpower as "great power plus great mobility of power" and identified 3 states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States. China, the European Union and India are often considered potential superpowers. Great power – In historical mentions, the term great power refers to any nations that have strong political, cultural and economic influence over nations around it and across the world. China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are often considered to be great powers. Regional power is also used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of power. Many countries are often described as regional powers, among those are Italy,[5][6][7][8][9] South Africa, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, and Indonesia. Middle power is a subjective description of second-tier influential states that could not be described as great powers. Australia, Canada, India, Spain,Poland, Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea are commonly considered to be major middle powers alongside other middle powers. India and Brazil are also sometimes considered to be potential future great powers."

'Hyperpower' possibly also would fit also but this usage while used, is quite rare. I believe for the purposes of understanding 'Superpower' should be used rather than 'Great power' which poorly reflects the British Empires power considering it is regularly applied to the British Empire, more so than Hyper-power. I believe this article should be consistent with the established scales of international power. What are the opinions of other editors? G.R. Allison (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Providing there are no objections I'll change it to superpower then, which is the most applicable, soon. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the wording should be changed, the UK is described as a Great power today so clearly a distinction needs to be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of the superpower article says: "It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire" BritishWatcher (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So if the term was first used in 1944 there is no point in pipelinking to superpower. Looking at the wording it clearly points out the BE was the leading global power over a certain period. That is fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought hyperpower was a modern term, used to describe the US exclusively, so not clear why that would even come up as an issue. I must say that I prefer Great Power, for several reasons. I didn't know superpower was invented as early as 1944, but it seems to be a modern phrase. I understood the phrase to be mainly a cold war usage, referencing nuclear-armed states also capable of world-wide war fighting. In the cold war, this was generally taken to refer to the USA and Soviet Union. Britain was of course not nuclear until some years after the war. It was capable of world-wide war in the days of the British Empire, more so than in the second world war, when it struggled, even with naval power, at which it was pre-eminent. The generally accepted term in the 19th century was Great Power and as historical articles in Wikipedia usually use relevant terms of the time, that would seem appropriate. Superpower sounds a little anachronistic and hyperpower certainly so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"foremost global power." with global power linking to Great power seems the least problematic and most accurate. So no need for a change i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I vote to keep "great power" too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with great power though, is that to many people it will signify a lower standing than Superpower. The modern UK is a great power while the British Empire was undoubtedly a superpower. Superpower has been applied to the British Empire retroactively also. Simply put, my point is describing the BE as a great power is essentially wrong in modern usage of the term. Perhaps further discussion or a compromise is in order? As The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick mentioned the text once linked to Power in international relations and I propose we simply put it back to that as that contains information on all the categories of international power. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through all this, MrGRA's solution seems good, an alternative being an explanation of status in the text, which may be possible, may not be. Historically the empire (and the UK) was regarded as a great power, such as in the preWWI era when the 5 powerful states of Europe are known as the Great Powers. However, using Great power in that context is an anachronism, the meaning having changed. Thus using great power in this context seems as anachronistic as using superpower. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a historical article - the historical term "Great Power" in relation to the British Empire is supported by the weight of sources. Modern terms, as described in the article Power in international relations, are not supported. It is not for us to revise history and recategorise something. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be a historical article, but it still must be accessible by ordinary people. Besides, it is a pipelink, so the chosen word does not even appear in the text, and the link to power in international relations may be more helpful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We are at risk of being anachronistic on both fronts here. I doubt that Great Power is the correct usage for the modern UK. Great Power is surely a 19th century term, referring to the British, Russian, French and German empires in the European and colonial contexts. It may be referenced otherwise in some esoteric academic sources, but it is never or rarely used in the modern media except in a historical sense - see [12] for example. Modern UK is surely a nuclear state, a key member of the Anglosphere, etc, but it isn't a Great Power in the old sense of that term. In a similar way, the British Empire was in it's heyday (let's say 1895 for the sake of argument) regarded as the Leading or Pre-eminent Great Power. It vied with France and Germany and it wasn't always clear-cut. It certainly did not have (as WWI all to sadly proves!) the power to totally destroy at will it's leading rival(s), which is strongly implied in the term superpower. As with genocide, this is an example of modernisms being debated in a past context where they are not always accurate or relevant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To keep this on track, it's best not to be making personal arguments for this or that term. Once you find yourself saying X and Y therefore Z, you are engaging in original research. Look at what the sources say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - where exactly was I saying something that cannot be sourced in your doubtless humble opinion? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While we're discussing this, I'd like to also point out that historians refer to Britain as the power, not the British Empire. e.g. [13] "The inability of Britain to maintain her Empire and her Great Power status after 1945 is only clear with hindsight. When the war ended, what seemed obvious both to the British people and the rest of the world was that Britain was a Great Power." Back to the discussion in hand, note in that 2001 publication, the author is quite happy to use the term 'great power': the arguments listed above about confusing people or being accessible by "ordinary people" (bit patronising - are we extraordinary?) - are irrelevant. Historians use the term, therefore so can we. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Empire was described as a "great power" for the vast majority of its existence. The term "Superpower" is one that, for the most part, applies to the era of the Cold War. The first usage of the term may have included the British Empire, but the term almost immediately ceased to apply to it. I have considerable problems with referring to the British Empire as a superpower (much less a hyperpower, a term made up in the 1990s to describe the United States' unprecedented position as the only superpower.) john k (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I still think it's applied to Britain rather than the Empire. Here's a quote from the Oxford History of the BE, the Historiography volume (p350): "The loss of Empire, in Asia mainly in 1945-48 and in Africa between 1957 and 1964, helped fuel the debate about Britain's decline as a Great Power." Note again it's referring to Britain, and it's written in modern times. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Take that back about Britain v British Empire - just found this from The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951 by William Roger Louis: "One psychological moment of truth for the British as a 'Great Power' in the Middle East probably did come when the Russians exploded an atomic bomb in September 1949...To be sure, since the end of the war there had been no doubt that it would be extremely difficult, if indeed possible at all, to sustain the British Empire as a 'Great Power'." But anyway, historians use "great power", and so should we. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The usual term with regard to the empire is British Imperial Power or synonyms, as in, for example, Brittanica [14] and a zillion other easily obtainable sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through the Great power page, it does a pretty good job of explaining things historically, although it could be expanded to more explicitly state the difference in usage. Maybe make this link to Great power and then note on that page the difference between historical and modern usage? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the link to the page on powers is really the best that can be done here, it's the compromise solution and explains the types of power to the reader as well as linking to information on Great Powers for example. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Time for a quick poll, perhaps?

Pipelink to Great power

Support, because that's what the majority of historians use. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support when refers to Britain during the Empire. In the case of British Empire, we should be more cautious as it's less clear-cut, but both superpower and hyperpower are obviously wrong, so obviously that I question we even need this straw poll. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support due to it being the most applicable term and causing the least amount of controversy, besides it could be easier to understand for the average reader. Also SP is hardly "obviously wrong" hence the discussion on it. It is wrong in your opinion.G.R. Allison (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Global power should continue to pipelink to Great power. It would be strange to say it was the foremost hyperpower or foremost superpower. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Support --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pipelink to Superpower
Pipelink to Hyperpower
Pipelink to Power in international relations

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

At the apex of the Empire, the 'balance of power' theory dominated global politics: Britain wanted to see large powerful states standing off against each other, with Britain in 'splendid isolation', aloof. So Britain was not a 'superpower' guiding the fates of nations. It was rather checking nations by temporary alliances with others. We could think of the Crimean conflict, the 1878 crisis and the Napoleonic Wars. Nevertheless I think it fair to say that it exercised more power than your average 'great power'. Of course all this became unravelled on the eve of WWI, when the 'balance of power' policy failed, and two great power blocs replaced the finely balanced system of alliances. After the Great War, Britain found itself just another 'great power', and in WWII, it had to go cap-in-hand to the newest and strongest great power, the USA.So whether we describe the BE as a 'great power', 'superpower' or 'hyperpower' depends pretty much on what period of development we're talking about. Events like the Suez Crisis showed Britain to be a paper tiger, unable to act without the USA. We have a number of references to superpower and hyperpower, thanks to Red Hat and others. I suggest we examine them and analyse them. History is an interpretive Science. Unlike in the physical Sciences, Maths and Logic, a reference does not necessarily a fact make.Gazzster (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

History is an art, not a science. It is subjective and Wikipedia has rules for working out whether verifiable information is neutrally balanced (WP:WEIGHT). If the vast majority of sources use "Great Power", both now and at the time the Empire existed, it seems to me there is no case for anything else to be mentioned in the introduction. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed should continue to pipe to Great power, although i see its been changed to pipe to some international relations page. That needs changing back. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even the editor who originally suggested changing it voted for "great power" above, so should we just go ahead and change it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't object now. After reviewing various sources I've come to the agreement that 'Great Power' does indeed suit quite well, Sorry for wasting time guys. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"More than 10 million Indians perished..." - WP:SYN violation

My recent edit related to the deaths of more than 10 million Indians was undone twice - [15] [16].

The way this paragraph is being phrased is a WP:SYN violation. It conveys to the reader that the British East India Company was the entity responsible for the starvation deaths of the 10 million Indians. In reality this happened between 1858 and 1900, a period in which the British government was in charge, having taken over in 1858. If you have a different argument, please discuss here before undoing my edit. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The famines did not suddenly start in 1858. For example, the famine of 1837-8 in which 800,000 died in the North West Provinces, Punjab and Rajasthan (see the cited reference from which this text was derived). Your edit has completely changed the meaning of the text, which I will repeat is REFERENCED - and your change here needs to be reverted. Also, please do not make alterations to the text without providing sources yourself, or they are liable to be reverted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 07:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find the cited reference on Google Books and can read pages 132-4 in their entirety. Please read them and per WP:BRD discuss here rather than revert again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. 800,000 did die in the famine of 1837-8 and the famines certainly did not suddenly start in 1858. Here are the details from the same source:

Years of rule of the British East India Company - 1818 - 1858
Years of rule of the British government - 1858 - 1947

Deaths under Company
Years	Deaths	Province
1837-1838	800,000	Punjab, Rajasthan, North-West
Total	800,000	India

Deaths under Crown
Years	Deaths (millions)	Province
1860-1861	2	Punjab, Rajasthan, North-West
1866-1867	1	Different areas
1876-1878	4.3	Widespread areas
1877-1878	1.2	North West, Kashmir
1896-1897	5	Large portion of entire India
1899-1900	1	Unspecified
Total	14.5	India

Again, the current phrasing [17] is a WP:SYN violation because it tries to imply that all of the deaths occurred under the British East India Company and not under the government. Here's a sample phrasing you could use to eliminate the WP:SYN violation:

A total of 15.3 million Indians died from the famines of the late 19th century. 800,000 of these deaths occurred under the East India Company whereas 14.5 million Indians died of starvation under the rule of the British Crown. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which 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.

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it known how many people died in famines in the years before the East India Company took control? This would give some context to the figures, so that people could form an opinion on whether the situation was improving or worsening under the Empire. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that comparison is required in the original context (probably WP:UNDUE) but if there is consensus to expand the article to include that kind of material, I would be more than happy to research and provide new content per WP:Reliable sources. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that you are completely misunderstanding what constitutes synthesis. The current wording is absolutely not synthesis because it reflects what the source says. Your proposed wording, on the other hand, is complete synthesis. Nowhere does the cited source total up the deaths pre/post 1858 and contrast the figures like you are doing (also note that the source is not providing a comprehensive list of all famines - the author has picked the worst). All the source contrasts is the differing RESPONSES of the EIC (none, or at least nothing coordinated) vs the Raj (investigative commissions, following an acceptance that it was the state's responsibility to take action). And that is what the text says. If you have a source which compares the situation under the EIC vs the Raj, put it here and we can disucss. Do you? If you don't, you are just engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree. I've taken it to the relevant board. Let neutral eyes decide what this is about. [18] Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As you wish, but please note that the NOR noticeboard is not some kind of arbitration panel who will "decide" on the matter. it's just a place for editors who are interested in that space to reply with their opinions. There are plenty of editors who look at this talk page too you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 06:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and most seem to agree that the proposed change is synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned that underlying all of this is an attempt to push a particular POV into Wikipedia by this particular editor who has also inserted a bit of a diatribe into the India article about the British. [19] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I politely disagree with you yet again. I got interested in the topic after User:Derek Ross made a suggestion to compare relevant famine data before and after the British Empire arrived in India. I added one concise line of a few words to India [20] (this was my first edit to that article). I was then invited by a regular editor/admin to expand that one line. [21] I did so and things were stable until User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick Wikihounded me to the India article. The discussion now continues until we reach a consensus on the exact wording. What you call "diatribe" is a genuine attempt to find and document the reasons behind the disproportionate deaths (36 million or so according to the cited source) in India in the 19th century. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... should wikipedia editors be attempting to find and document the reasons of anything using wikipedia articles? If it's that important, there will be a WP:RS out there about it. If its just mixing and matching here, then that's probably WP:OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we should find and "document" everything relevant to an article as long as it's per Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN. It's also important that we use secondary and tertiary sources per WP:Sources. I don't see anything wrong with that. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the fact User:Zuggernaut has been canvassing to try and influence the outcome of this debate on the Admins noticeboard here. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not mention casualties

...that died for the British Empire. Military campaign figures are given; casualties not. That looks very biased to me; has a hint of glorifying nationalism. Why not show both sides of the coin?--85.179.146.183 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UThttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire&action=editC)

For the simple reason that this is an overview article of several hundred years of history across six continents, and therefore we can't mention everything. Fortunately, because this is an encyclopaedia, there is always a home for sourced material, and that is other articles specifically related to that topic. If someone wants to know how many casualties there were in the Falklands War, they can look at that article. The British Empire article doesn't need to state them - it's tangential to the subject at hand. If everyone's favorite "fact" was included, this article would be huge. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Height and foremost global power?

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power."

When was this height? 1920? largest Empire in history?? does this include water territories? who calculated its extent and for what time the foremost global power? Who claims that? The British? --IIIraute (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the British Empire at peak covered the largest geographical extent of any recorded empire. It might be worth giving that date - the territorial maximum extent is usually considered to be 1924. [22]. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is doubt indeed; the question is what areas the calculation is made of? For example: are water territories included? What about the Mongol Empire? But much more interesting: for what time (100+ years) the foremost global power? --IIIraute (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mongol Empire is usually cited as having 33m contiguous square km. [23] The British Empire in 1924 ruled over more than 33.7m square km of land surface, so it's not all that big a gap. There's a list of large empires page in Wikipedia with appropriate sourcing (although it's currently under an AFD process - for the fifth time!!). If you feel you have better sourcing, you can bring it up at that talk page and see if people take it up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

...at its peak, it certainly was not the foremost global power, or would the foremost global power need the entry of the United Staates to defeat a little "great power" like Germany? By that time the British Empire was already almost finished. Also, the claim of covering "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" is not really true, as this calculation includes water territories, great lakes, etc.. The earth's surface (land) is 148,940,000 km2. That does not include great lakes, etc. About 70.8%(<ref name="Pidwirny2006"/>) of the earth's surface is covered by water... So, can you see my point? the rest is maths. How come nobody ever checked those numbers?--IIIraute (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The BE was overwhelmingly the foremost military power in the world in 1924 - don't forget, the US didn't re-arm until 1939-41 and Germany until after 1933. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in 1924, what I very much doubt; I'd like to see figures. But what 100+ years period are we talking about? you still did not answer that. During the Great War they were certainly not the foremost global power, neither the foremost military power, as they could not defeat the Germans on their own. I think that is very obvious.--IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Make an alternative proposal for that sentence and see what people say about it. The WWI stalemate as evidence will be contentious, since that was Europe; Germany never challenged British power during 1914-18 in, for example, Asia and only to a minor extent in Africa. The same is of course true in WWII, but I doubt that is counted as part of the "more than 100 years", or certainly not after the Japanese invasion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am just not sure if some "Jingoism" claims, facts and figures should be included into the Wikipedia. They should be made more transparent. Largest Empire? ...not that clear, as I explained earlier. 1/4 of the earth's total land area? not true. And as I asked before: for what 100 years? Not in 1914, as by that time Germany, having experienced a spectacular industrial revolution was rapidly overhauling Britain as Europe's foremost industrial power. In 1913 Germany had reached Britain's export figures, milled more iron than Britain and more steel than Britain, France and Russia combined. Giant German cartels like Siemens and AEG dominated the European electrical market. German chemicals consortia produced most of the world's dyes and industrial acids. The population had increased to 66 million. This economic strength translated easily into military power. The German High Seas Fleet possessed 14 dreadnought battleships, compelling the British to bring their capital ships back to the North Sea. Although still smaller than the Royal Navy, Germany's fleet was far more modern and boasted superior shells and night training. Germany could mobilise almost 9 million men and benifited from superior staff training and advanced technology (especially heavy artillery). My point is... circumstances in 1914 were very differnet than in 1924. And maybe Britain was the foremost military power in 1924, but so much in debt and out of resources that this effectively didn't mean anything, as one was going to experience in WWII. But then again: what 100+ years period are we talking about--IIIraute (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression you aren't going to make a specific proposal for new sentences or change to sentences, so won't spend much time just "debating" with you. Just to clarify one or two points though. (1) The Earth's land surface area roughly 149m sq. km. - therefore the BE's 33.7m sq. km is roughly 1/4 of the land mass. So you are wrong in your assertion that it isn't true. Unless (I ask again) you can provide a contrary source? No? Then stop just raising empty debating points. (2) Comparison's with Germany in the first world war - yes, many scholars do argue that WW1 marked the turning point in BE power. Therefore it is valid to ask what period the "more than 100 years" of "foremost power" covers. I would suggest it is roughly 1750 - 1900 with a second phase, roughly, 1919 - 1935. The article would benefit from having this spelled out a little more. Care to make alternative sourced suggestions? If not, please stop raising empty debating points, Wikipedia is not a blog. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First point: "foremost" does not mean it was omnipotent. Second point - the sentence is slightly misleading - the period during which it was the "foremost global power" (1815 - 1914) is not the same as the period when it was at its largest (around 1924). I hadn't read it that way previously, but I can see that some people might do so. In terms of area we're just quoting the sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no "Global Power".... what basically translates into "Superpower". The category of "Global power" does not even exist in the Wikipedia; and that for a reason. Up to the 20th century no "Global-or Superpower" did exist. Great Britain just did not have the means to execute such power, and certainly not from 1815-1914 (what would still not be for "over one century"). In 1812 Spain was still far too powerful, holding vast territorries in Northern- Middle- and Southamerica. The Austrian, Ottoman and Manchu Empire were extremly powerful; not to forget Prussia. The British could not fight Napoleon without help of other European allies, nor were they ever successful in any other campaign on the European continent on their own. In 1848 the Russian Empire stretched from Prussia to the Russian Americas.--IIIraute (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The (many) sources cited in this article disagree with your POV about "global power". Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about military strength but the capital was coming from British colonies. Here's a quote from the Indian Prime Minster at his speech while accepting a Honorary Degree from Oxford University in 2005: "As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952." Gandhi has said "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India." Nonetheless this article is very POV biased and needs a {{POV}} tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a featured article, meaning it passed a series of checks to ensure it met Wikipedia's standard, but the same cannot be said of the POV edits you have been trying to make. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is static on Wikipedia and everything is subject to constant scrutiny. A variety of objections are being expressed, such as from an Indian viewpoint, a German viewpoint, potentially an Irish viewpoint, etc. The article is biased and promotes a particular POV. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to define what a 'foremost global power is'. I mean, how do you define it? It's even problematic to discuss the USA today as the 'foremost global power'. After all, its global influence is checked by such powers as China and Russia, and the EU.Gazzster (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be hard to define for people editing Wikipedia, but it's not so hard for the sources we're citing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In 1848 Australia was mainly still in the hands of Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherers, half of India "India princely" and Rupert's Land mainly full of snow. How can that be a "Global Power"? --IIIraute (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Compared to what exactly? German possessions in Africa in 1914? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the Russian Empire in 1848, that stretched from Prussia to the Russian Americas, for example; the Manchu Empire, or the Dutch territories. To be the foremost Global Power, so to be regarded bigger than one of the "Great Powers" one has to be able to execute Global Power and that on more than empty territories, the third world, or how we would say today: in the New Markets. The US or the USSR had the means to intervene into any affair, i.e. execute their power. The British Empire had no ability to intervene in continental european affairs; so they could not even execute their "foremost global power" in front of their own door.--IIIraute (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

...and please do not forget the German colonies in China and the Pacific. The development of the world economy (foreign investment in 1914) was the following: United Kingdom: 535 million $; Germany: 1050 million $. But, anyway, that is not the point. What 100+ years was the British Empire the foremost Global Power? In 1812 Spain held the Vice-Royalty of New Spain, basically the whole west of North America, basically the whole of Middle America, Florida, Cuba, large Parts of Haiti, Puerto Rico, the Vice-Royalty of New Granada (the whole of northern South America), the Vice-Royalty of Peru, the United Provinces of La Plata, The Falkland Islands, the Philippine Islands. At that time Britain had lost its colonies, Afrika consisted of the Cape Colonies and Sierra Lione, less than 1/4 of India, Jamaica, the Mosquito Coast, British Honduras, the Bahamas, New South Wales (a tiny fraction of Australia) and Rupert's land full of snow.--IIIraute (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that New South Wales back then was not the current area of NSW, it covered over half of modern Australia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong; in 1812 it covered a part of NSW, a small fraction of the south-east of Australia. Apart from that, Van Diemen's Land and the Bay of Islands, just next to the Maori chiefdoms were under british rule. I have a colonial map of 1812 right in front of me. The Blue Mountains were first crossed in 1813.--IIIraute (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jamesinderbyshire:(1) "The Earth's land surface area roughly 149m sq. km. - therefore the BE's 33.7m sq. km is roughly 1/4 of the land mass." I gave excactly the same figures!, but: the BE's 33.7 sq. km include bays, great lakes, rivers, etc. Apart from that; 149 divided by 33,7 is as much "roughly" close to 1/4, than to 1/5 of the land mass (especially without the water terretorries that are included in the 33.7 sq.m.). (2.) By 1715 the Spanish had the largest overseas possessions; The Russian Empire was by far the biggest one. By 1783 the British Empire was reduced to Rupert's Land & Quebec, Novia Scotia, Labrador, Newfoundland, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Bengal and Bihar, Madras, Bombay and the Northern Circas. British possessions altogether, apart from the parts of what is now Canada, were probably the size of Madagascar. Nothing on the African continent, nothing in South America. Belize and the Mosquito Coast in Middle America, no Australia, Middle East, almost ZERO.... I really do not know where you take your figures from? What "Global Power" are we talking about? Napoleon once said, that you are always as powerful, as you make others believe you are. Well, your figures seem to live of that idea. Spanish possessions in 1783 consisted of 1/2 of North America, almost the whole of Middle America, more than 1/2 of South America, the Philippine Islands, the Falklands, Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.. and of course Portugal was in possession of the Vice-Royalty of Brasil, Portuguese Guinea, Delago Bay, Mozambique, Luanda, Goa, Timor. And there were vast overseas terretorries held by the French and the Dutch. So I actually do care to make alternative sourced suggestions; that's what I am trying to do here. --IIIraute (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just do not think that trivial phrases like "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" belong into a serious Encyclopedia. It comes as close to 1/4, that "only 3,6 million sq.k. are missing". That's almost the size of the European Union. It actually comes as close to 1/5 of the land mass; so I guess it's a matter of interest and interpretation. That is the reason why such "1/4" figures should not be given. To give the size in sq.k. is enough. The same goes for "for over a century, was the foremost global power." This phrase is too subjective and just not based on empirical data.

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and one of the foremost Great Powers." something like that would make more sense. Then, it could also be linked with the "Historical Powers" and "Great Power" section.--IIIraute (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "global power" gets regularly discussed and is cited in quite a lot of sources. You need sources and references to make points in Wikipedia articles. Generally these are avoided in the introductory section of articles (the "lede") and referenced further down in the main text. If you look at the Britain's Imperial Century section further down, there are a number of good references on the subject. You could propose rewrites to that but not unsourced ones, or you could challenge the relevance, notability or truthfulness of the existing sources and statements. The phrase is always controversial, but I think most historians would accept that the empire was paramount for an extended period - the difficulty is around exactly how long that was and the article should reflect any such controversies. There is also a seperate controversy as to what exactly was the Great Power - the empire, or just Britain itself? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the British claimed more in NSW than just the tiny colony your map apparently shows. Of course they hadn't actually settled the whole area, but they claimed a large amount of territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what you might be thinking, but it is still wrong. (1.) In 1812 they only held a fraction of NSW, from ca. Botany Bay to Newcastle. (2.) I already did write before, that they had not crossed the Blue Mountains until 1813; so claim what? the Unknown?? (3.) The Map of 1812 is showing the British territorial claims of 1812.--IIIraute (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why, even though nobody seems to be able to give clear information on why and from what period it was the foremost "global power" for +100 years, it is not possible to rephrase the sentence to "the foremost colonial power", for example? At least that would be historically acceptable and not just be based on, in my opinion, biased sourcing.--IIIraute (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...by the way; what source is claiming this anyway? maybe a citation would be helpful.--IIIraute (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion the sources are biased eh? You need to do better than that. There are lots of sources in the bibliography and a simple search of the term "foremost global power" on Google Books will return plenty of results. When you have your own sources that say that the British Empire was not the foremost global power please feel free to come back and restart this discussion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not just in my opinion, but as I have also given good evidence why this is doubtful. If you, on the other hand, do prefer to do your historical research by "search engine results", that's ok. Why then not google "British Empire foremost global power" on Google Books, with 566 results, while "British Empire foremost colonial power" leaves us with 4060 results.--IIIraute (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your empirical methods of reserch bring out even more interesting results on Google Books: British Empire Global Power, 62,500 results; British Empire Great Power, 1.510,000 results.--IIIraute (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(...and "Pete hates people quoting Google statistics to substantiate arguments" and then uses Google statistics to subsantiate his own ones? weird!)--IIIraute (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What I dislike is editors doing exactly what you have just done to validate OR. Unlike you I did not quote nonsensical stats - I simply pointed you to Google Books (not Google) because it displays secondary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The global power is an interesting result, considering earlier you seemed to be arguing the British Empire was not even a global power. I am not too fussed if there is a slight wording change to that sentence so it does not say "foremost global power", but out of interest in the period stated who was? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) ...that is exactly the problem, as there is no period made clear in that sentence; I have given enough evidence why that "100+ years" claim is quite doubtful. (2) just because of the fact that there are search engine results, does not make it the truth. (3) The Wikipedia itself separates former Empires in "Historical Powers" and "Great Powers". The term "Great Power" in the sentence is linked to "Great Powers"; so why not call it a Great Power or set the link towards "Colonial Power"--IIIraute (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

There are also thousands of results on Google Books, that claim Prussia (i.e. The German Empire) or the Russian Empire to have been a "Global Power", yet still within the Wikipedia they are listed as "Great Power". I quote:". The steady expansion of Prussia during the 19th century is a major dynamic of European history, but Prussia did not emerge as a major GLOBAL POWER until after the Unification of Germany under Prussia led by Otto von ..." Peter N. Stearns,William Leonard Langer, The Encyclopedia of world history, New York, 2001.--IIIraute (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful to have that pointed out - Prussia is obviously wrong, as by no stretch was it ever a global power. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the period its mostly covering has its own section "Britains imperial century", although i agree at the moment it does not mention it in the sentence in the intro so it may cause confusion. No one is saying the British Empire was the only global power, or that there was such a distance between the BE and the next power like America has today in terms of its superpower status. The specific wording about being foremost global power for over a century was in the article when it got FA status and has been stable (apart from what to link global power to recently, when someone suggested it should go to superpower but it was opposed) for a couple of years. Without any doubt the British Empire was a global power. Its open to more debate if for a period of over a century it was the "foremost global power" but i do not know what other power in the period covered could be considered the foremost one. Theres nothing wrong with "global power" though and its pointless to say "Great power", considering the United Kingdom is still considered a great power today. Thats the reason for saying global rather than just great. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally historians have seen the period of British global power as lasting from the defeat of the Napoleonic navy through to 1914; that's roughly 100 years. It is true that the German navy rose to try to challenge it, but you won't find a lot of, for example, world military history books claiming that the German navy surpassed the Royal Navy - indeed, for much of World War I, the German Navy was restricted to home waters, whilst the RN covered the globe. It is also true that phrases like "global power" are ill-defined but Wikipidia would be the poorer for avoiding them because they are hard to bear down on scientifically. In the meantime, I suggest that unless IIIraute can come up with a suitably referenced alternate proposal, we consider this discussion closed, particularly because having this argument appears at present to be the sole aim. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I already made this proposal. (1). roughly 100 years, to be more specific "99 years" are not " for more than 100 years"; so this part has to go. The British would have lost Waterloo in 1815 without siding with the Prussians. (... after Austria, Prussia and Russia had already weakened France tremendously in Dresden, Leipzig and the Six Days Campaign earlier; this is where the Napoleonic armies really were defeated, on what historians very much agree). How come that as the "foremost global power" they could not defeat an already weakened army on their own? (2) I already made the proposal to rephrase the sentence to "foremost colonial power"; and I have more than 4000 sources on this one, while there are far less sources for calling it the "foremost global power".--IIIraute (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...by the way; the Spanish Wikipedia writes of "almost hundred years (1815-1914)", the German Wikipedia calls it the "foremost colonial power", the French Wikipedia also says "the foremost colonial empire"; the Dutch Wikipedia only from 1880-1910.--IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias are not reliable sources, I dont think I have seen a convincing argument to change the current wording or a consensus in this discussion to change it either. I suggest we leave it as the status quo. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...how can that be not convincing? how can one ignore all the sources and facts I delivered? 1815-1914 is just not for "more than 100 years"! This is ignorant and revisionist jingoism.--IIIraute (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes most of what has been put forward could be seen as ignorant and revisionist jingoism which is probably why most people dont agree with you and are happy to leave the staus quo. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is still missing a citation; and one that proves, that it was the foremost global power for more than 100 years. It has to contain two facts: (1) The foremost Global Power? yes, maybe it was for a period, but NOT for more than 100 years and (2) for more than 100 years (what it maybe was, as foremost colonial power, but not as foremost global power during all this time). One cannot just combine one with the other!.--IIIraute (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne, you seem to execute your powers as administrator but you do not seem to bring any valid and valuable argument that proves mine wrong.--IIIraute (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I am just an editor in this context as far as I know I have not acted as an admin related to this article, I have no argument that it should be properly cited, remembering that the lead does not need citations as it should reflect the text in the main body. Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians, around 10,000,000 square miles (25,899,881 km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire has a reference. And at Though Britain and the Empire emerged victorious from the Second World War, the effects of the conflict were profound, both at home and abroad. Much of Europe, a continent that had dominated the world for several centuries, was now in ruins, and host to the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union, to whom the balance of global power had now shifted which also referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you are an entirely new user IIIraute? :) Anyway, to deal with the quotes issue. Why not quote from a US work to avoid allegations of British imperialism? We could start with Power and stability: British foreign policy, 1865-1965 By Erik Goldstein, B. J. C. McKercher. [24] This is absolutely replete with quotations about Britain being the "most powerful global empire", etc. Just one of dozens that could be brought forward. Almost not worth the effort though, given how obvious the trolling is here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a new user to the English Wikipedia, what's the problem with that? Are you now trying to bully me out of this matter? What trolling are you talking about? I also do not see what this has to do with my argument. Your quote is talking about 1815-1914, so that is still not more than 100 years, is it? --IIIraute (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactely the reason why no serious publishing house would publish historical research that has been done by somebody without a proper education regarding the matter. What point are people not getting here? Global power, yes, but not for more than 100 years (1815-1914) even other users did agree to this. For more than 100 years, yes, also ok, but not as global- but as colonial power.--IIIraute (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just 1815-1914. It's also 1919-(c)1935 (and possibly - many historians think) 1941. Many books take the Fall of Singapore to be the end of the British Empire. I'm surprised a historian of your impressive credentials doesn't know this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps regular editors should then consider rephrasing the lead and "End of empire" section to indicate that the handover of Hong Kong was a symbolic end of the empire, the real end coming with the end of rule in Singapore. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, don't think so. The key sources we've used for this article cite Hong Kong and it makes a nice round 500-year period for this article to cover. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with James that it does seem like trolling, although I can't quite see the point of it. I'll bite for now and hope it goes away: We're associating the period in question with the Pax Britannica on the talk page here, but the article is also saying a bit more since declarations of war and of surrendering are not useful measures of economic or military power. Waterloo was an important battle insofar as it removed a threat to the Empire, but naval supremacy (i.e. what guaranteed its existence) was established in 1806. Likewise, 1914 is a nice convenient date, but it didn't mean the Empire was suddenly and instantaneously diminished (by 1916, however, it clearly was). Some might go further back and say that the Seven Years War was the point at which Britain surpassed France as the foremost global power. Either way it's more than a century. However, I think the key point is that 'foremost' does not mean 'omnipotent'. I don't think User:IIIraute understands this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I do give up; as it seems pointless to argue any further. Looking at previous arguments, suggestions, proposals and criticism made by others one can trace and follow a red line through this biased article, that seems protected and watched by a small clique of people (always the same 4-5, granting each other absolution) that must think of themselves of some kind of contemporary (over-) patriotic, almost nationalist, "defenders of the empire". Geographically, all of them come from the "British Empire", with some displaying their army medals, a union jack, the british anthem and "Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!" slogans. If that's the caliber one is arguing with, it just becomes pointless to go on. You must be so sad that your former Empire is reduced to rubble; with its debt only being surpassed by the USA, being reduced to number 6 by GDP, placed 6th on imports, 9th on exports, 147th by industrial production growth, to always have to go home early in Football, to bring home only one medal from Vancouver, as well as in the 2010 citymayors Quality of life study (http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html) having the first british city ranked 39th, that it is maybe better to glorify the past. What has happened? I thought the world's foremost global power did win both wars. How come they now rate second in everything towards Germany? What can one say? That really is depressing. --IIIraute (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Having revealed your true colours perhaps you should say no more... Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE WIki-Ed, new editor does not know the rules here. Illraute, you need to learn to address content issues and not the motivations of other editors. If you check back over the history you will find a fair amount of disputes over various issues and many of us are very firmly not in a British Nationalist or Defenders of Empire category. Less polemic, more focus on content please. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:IIIraute might not know the subject and it might be a new account on the English Wikipedia, but I think he's been around long enough [25] to know not to troll. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Having revealed my true colours? The same goes for all of you, but I guess they were never hidden. I am a new member to the English Wikipeda, and yes I have already written several new articles for the German Wikipedia that have been given a very good reception, as they still stand how I did write them. Discourse there is different; I'd say more academic and less stubborn bullying! .--IIIraute (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets be very clear here. If you continue with these long tirades against other editors and make stupid accusations like "stubborn bullying" then its only a matter of time before you get blocked. Address content issues with specific proposals and I'm sure you can make a valuable contribution. --Snowded ^TALK 14:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My hernia bigger than your hernia.

Having a colony is the manifestation of a disease. Fighting over who had the biggest colony is like squabbling over whose father had a bigger hernia. Another thing is that isn't the map original research, that is what it - the information given with the file says. Please take it off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't first notice it was a FA. H#@y s*&t! A FA with suspicious graphics. I am going to send a SOS from my discussion page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just do not think that trivial phrases like "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" belong into a serious Encyclopedia. It comes as close to 1/4, that "only 3,6 million sq.k. are missing". That's almost the size of the European Union. It actually comes as close to 1/5 of the land mass; so I guess it's a matter of interest. That is the reason why such "1/4" figures should not be given. To give the size in sq.k. is enough. The same goes for "for over a century, was the foremost global power." This phrase is too subjective and just not based on empirical data.

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and one of the foremost Great Powers." something like that would make more sense. Then, it could also be linked with the "Historical Powers" and "Great Power" section.--IIIraute (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On the map, I'm not clear which map you (Yogesh) are talking about and what the problem is exactly with it? Can you say more? On the size of the land-mass, figures like 1/4 and 1/5th are intended to be - exactly what they are - generalisations. there's no reason why the Russian Empire (which by the way included lots of very big lakes - much bigger than any in the British Empire!) at 23.7m sq km in 1866 can't be said to have covered 1/6th of the world's land surface area at the time. Similarly there's no reason why an approximate, easy-to-read figure can't be given for the British Empire. 149/5 = 30 (roughly) and 149/4 = 37 (roughly), so yes, on that point I agree it should be 1/5th and have changed the text. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted this. The cited source uses the same wording we use and since it is a widely accepted approximation we could find lots of other sources if needed. NB the reason it's widely accepted is because the percentage is closer to a quarter than to a fifth (22.6%). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it should probably say "almost a quarter" then. The actual percentage by the way is 22.61%, just to be picky. It is slightly misleading at the moment, although granted it is intended as a generalisation. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 22.61% is just closer to 1/4 than to 1/5, almost is probably applicable. It probably should stay at 1/4, as that is the only fraction I actually ever remember seeing anywhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with approximately being changed to almost which is more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Woops i see its already been done lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

British Antarctic Territory; Map displayed??

Is the Antarctic Territory included in the 33,7 million sq.m.; i.e the "biggest Empire of all time"? The Antarctic Treaty, signed by all relevant regional claimants, does not in itself either recognise or dispute any territorial claims, leaving this matter to individual signatories.^[1] Most of the world's countries do not recognise any national claims to Antarctica.^[2] Britain, France, Norway, New Zealand and Australia, all of whom have territorial claims on the continent, mutually recognise each other's claims.^[3]^[4] Argentina and Chile dispute the British claim, and make their own counter-claims that overlap both Britain's and each other's (see Argentine Antarctica and Antártica Chilena Province).IIIraute (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Antarctic Treaty did not come into effect until 1959. By that time the Empire had already shrunk in size considerably. So the Treaty is basically irrelevant to the "largest empire" claim. If you want to discuss the effect on the claim, you really need to investigate Antarctica's legal status before 1947 when India became independent. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting (and accurate - I've checked quite a few bits of data in it) table here [26] showing the "entry" and "exit" dates for all British colonies - the table does not include Antarctica and I've never heard of Antarctica being discussed as a "British colony" or as part of the "empire". There are more scholarly tables than this one of course but I just present it as a quick guide. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

...which would suggest that Antarctica doesn't affect the "largest empire" claim either way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Antarctic territory had been claimed (and disputed by others) by the British for long time before the Antarctic Treaty and was known for a long time as part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at some sources, the UK has had a claim on Antarctica since at least 1841, when the first claim was laid on the land that would become the Australian Antarctic Territory and Ross Dependency. The British claim to what was to become the British Antarctic Territory is normally dated to letters patent of 1908, when the area was organised as FI dependencies (for administrative convenience) - though those letters patent included territories that had first been claimed as far back as 1775. The BAT itself came into being in response to the Antarctic Treaty in 1962.

For balance, Chile's claims are based on the Treaty of Torsedillas, and Argentina first expressed a claim in 1925 based on continuous occupation since 1904.

You can read more in this source. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but has it typically been cited as part of the calculations for the land surface area of the Empire, for example, in 1924? Which is the issue at odds here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The 33.7m is referenced (see List of largest empires) which is all that is required wikipedia rules dont demand that it is true! just reliably referenced.MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A minute ago you just wrote, and I quote you here: "Other wikipedias are not reliable sources...". Now you give the Wikipedia as a reference and you are writing that its "rules dont demand it to be true"? What can I add to this. That is so, so sad. Who cares about the truth as long one can try to build some jingoist virtual Empires!--IIIraute (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne meant it is referenced at that article. Next? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Jamesinderbyshire,The answer is yes,it typically been cited as part of the calculations for the land surface area of the Empire.See also List of largest empires page ,section Measurement details:"The only claims on mainland Antarctica are included in the area of the British Empire."--Nameuser8976 (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

References

^ The Antarctic Treaty, National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs
^ CIA World Factbook
^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sg49AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA18
^ http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Br_Ant_Terr.html

Drake and England's "First Territorial Claims"

As important as Drake's voyage was, I reverted this edit [27] (and added a dubious tag to the same editor's edit at New Albion) on the grounds that this is not the "mainstream" view of how the BE began. Yes, Drake claimed a few places for Her Maj, but these were never followed up and were not the beginnings of the Empire in the way that Newfoundland or Virginia were. I cannot see what Sugden wrote, because I do not have a copy of his book, but in all the books I have read (see the References section of this article) I have never seen it stated that the BE began with Drake's voyage. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most authors put him in the context of Britain's defence against the then much more powerful Spanish Empire and as a self-enriching privateer. Most sources put the start of Britain's rise to World naval power under Cromwell's Commonwealth. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Although no English settlements were established in the New World before Newfoundland, it should be noted that there were several early English territorial claims:

Meta Incognita, Baffin Island, around Frobisher Bay, claimed by Martin Frobisher in 1577.^[1] Frobisher's 1578 voyage was originally planned to establish a settlement here.
"West England," a part of Greenland claimed by Frobisher in June 1578^[2]
Elizabeth Island in the Straits of Magellan, claimed by Drake on August 24, 1578^[3]
Elizabeth Island near Cape Horn, claimed by Drake in September 1578^[4]
New Albion on the west coast of North America, claimed by Drake in June 1579^[5]

Goustien (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

References

^ McDermott, James (2001). Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 190. ISBN 0300083807.
^ McDermott, James (2001). Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 219. ISBN 0300083807.
^ Drake, Francis (1854). The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. Hakluyt Society. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Sugden, John (1990). Sir Francis Drake. Barrie & Jenkins. p. 118. ISBN 0712620389.
^ Drake, Francis (1854). The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. Hakluyt Society. p. 225. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Categories created by User:Zuggernaut

If anyone is interested in contributing to the discussions on Zuggernaut's new categories relating to the British Empire:

Problems with the maps

Several issues have been pointed out by several different editors for both the maps in question over the last few months. Many of these questions are repetitive (such as the the one about Goa I brought up) and many have been unanswered for several months. I am copy-pasting all of them below. The original questions can be found at the respective talk pages.[28] [29] Per the template {{Editnotices/Namespace/File talk}} found on those talk pages, the questions need to be discussed here. Since the issues are many and long standing, I'm taking off the maps from the article. I would request editors not to add them back until the issues have been resolved for this FA. Goa, Daman and Diu might be hard to mark on the map - my solution for this would be to include all exceptions in the caption but the caption might then get too long. There's a solution for this too - perhaps a quote box can be used right below the map and the two can be made a template. If you have solutions, please feel free to respond here. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have added them back. A lot of those discussions just petered out, failed to produce evidence or just were unable to get to consensus. Also dumping that amount of material without a summary of some type is not helpful. If you want to pursue this then I suggest a brief summary of the changes you want with some justification (which could be a diff to the prior discussion). --Snowded ^TALK 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed this out on multiple occasions: Burma is shown as a separate colony in 1919 - that' not true until 1936-37. Goa, Daman, Diu and Puducherry are shown or implied to be part of the British Empire. That's original research as pointed out by User:Yogesh Khandke. Oman falls in the same category. The factually incorrect maps should be removed until either the captions or the maps are updated. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you do us all a favour and create two separate subthreads, one for each map, and detail your separate concerns for each of them under those? Just to make everything easier! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And one liners please. Also please review your claims. As far as I can see there is no time stamp on Burma, the capture relates to entities which were at some stage a part of the Empire. In the meantime I see no reason why the maps should not stand, these seem minor issues --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The Burma discussion is now moot since those discrepancies have been fixed by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick per this version of September 26, 2010. [30]. The discrepencies could have been 'mionr' for a start class article, not for a FA. It is not always possible to stick to one liners. I appreciate the feedback though. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

<snip>(removed pasted in discussions from File_talk:The_British_Empire.png and File_talk:BritishEmpire1919.png)</snip>

Zuggernaut, a few points about the first map:

it is a map of the British Empire, it is not a map showing every territory captured by Britain during a time of war (the two are not synonymous)
showing places like Manila, the Philippines, or the Dutch East Indies which no historian claims were parts of the British Empire would be OR and SYN. These "problems" were not dealt with because they are not problems.
many of the things you have listed there which needed sorting out (e.g. Heligoland, Bahrain, Cameroon, Wei Hei Wei) have been fixed/resolved/added - so why are you listing them?
Florida: you pasted in two comments on this, one from someone who asked for it to be coloured in without realising it already was, and one from someone who wants the colouring removed (who is obviously unaware that Spain ceded Florida to Britain). So which is it, Zuggernaut, why are you pasting them both in as "problems"?
the fact that a small set of islands is not coloured in (also fixed, 1.5 years ago) - seriously, are you suggesting that this requires discussion on this talk page or that the map is invalid?
Ireland/India was a question, which I answered. Why are you listing it as a problem?

It seems to me that you are just being disruptive, pasting in huge amounts of crap you obviously haven't read. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly true that the 1919 map has problems. Burma and Aden were absolutely part of the Raj, not separate colonies; it's wrong to imply that informal protectorates like Oman and the other gulf sheikdoms are "colonies"; and Goa is, indeed, shown as part of the British Empire (I think the other Portuguese and French enclaves are too small to be worth noting on a map at this scale.) john k (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to be constructive, not disruptive. Several different editors have highlighted problems with the maps. I have provided a possible long term solution to some of these problems by recommending the expansion of the caption to list exceptions if the map is hard to fix. On the other hand User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has ignored several questions from unique editors over several months including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her [31]. I hope we will able to fix the problems and improve the article further. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding me "ignoring" questions, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, not employees of a customer service department. Noone is obligated to reply on a talk page, and sometimes a lack of a reply is indicative of the quality of the post. Furthermore, this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so if you don't like the fact that noone replied, be WP:BOLD and fix what you think is wrong yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed a couple of problems with the 1919 map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The 1919 map looks better now. However, Goa is still shown in red which is incorrect. For areas that are too small for the scale of the map, expanding the caption to list exceptions will improve the article further. One possible solution was presented in the 2nd diff section of this post [32]. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the deal with the European portion of the 1919 map? Why is it showing the present day borders of countries if it is a map of 1919? (Oh, and Labrador, which was under Newfoundland's control, should be separated from Canada, of which it was not yet part. john k (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Map original research

Isn't the map under the Union Jack original research? That is what information available with the file informs. Such graphics should not be there on a FA. Please take them off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The map is useful. There are a huge number of maps on many wikipedia articles. Many are created by editors, it is not original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Either the caption needs to be changed or different color coding needs to be used. All the claimed areas were never a part of the British Empire at the same time. There are OR or SYN violations in the map as it exists. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The caption says "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire."/. That means at some point in history they have been a British territory. It is not meant to mean they were all part of the empire at one time. I disagree that there is a problem with the map, however ive no problem supporting the caption being reworded to be more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd sort of prefer using the 1919 map as the main one, and having a separate map for the British Empire in 1763 somewhere in the article. One big issue I have with the map is that it's basically just "the British Empire in 1919" + "the Eastern half of the United States." There's a couple of tiny exceptions (Heligoland, the Ionian Islands), but that's the gist, and I think it's kind of misleading. But I generally don't like anachronistic maps. john k (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i do not think its misleading, provided the caption is clear and i accept that could be reworded to make it very clear this is a map of every territory of the BE at different points in time. I think an image covering everything is more helpful than the empire at a specific point in time, i also think its a better graphical map which provides more detail than that 1919 one. If others think the 1919 one is better, then ive no major problem with it being changed. But i dont believe it is original research, and it was the map used when the article got FA status i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the caption were modified, minor changes would still be required to indicate the parts of India that weren't under British control or perhaps that too can be pointed out in the caption? Zuggernaut (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the same on the 1919 map? If there are errors in the current one and the 1919 one is accurate, then i dont mind it being switched. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote to keep both maps where they are in their respective positions. The headline map gives an overview of all territories ever part of the Empire, while the 1919 map gives the state of affairs in the section relating to that time period. An anachronistic map like the one we have also lends itself to showing the current 14 BOTs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As was already pointed out, Burma was a part of the Raj until 1936-7 [33] but Goodlad was cited as a source and the {{cn}} removed. [34] Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a misleading use of the "fact" tag. If you add it to the end of that sentence, it appears that you are suggesting that specific claim (that the BE reached its greatest extent in 1919) requires a citation. So I duly added one, Goodlad. If you have a problem with the map, take it to the map's talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the {{Editnotices/Namespace/File talk}} at File_talk:BritishEmpire1919.png and File talk:The British Empire.png, we need to discuss this here. Please see the section below for details. Zuggernaut (talk)

The map is was created carefully using sources cited on its main page. The caption and legend are quite clear. POV-warriors ought to remembed that this article reached FA status and if they have serious objections to the content they will need to provide serious, verifiable arguments to support their case for change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, in case the confusion about "OR" is the fact that this map was created by a Wikipedian (me), per WP:OI, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." What argument or idea is this map introducing which constitutes OR or SYN? Please explain in full, rather than simply bandying around "OR" or "SYN". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the map is OR, I just don't think it's ideal to use anachronistic historical maps. Another option would be to use a different color to distinguish the areas lost in 1783. john k (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any other way to do it. Previously we had a map showing a snap-shot at a single point in time; the downside of that is that missed out territories that were no longer part of the empire or were yet to become part of the empire. Since the article covers them all the map in the intro should do so too. Other snap-shot maps are deployed at appropriate chronological points in the body of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Who is to say that the downside of a snap-shot map is worse than the downside of an anachronistic map (misleading people into thinking that, say, the British ruled Kenya and Massachusetts at the same time)? john k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what is the deal with the European portion of the map? Why is it showing the present day borders of countries if it is a map of 1919? john k (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Who's to say which snap-shot map we should use? Why the focus on 1919? (There are lots of counter-arguments for using this as a representative image.). The caption for the anochronistic map is clear. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The entire map uses modern borders, not just Europe. The only change is, of course, in the areas the British controlled. The only weird border in this case I can find is that there is no border between now saudi arabia and yemen, although I think that is because half of it was a British protectorate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What are the counterarguments? This is the British Empire at its greatest geographical extent. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, the term "British Empire" was much more commonly used for the so-called "Second British Empire" than for the first one, which was normally just referred to as "the colonies" or something similar. As Brendan Simms has pointed out, in 18th century England "the Empire" typically referred to Germany, not to Britain's North American colonies. john k (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But it's not the greatest extent is it? I thought it was anachronistic, thus meaning throughout all time. Because of this borders could be taken from any number of years, none of which would in my opinion be better than the other. Personally, I like it with modern borders because you can see what parts of the modern world were once part of the Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Western or Christian?

“

The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India.

”

Is the word western or Christian in the source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The source (a historical dictionary) refers to - in the entry on the rebellion - "the interaction between Western influences and Indian society" and the fact that "India was subjected to three important Western ideologies". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I located the precise statement being used as a source by using the keyword "evangelicalism". [35] There are multiple POVs on this topic, the one being pointed out being the major one. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"There are multiple POVs on this topic, the one being pointed out being the major one" - please explain what you mean by that and what your objection is to the current wording. Evangelicalism is one of the three "important Western ideologies" listed by the source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

If you scroll down further and then to page 568 of the referred book, you will find the statements "The bloody uprising of the East India Company's sepoys at Meerut...came as a complete surprise to the British. Most British officers were blind to the unrest that had been created, in part, by the rapid imposition of British control over two-thirds of India." This the closest the source will get to identifying the cause of the mutiny. Indian social reformers were actually trying to "Westernize" India, Ram Mohan Roy is one example. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the map Original research, unreliable source, synthesis?

The information for the map file says: Own work by uploader. Composed from maps found in:

Brown, Judith (1998). The Twentieth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume IV. Oxford University Press. Dalziel, Nigel (2006). The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire. Penguin.

So it is Red Hat's work. Is Red hat wp:rs, don't we need a British Empire map that from a reliable source and not one that is drawn by editors. My argument is fundamental, this graphic is from an editor Red Hat, so his own work, which is not a reliable source unless Red Hat is an accepted authority on the subject and his map has been peer reviewed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, given that you think it's OK to make this edit [36] without providing any references, you need to read up on what original research means. Unlike your inserted text, there is nothing in the map which one cannot find in a reliable source. Put another way, all territories marked as once British Empire can be verified to have once been part of the British Empire (give or take a few anal quibbles over a couple of pixels) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Red Hat pointed to WP:OI earlier. It seems applicable here. Pfly (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It is redhat's work which he based off WP:RS. The only way possible for us to really get a map is for an editor to make it himself, unless you feel the map does not actually represent the sources, it's fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

“

WP:OI

Because of copyright law in a number of countries, there are relatively few images available for use in Wikipedia. Editors are therefore encouraged to upload their own images, releasing them under the GFDL, CC-BY-SA, or other free licenses. Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article. It is not acceptable for an editor to use photo manipulation to distort the facts or position illustrated by an image. Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any manipulated image where the encyclopedic value is materially affected should be posted to Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Images of living persons must not present the subject in a false or disparaging light.

”

That is what wikipedia says on original images. Now the onus is on the the image provider to produce a faithful reproduction. There have been many editions to Red Hat's images here. This is a FA, and should be judged by the highest and most stringent Wikipedia standards. We need to find copyright free images which since the subject British Empire is ancient, should not be difficult to find. Till then I suggest that the images be taken off. In the interest of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research. The Red hat of Patrick Ferris has even denied changing his map when someone suggests a change, due to their not providing a WP:RS. If you have a copyright free image of an accurate map of the British Empire, then feel free to put it here. Until then, the current map is more than adequate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we remove/ignore any comments from User:Yogesh Khandke and/or Zuggernaut. They're getting a bit tiresome. Aside from their disruption and (what seems like) trolling it's a bit worrying when they actually quote WP policy to support their argument, but it says exactly the opposite of what they are suggesting. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Present map is fine yes and complies with WP policies. If there are issues backed up by reliable sources the map should be altered, but its perfectly acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed - I don't see the problems being pointed out by several different editors like myself, User:Yogesh Khandke, User:John K in the current burst of activity and by others in the archives of these pages as disruptive. I view them as constructive efforts to improve the article. Please explain what you mean by "User:Yogesh Khandke and/or Zuggernaut". Zuggernaut (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right Red Hat, my edit was not kosher. I was lazy, I slipped. I will bring good references up and then make further edits. But you cannot justify the map based on wrong practices employed by editors. My objection is fundamental Red Hat, we are all here to make Wikipedia a repository of knowledge. Wikipedia has a clear policy: Verifiablity and not truth. What has been done has been confessed as research, I will not contest whether your map is a true reproduction or not. But it is original research. British Empire is an ancient subject. There are sure to be maps circa early 20th century, which are copyright free. If contributors are too lazy (like I was) and draw their own maps, such maps should not be included in a FA. Please take the maps off.

Please we need to improve the standard of Wikipedia. My suggestions are to be considered with the fact that we are dealing with a FA. Which is the best of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Imperial units

The United States is the only major country (apart from UK/ and Canada/Aus/NZ??), using Imperial Units. For example in India : Britan's largest colony, it is illegal to use Imperial Units since 1956, as per The Standards of W&M Act 1956 . So does the article inform that Imperial Units in the US is a Colonial legacy?[[37]] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not uncommon to use imperial units for some things in Canada. I'm not sure whether it is illegal to do so, but I highly doubt it. Perhaps the federal government is required to use metric, but that does not make it illegal for regular people. As for India, is it actually illegal for regular people to speak of miles and yards? Would they be arrested? Seriously? Pfly (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Good question. It is illegal to use these units for commercial transactions. (As I understand it?). You cannot sell one pound of rice you have to mark the package 454 g. Hope I am clear. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Or a drawing submitted for approval has to use Metiric Units (now SI units). Inches and feet would be rejected. Do I get the point across? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't always the case though, imperial was used in India before. The very fact they have 454g packets shows this. Imperial units still exist in colloquial usage in many former British areas that have since switched to metric, all of which is a legacy of the Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the Imperial system was in use during the colonial period, but was discontinued after 1956, the Rupee too was decimilised. We do not have 454 g packages, that was just an example that I have given. But the legacy of Imperial units: for example the inch is very much there, but that is like every where in the world, for example we have 6 mm steel bars (equivalent to about a quarter inch,) and like that for other materials too, we have timber sections 50 mm x 40 mm (2" x 1.5") But the statement about the legacy needs to be narrowed down to where it is used, such as the US, some body may think oh so the Imperial system is used in India too, which is not correct. (On the other hand we have traditional volumetric units for grain used in rural areas for exchange of commodities, in the communities where I live, pre-British units - perhaps[[38]], but that is another subject. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

As I replied above (why do you repeatedly open up the same discussion without reading responses to your previous posts?) just because a measuring system is not used officially does not mean it is not used unofficially. Its colloquial usage in former British colonies is a legacy of being a former British colony. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have read your response. India has grown out of the colonial legacy that imperial units is, officially - completely, and unofficially partially and is gradually advancing towards complete metricfication as the older technicians are dying. The statement in the article should be qualified. Imperial units in the US are a British Empire legacy, and not the present general statement. Please do not assume what others have done. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Rather than mention the USA there, if that sentence is to be changed id rather it be altered to point out that nations later changed over to metrics, Britain because of our membership of the European Union has also switched over in many ways. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't mention the USA, pointless. Just say "the use and former use" or some short simple qualification like that. Plenty of places use these unofficially, Australians (especially older ones) still occasionally use them, and the former usage has left a legacy in terms of sayings, whereas people often say "It's miles away" or "just an inch more", which are said not in reference to actual distance but out of habit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that anyone using 'miles' in India will be looked at like he or she just arrived from Mars. Plus where are the sources for saying that it's a legacy in India?Zuggernaut (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Where does the article say its a legacy in India? It talks of former colonies, it does not name India. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Imperial units are legal in the US which started as a nation which won independence from Britain, (remember the Indigenous Americans are not there in this independence business), so the use of Imperial units in the US is a colonial legacy, why not be specific and accurate as against vague and inaccurate? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

So, despite the fact that we did not reach consensus for this edit, you've gone ahead and made it anyway? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Kashmir: Could we have an excerpt please

Could we have the excerpt on which the following statement is based.

“

Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, contributing to conflicts in Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka.

”

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hardly controversial. Which bit are you objecting to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his edit comment from before [39] he's objecting to the fact that we are not laying the blame for the attack on the Twin Towers on the British Empire (how about blaming the people that made the decision to fly planes into buildings?). Anyway, the source (a historical atlas) has a map entitled "Imperial Legacies", with a marker for "areas of conflict" - it was from this map that I drew some examples for the text. Where these conflicts were in the past (e.g. the Malayan Insurgency), dates are given, where they are ongoing (e.g. Northern Ireland, Sudan), no date is given. Obviously I cannot paste a copy in for copyright reasons, but you can Look Inside at Amazon.com [40] - search for "imperial legacies", pp 134-5. Over India/Pakistan there are two markers. One for "INDIA (1946-8)" and another for "Kashmir" (no date). Note the Bangladesh Liberation War, which Yogesh Khandke added without providing any sources, is not listed in this source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh! Come on please don't beat around the bush, please provide the excerpt. I have confessed that my edit was a slip, I did not provide sources for what I wrote. Please can we have a source for the text that I have quoted above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just gave a full and frank account and pointed you to Amazon.com where you can see the source in all its glory. For the second time, it is from a MAP ... do you understand the word "map"? ... entitled Imperial Legacies which shows conflicts around the world that are imperial legacies. How do you expect me to provide an "excerpt" of a map? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I could not access the map. Link did-not work or my inadequacy. Is a map a reliable source. Also if India - Pakistan is also a conflict, then Bangladesh was not a very wrong as Pakistan (1947) = Pakistan - today + Bangladesh - today. Why isn't India - Pakistan conflict mentioned as a colonial legacy. I will give a reliable source for British appeasement and abetment of Muslim fundamentalism in order to weaken Indian opposition.(Hyndman) Same as US appeasement and abetment of Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan - Afghanistan to weaken its Marxist government. Remember chicken have come home to roost. (Rev. Wright), that led to 9-11 Please desist from using the word rant. What is its antonym, is it what you (plural) are writing here? Civil unrest for the events of 1857 is that an euphemism?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Emporer of Delhi rant

I reverted this edit [41].

Placing in a quotation like that is not very enclyclopaedic and not good style.
Westernize is a blanket term which includes Christianize, per the source. There is no disagreement on whether religion was a cause in the sources, but this edit made it appear that nationalists viewed it differently
This is a summary article on the BE. We do not need to get into detail on the causes of the rebellion - that is what the link to the article is for - readers can click in it to find out more

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like placing a quote, you can use third person. I have not removed the Westernise comment. That is an apologist view. The Indian perspective is that it was a war of Independence. What I have written is well sourced. Additionally the source is available for reference online. Should not be removed. So the revert. Please discuss before removal. Don't start an edit war. I have used a quote so that the exact statements would be visible. The Company was one of the belligerents, the Emperor was another, why would his proclamation be a rant?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:Bold, revert, discuss. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhap User:Yogesh Khandke could start by explaining why he wants to include POV detail in a neutral summary? Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

POV is a biased allegation. The new edit has no quotations, All well sourced. Addressed Red Hat's reservations about Westernisation and that nationalists viewed it differently. Looks a little awkward to me too. But the events of 1857 were a war between BEIC and Indians, and not just a Sepoy Mutiny, this is not POV. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly neutral now. No need for the jargonic word Sepoy when we have the fine word soldier. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

"Well sourced"? (by 'Published underground') and "Neutral"!? There are lots reliable academic publications supporting the current text. You'll need to provide a significant number of equally respectable sources stating a different view. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The point that the rebellion was not just sepoys is a fair one, I modified the text accordingly [42] (any suggestions for a better wording?). That we can't use the term "sepoy" though, is just Yogesh Khandke being hyper-sensitive again, in spite of the fact that academics are perfectly happy to use the term [43]. When academics stop using it, we can too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed pov word suppress

Was the conflict of 1857, some kind of epidemic, to suppress: sounds like the swine flu epidemic was suppressed. Removed that word, and rewrote the sentence in a neutral way. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Rebellions can be suppressed. It's a common English phrase. You and your pal Zuggernaut read far too much into things. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

lol, there is certainly nothing wrong with the word suppress. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a serious allegation that Red Hat has made, that Zuggernaut and myself are some kind of co-conspirators this allegation of association. I am not comfortable with that word, and had edited it. Now you have reverted my edits. This article is up for FA review. This "not able to understand the other sides view attitude" is not going to help. How would you feel if I assume that all the reverts that have been made one after the other are by a group acting in unison. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A serious allegation? he never said you were conspiring at all. He simply said you read too much into things, as in seeing a problem or "POV" where there is not one. All the reverts are different editors restoring the stable version because they think your wording need more discussion or does not belong in the article at all. Suppress is not a POV word. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The word may have a negative connotation for the potentially 1.2 billion readers like Yogesh in India. In order to keep all kinds of readers interested to the end, even those who are not in love with the BE, we need to consider Yogesh's objection seriously. Perhaps we can use something like 'defeat' or 'overpower' or 'quell' or something similar. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, we are all pals here. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont get the problem with "suppress", Defeat, overpower and quell have the same sort of meaning and are just as forceful, i dont get how its POV and if any of those words are acceptable i do not get how suppress is problematic at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, perhaps we should change it to a "tactical withdrawal" of the soldiers (definitely not sepoys) of the well-known British Empire Resistance to significant areas (like Goa) that were not under evil Western/Christian rule? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search:

"Rebellion suppressed" - 3,980 Google Books hits 7,210 Google web hits
"Rebellion was suppressed" - 9,950 Google Books hits 67,600 Google web hits
"Suppressing the rebellion" - 25,400 Google books hits 220,000 Google web hits

Like I said, a common English phrase. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Mutiny or war of independence and the word suppress

For those scholars and other writers quoted here, who call the hostilities of 1857 a mutiny or a rebellion the word suppress comes as a corollary, but that the events were a mutiny is in itself a POV. Please remember that the Company was wielding various powers including revenue collection on behalf of the Emperor of Delhi. So the sovereign of India at that time was the Emperor. The Emperor declared a war against the company which was in his employ. Was not the Company army rebelling against its own master the Emperor of Delhi? If you must call it a mutiny or a rebellion then the rebellion was not suppressed but it succeeded, as the Company prevailed. Even though a part of the events was the uprising of the Company's Indian soldiers, the Sipahi's (anglicised to Sepoy) against the officers this uprising soon conflagrated into a much wider war. So to avoid any point of view, I am editing the article further with a complete neutral language. Please see the source referenced in the article as my statements are based on the above source. (Savarkar’s Indian War of Independence) Scholarship should be neutral. Even though I do not have the qualification to claim that title; there is no reason that we as editors should not follow the best of Wikipedia conventions. Please editors consider other views based on reliable sources to arrive at a consensus. Savarkar’s book is available online, I request editors to read it to understand an Indian perspective of the events of 1857: Savarkar wrote (1909) that the events of 1857 were merely battles in India’s quest for independence, and that the war would cease only on India gaining independence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I added the POV tag to the 'Legacy' section because of the POV issues raised by User:Yogesh Khandke (Kashmir, Bangladesh, Western or Christian and imperial units). I'll let him add it back. I would like to add that the line describing the US as "a product of the British Empire" is syntactically correct but it is misleading and sort of ridicules the intent of the founding fathers. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I'm not sure I understand the issue wrt "Kashmir, Bangladesh, Western or Christian and imperial units". In the section just above this one it looks like you're advocating changing "the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India" to "the tensions caused by British evangelicalism in India", or something like that? I don't see anything about Kashmir, Bangladesh, or imperial units on the talk page. I didn't mean to jump the gun though, removing the tag. I don't watch this page too closely and happened to see the tag and no talk page discussion associated with it. As for the US being a "product", I dunno. I'm American, and no lover the British Empire, but it sounds alright to me. Perhaps it could be put differently, but I'm not sure I'd call it "POV". What wording would you suggest instead? The sentence is, "The spread of English from the latter half of the 20th century has been helped in part by the cultural influence of the United States, itself a product of the British Empire." ~~How about, "...the United States, formerly part of the British Empire"?~~ Pfly (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC) No wait, that doesn't work, since most of what is now the US was not part of the empire. "Product" makes more sense. Pfly (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The imperial measurements issue is a matter for WP:NOR not WP:NPOV. I'm sure we can come up with a source for this (I googled it in Google Books and found a few, but am on a PDA so cant be bothered to add one to the article). Note, Zuggernaut, the imperial system of measurement can be a legacy of the British Empire without being the official one. See Imperial units. It is still used in daily life in Australia, Canada and other places. How did it get there? That was a legacy of being a former a British colony.
The Western/Christian thing, I just do not understand what the issue is here, please explain.
Kashmir/Bangladesh - this edit, which I reverted, took a sentence which was sourced and changed it to add other claims without providing any sources. If you still don't understand why that is unacceptable, read WP:NOR now please.
USA - I'm sure we can reword it.

Bottom line - none of these warrant the slapping of a POV tag to the whole section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe change product to result? or a result of the British Empires colonisation of the new world etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Result wouldn't work. Maybe legacy...oh wait. Perhaps "itself with roots from the British Empire" or something along those lines. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, "itself an offshoot of the British Empire." ðarkun coll 11:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Pfly - The Declaration of Independence allows the usage of the United States for the thirteen colonies. The US was a product of the American Revolution or the American War of Independence, not of the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick - Kashmir, Bangladesh, Western/Christian issue were not brought up by me and they were dismissed without any substantial explanation. That is incorrect and thus warranted a POV tag based on edit summaries. I will leave it to Yogesh to pursue it further. The US was a product of a violent war of separation from the British Empire. If there is consensus, perhaps this reliable source can be used to summarize the legacy of the British Empire in India. "But I hope Mr Cameron knows that if he tries that rhetoric in India, he’ll bomb. Where would you start? With the philandering shag-hounds of the East India Company? And then onto the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre via the Great Bengal Famine of 1770?" The history of British India will serve David Cameron well – as long as he doesn't go on about it Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Other editors - "Roots", offshoot are all misleading because the ideological differences expressed by the founding fathers and other thinkers, upon which the country is founded were significantly different from old world ideas. The roots were in the broader Western enlightenment ideals later shaped by American Pragmatism and several other factors. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Offspring then? Yes, there was a violent and somewhat ideological break with the British Empire. I saw "somewhat" because a great many British systems were retained without much if any change. Common law for example. Anyway, the sentence in question is about the use of the English language, which was obviously retained in full. Pfly (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, anyway, I just took the clause out complete, "itself a product of the British Empire." It's common knowledge anyway, isn't it? Pfly (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Perfect solution! [44] Zuggernaut (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with removing it entirely, although i also disagree with the new wording " itself once a British colony", the United States of America as a country was never a British colony (like Hong Kong or India), but formed from former British colonies so we need to make that clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

True, but that's being a tad anal, I think. If you look in Google Books [45] you can see some authors referring to the US as "a" former British colony (I'm not saying all the results on the first page use that language, but at least two do). That said, I was only being bold when I made that edit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

With the recent interest in this article its best to avoid anything that could be read certain ways. There can be no dispute about the wording if it said something like ",itself originally formed from British colonies". BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrase should not have been removed, there is now no clear flow and reference to the British Empire there. It was much clearer before. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I switched it to BritishWatcher's suggestion, "itself originally formed from British colonies". It's a minor and pedantic point, but I think this phrasing is more accurate than the previous one. Ie, Utah was never part of the British Empire. Pfly (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The more accurate the better, sadly at present the article is under attack by a couple of editors whos agenda is very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I thought User:Pfly's solution was the best possible solution given that everyone knows about the connection between the British Empire and the 13 colonies. We should revert back to Pfly's removal of the phrase - it gets the point across in a neutral way. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't just assume people know stuff, and without this clause the sentence seems out of place in a legacy section about the British Empires. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Westernisation of India"

I am still stumped as to what the problem is with attributing part of the cause of the Indian Mutiny to the tensions caused by "British attempts to Westernise India".

The cited source (Olson's Historical Dictionary of the B.E.) says: "The (rebellion) reflected cumulative tensions that had built up during nearly a century of interaction between western influences and Indian society...India was subjected to three important Western ideologies that had been carried to India"
India condensed: 5000 years of history & culture By Anjana Motihar Chandra [46] says "The mutiny was triggered by pent up resentment against the governance of the British East India Company. The common man was tired of....the growing westernisation that threatened Indian culture."
The pursuit of reason: the Economist, 1843-1993 [47] "There had been mounting discontent among conservative Indians over the inroads of westernisation"
The new realities By Peter Ferdinand Drucker [48] "The Indian Mutiny was a desperate attempt to stop westernization"
Students' Britannica India: Volumes 1-5 - Page 30 [49] "There were many underlying causes that led to the mutiny but it was the increasing pace of westernization in India that finally sparked it off"

...and the list goes on, and on, and on. Just search for it in Google books - I'm not going to waste my time pasting in any more reliable sources here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, here's one more to use the term "Westernize" in relation to Britain actions in India:

Encyclopaedia Britannica, no less: [50] "To regard the rebellion merely as a sepoy mutiny is to underestimate the increasing pace of Westernization after the establishment of British paramountcy in India in 1818. Hindu society was being affected by the introduction of Western ideas."

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Your sources are dated. Check out the latest research in this area:

BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' "In the rebels' own papers, they refer over and again to their uprising being a war of religion. There were no doubt a multitude of private grievances, but it is now unambiguously clear that the rebels saw themselves as fighting a war to preserve their religion, and articulated it as such."

BBC - This Sceptred Isle: EMPIRE "The reasons for the rebellion were long standing and included: attempts by British missionaries to convert all India to Christianity; ineffectual command of the army in Bengal; insensitive recruiting policy and "Europeanization" of the sepoy regiments and sepoy objections to serving outside their homeland and traditional areas."

Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny "More sophisticated historical readings find a range of causes for the bubbling discontent that led to open rebellion - the punitive tax collection system, a succession of British territorial seizures and the rise of aggressive Christian evangelism among them."

Zuggernaut (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Were you trying to shoot yourself in the foot or was it an accident? The sources you've provided (news websites which are generally less useful than academic publications in this context) list the same sorts of factors that the term "Westernise" would include. While the websites provide inconsistent lists, the academic sources consistently provide a single convenient term to explain the background. This is entirely appropriate language for an overview article like this (i.e. one which does not focus exclusively on India - a small part of the history of the British Empire). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Published underground

Savarkar's book was published underground because the BE government shat (if anal is allowed so be it), about its impact and proscribed it before publication in 1909, so it was published underground, and later published in many languages, see wikipedia article on it. Please do not jump to conclusions, the first edition was published underground, his book is some kind of legend. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Very reliable source. Its proscription makes it more so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced?

“

The British choice of system of measurement, the imperial system a colonial legacy...

”

Is this unsourced? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This specific text does not occur in the article. Pfly (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Not a good sign for a FA. Unsourced matter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dickens on the events of 1857

“

I wish I were the Commander in Chief in India. ... I should do my utmost to exterminate the Race upon whom the stain of the late cruelties rested... to blot it out of mankind and raze it off the face of the earth.

”

This article smells of the same attitude as Dickens, certainly not FA quality. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please, nobody feed the WP:TROLL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I am merely trying to illustrate how this article comes accross, sharing my feelings on this article. Hyper-sensitive? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Troll Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent). Not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves etc.

Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used to troll). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people.

There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls.

The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.

Wikipedia Founder Jimbo Wales giving a lecture on dealing with trolls.The basic policy regarding trolling is simple: please refrain.

Please I am subjected to troll, all I have reacted is with refrain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Britannica Encyclopaedia

Red Hat's comment no less is encouraging for Brit. Encl. but misplaced. It does not know where Mahabaleshwar is look it up. Placed it all wrong. As is said you know whether rice is cooked by checking one grain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

BOT map

As long as this page is being scrutinized (scrutinised?), I've just noticed that the map File:Location of the BOTs.svg shows the British Indian Ocean Territory located about 1,000 miles too far west, more or less where the Seychelles are. Pfly (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this myself. The dot should be more or less correct. Pfly (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, except the fonts are now not quite the same and the thumbnail view less clear. I like the idea of SVG format but the practice of it still eludes me. I did nothing but move the dot and resave as SVG. Could it be because I'm on a Mac? I'll try to figure it out and improve the quality. Pfly (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson sources

Is [52] any good to replace cite 119? I dont mind looking for some of the sentences that need new refs, but i dont know if these other sources are even worse or if they are all covered in the other main books. So i wont add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And bottom of page 48 [53] for cite 107 BritishWatcher (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And page 111 [54] for cite 84. Ill stop now incase none of these are helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec with Olson. That was just YellowMonkey's (very mistaken) opinion on the FA review page, which he's entitled to, but it doesn't mean that is something we must immediately jump to "fix" because he declares Olson to be a "clown" or a "joke". Imagine where we'd be if any Wikipedia editor could with the wave of a hand simply claim they saw a couple of "incorrect" facts in another publication by that author/editor and therefore everything that has ever been published by that author/editor is unreliable and Wikipedia can't use it! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, without even being sure you should have thrown out the bathwater. (He also doesn't appear to be aware that Olson is the co-editor, not the author.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It wont take us long to change the sources, He dealt with the troll so he was right on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the one has to do with the other? Anyway what's the difference between Zuggernaut declaring references "dated" with a wave of the hand and YellowMonkey declaring others to be written by "clowns"? Wikipedia has clear definitions of what constitutes a WP:RS. On point of principle (because I have dealt with many a POV warrior in the past who tries to dismiss references in this manner), I'm going to stand up for this reference. There are other, valid reasons for changing a reference, but YellowMonkey calling the editor a clown is not one of them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

ps I didnt mean that YellowMonkey is a POV warrior. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is Zuggernaut is not one of the 3 editors listed at FAR responsible for the place. Im sure Yellow could give a more detailed reason if needed, if the source does need changing we may as well make a start. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not a final arbiter or an expert in the field - he's a housekeeper appointed to help Raul654 make the process go smoothly, just like admins are there to help keep things running smoothly and are not arbiters of content disputes. Decisions relating to the FA-ness of articles are community decisions on the basis of our policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to access ~~Olson~~ Lloyd on Google Books, so I'm not sure about one point, which may be relevant - the fact that source 119 references a sentence about both the position of Australia and NZ and also the neutrality of Ireland. Your source, for example BW, does not discuss the Ireland dimension. Setting aside the obvious trolling and silliness above, there is always a case for reviewing how sources are used in an article and how what they say measures up to the sentence in question. I can't tell if ~~Olson~~ Lloyd on that page talks about both Anzac and Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree it's a worthy discussion to have, if it's prompted by justified objections. I have a copy at home of both volumes. Do you need me to paste in exactly what it says? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that Olson and Ferguson are reliable sources for WP purposes, I do think they pop up a little bit too frequently. It might look better if we used a wider range of sources to provide additional support for certain statements. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to have wider sourcing. Thanks for the offer of pasting the relevant sections of those Olson books in Red Hat (is your shortform "Red Hat", "Pat Ferrick" or some other combination?), that would be interesting, if not too time consuming. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cite number 119 is T.O. Lloyd's book, not the Olson dictionary - which are we talking about here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

|I am sorry, in my rush I said Olson - I meant Lloyd. It isn't searchable on Google Books. [55] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Dalrymple (The Last Mughal) acceptable as a source? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Which source number are you discussing please Fainites. I can't see either mentioned in the article text or ref list? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you meant to add it as a source. It was a well-received book [56] and I would have thought mention of the end of the Mughals would be a worthwile addition. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it because it was raised in the course of the argument about whether the 1857 Uprising/Mutiny (whatever) was primarily religiously inspired. It's an interesting book based on extensive sourcing though it very much revolves around Dehli. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I wonder if it is time for an RfC? we seem to have a coordinated effort to disrupt the article. --Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was also thinking of asking an admin to lock this page from editing for awhile. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, it appears that Yogesh has been blocked for 2 weeks. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You sure about that? Anyway, yes, I agree that it might be time for an RfC on the users. Given the volume of diatribe one would think there were huge problems with the article, but the end result is that we've tweaked the wording of two sentences (slightly). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank god for that (add his talk page to your watch list and you'll see it). Hopefully his 2 week block will give our newer friend User:Zuggernaut some food for thought too on what happens when you behave like this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 09:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a danger that we have some game playing here - part of the article's status is its stability. --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's "food for thought" comment as friendly advice and continue pursuing my recent WP:BOLD addition that was recently undone by user:Chipmunkdavis in a section below. As regards to the RfC, I think it's a waste of time to spend time in spaces other than article-space on Wikipedia for users who are genuinely committed to improving articles. However, if we must go there, I'm sure WP processes will be objective enough somewhere in the WP:DRR hierarchy for us to figure out what and if something went wrong. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

My recent WP:BOLD addition [57] was undone and the edit summary said "Rv undue weight and misleading alterations". This is the content I attempted to add:

“

The English language is also a legacy in India where it is the second or third language of millions of people. However, the British Empire is not looked upon favourably in India due to several injustices including the deceit and treachery of the East India Company, the Amritsar massacre of 1919 and the Bengal famine. India's share of global income was more or less equal to that of Europe at about 23% in 1700 but it declined to 3.8% under British rule. Despite the negative impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Britons and Indians has been relaxed or benign since Indian independence.

”

This addition was based on the following sources:

Singh, Manmohan (2005), In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005, The Hindu, retrieved September 28, 2010
Heaven, Will (2010), The history of British India will serve David Cameron well – as long as he doesn't go on about it, The Telegraph, retrieved September 28, 2010

I understand that "deceit and treachery" are probably not the right terms to use but perhaps someone can help replacing them with "more neutral" words.

If you object to the entire edit, please state your reason (could be a WP policy or could be as simple as you don't like it) for keeping such content out. This is an attempt to gauge if content that's critical can be added back to the article. I will respond to comments that refute the content directly. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The section concerned issues of language and system so it was and inappropriate addition at that point Neither are your two references substantive when compared with others used in the article. While India is critical to a history of the British Empire, the title of this article is not "The British Empire and India" so WP:Weight will exclude some material anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we give two sentences to India given that the following has been said of the British Empire:

The British Empire is an Empire only because of India.
India - the brightest jewel that now remained in his Majesty's crown.
India was the most prized and prestigious colonial possession of the British Empire.

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several sentences on India which are appropriate --Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean in the context of size/significance to British Empire, i.e, are you saying there are reliable sources stating that India was not significant to the existence of BE? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no rational reading of my comment that could be interpreted that way. To make it crystal clear, India is already covered in the article with well referenced material. You can't legitimately argue that your recent addition should stand due to a paucity of material. If you raise a valid argument I will respond, but easily avoidable misinterpretations do not justify the effort. Assume no consent to the addition unless it is explicitly given. --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, I cannot add per WP:BRD but I appreciate your reminder. India receives a total of 1.13 KB out of 61 KB coverage or 1.8% of the total article (approximately). I do not think that's adequate coverage given the statements provided above. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Empire included at various stages North America, Australasia and a large part of Africa I think its fairly balanced. I don't know how you calculated those particular figures, but a quick review says that the sub-continent is treated proportionately. You can always propose specific changes, but just adding in material with poor references in an inappropriate section is not the way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 07:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The references are from top publications with best-in-class editorial oversight and fit WP:RS requirements as far as I know. The statement was placed in the 'Legacy' section which I think is as appropriate as it can get but I am open to add in a different location. Since this addition will require consensus, I will wait for reaction from other interested editors before we carry this discussion forward. Signing off for this session. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Since India is by far the most populous part of what was the empire--and a country that is rapidly becoming more important in the world--it might be worth a little more proportional space. I don't think the full quote Zuggernaut added is needed or appropriate. But perhaps something combining the first and last parts: "The English language is also a legacy in India where it is the second or third language of millions of people. However, the [history of the rule of the] British Empire is not looked upon favourably in India... Despite the negative impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Britons and Indians has been relaxed or benign since Indian independence." Obviously this exact wording is not very good, and its location in the article may not be right. But perhaps something could be said about how modern India does not view the British Empire favourably, yet there is a "relaxed or benign" feeling between individual Britons and Indians today (given it can be well sourced). It is obviously a complicated subject, and as an outside observer generally ignorant about British-Indian relations, I can say something like this might help people like me understand, if only slightly, the complex relation between Britain and India today. It strikes me as odd that there could be a bad feeling in India about the British Empire yet a benign feeling about Britons--and I assume Britain itself--today. If this is true it might be worth explaining, for non-British non-Indians like me. Pfly (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its an article about a historical entity that no longer exists. Current relationships between India and the UK and their causes belong elsewhere. I am sure the article can be improved in respect of India but not with the sort of speculative comments proposed above supported by a newspaper article about a current political situation and degree acceptance speech from 2005. --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded (!). This is a historical article. India is not a major ally or a major opponent (economically, militarily etc) of the UK today. I doubt that many modern Britons think about India very much (apart from food of the same name), certainly not compared to somewhere like the US with whom we share many economic, military and cultural ties. If there are important legacy issues in India then perhaps they could be covered in an India-related article, but from this perspective the relationship with India is very similar to most of the other parts of what was the British Empire... and this is already covered. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed is quite right. "The Empire" not something the British give much thought to one way or the other these days apart from a degree of black humour over the fact that they all thrash us at cricket.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As always Zuggernaut attempts to insert POV material. I oppose his suggestions. What makes me laugh is he said ""deceit and treachery" are probably not the right terms to use" yet decided to add them to the article anyway then gets unhappy when an editor removes his POV addition. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I would go there BW. Deceit and treachery were a characteristic of the Empire (as for all Empires). Z's material may have a place in other articles, or here in much modified form if we pick up the atrocities section for which I think there is a case (but have had no time to work on). --Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One could say they were characteristic of all human experience I'm sure. I personally feel that the overview given in this article is sufficient, detail about times when deceit and treachery were used no doubt belong in more specific articles, which deals with those events. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Atrocities... Yikes. That would be a Pandora's Box. Atrocities, deceit, treachery, were all par for the course for most of the existence of the British Empire. What of the Native American Indians who slaughtered English women and children, or the Africans who captured and sold their brothers' bodies to British slave traders, or the Indian rulers who made pacts with British allowing this handful of massively outnumbered white men to rule a whole sub-continent? This is such a complicated issue, complicated even more by the fact that ideas of right and wrong have changed throughout time (judging past actions on today's morals is always difficult - read about God's atrocities in the Old Testament for "God's" sake), with such a wide variety of viewpoints, it's as I say a Pandora's box. Throw in your POV warriors from former British colonies, not to mention countries still eyeing British Overseas Territories, who want (insert their favorite bad thing the British did) and this will be a constant battleground. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool it Red Hat. No one would dispute that most human societies in some way or another do bad things (even by the standards of their age) and Empires are no exception. The British Empire has some notable ones, such as the concentration camps in South Africa to take one example of many. Any balanced article needs to show both the good and the bad. I'm not sure if its a section, or some minor alterations to legacy or possibly a new article. As to your little tirade against POV warriors; well the article is not exempt from that at the moment and their are POV warriors who are pro-Empire as well. --Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, watching the welcome ceremony for the Commonwealth Games in India just now and England got a big cheer from the crowd. So evidently we are forgiven, at least to some extent. :) I suggest though that we all try to stick as far as we can to sourcable facts and reasoned comparisons. Yes, there was deceit, unpleasant behaviour, oppressive action, etc. There were also good sides to it. Imperial colonialism is (we all hope) a thing of the past, so let's treat this as history and not something going on now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets hope they do not boooo the Prince of Wales as the Queen isnt attending. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Questions about the reliability of sources have been asked. Are newspapers in the league of The New York times poor sources?
It looks like there's some support to add a modified version of the statements somewhere else in the article. Is there consensus on this? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not from me. We can not mention every single British colony and its relationship with the UK following independence or peoples point of view about imperial rule. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor from me your proposal currently stands. --Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do think the article doesn't quite have enough material about the Indian Raj at present - it has stuff about the early days of the East India Company, etc, plus some about WW2 and the independence struggle. Parts of Zuggernaut's suggested add I don't disagree with, but we probably don't need too big an addition in what is already a very long article. A little more would be useful. The effect of empire on India's econonomic structure and world relationships is I think quite important. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No agreement from me either - in fact it seems more like there is consensus to reject Zuggernaut's proposal. As for Jamesinderbyshire's comments - the "effects of empire" on India might be important in an article on India and might deserve significant coverage there, but there is sufficient material in this article already (which broadly reflects the proportion in reliable sources). This is not a forum for discussing perceived rights and wrongs of past events. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was suggesting it is a forum. If the sources say there were some notable negative effects of the Empire on countries, then that is worth including and that doesn't make it a forum! You haven't addressed the point I was making, which was that there is rather a gap in the article between the earliest days of empire in India and the end of it. Given that India was always by far the most important imperial possession, this matters. It also does matter that there currently isn't much about the effects of empire - the effects are relevant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes sense to me; and there is a prominent link to the British Raj page. Sometimes one can forget that the British Empire is historical and no more. In contrast the US never had an "official" empire, so speaking of a present-day "American Empire" does not sound anachronistic. The fact that there was a real British Empire makes it easier to look at present Britain as "non-imperial", despite a few obvious counter-example BOTs. "...black humour over the fact that they all thrash us at cricket" made me laugh. Pfly (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One final thought. For legacy issues continuing to the present day, perhaps a link to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom would be useful. India – United Kingdom relations seems like the right place for a lot of what's been discussed here, and its prominently listed on the Foreign relations of the United Kingdom page. Pfly (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoken?

Is this article stable enough to do a Spoken version, or should we wait a bit? I've noticed proposals like the one above may rapidly change the article and spoken version may be quickly out-of-date, and I'd hate to have to do this one twice. I thought I'd just ask.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 12:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its currently undergoing a FA review, so is probably best to wait for all the problems from that to be dealt with and passed. Although it mostly is concern about a source and maps/images by the looks of it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Any idea how look it go on for? I'd like to start writing the script.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 13:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that the FA review is concerning itself with references and images as BW says. Does the spoken version include mention of those? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, from the scripts I've written - I don't include descriptions of the sources (like reading them out) - I simply say "a detailed list of sources are available on the written version of this article". So I suppose the references aren't a factor in a future spoken. Images on the other-hand are sometimes included, if they define a certain point or section, for example - the world map that you created File:The British Empire.png defines the size-
"An image is displayed next to the Introduction on the written version of this article – its caption reads "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire. Current British overseas territories are underlined in red.""
Other than that; I'd include (with their captions) - File:British Colonies in North America c1750 v2.png, File:Captainjamescookportrait.jpg,File:BritishEmpire1815.png, File:British Empire 1897.jpg, File:BritishEmpire1919.png, File:Eden, Anthony.jpg, File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png and File:Location of the BOTs.svg. Mostly due to their captions - they include information that independently makes sense and are somewhat of a condense version of the section. They're not vital to the quality of the Spoken version, but are a nice addition.
May I ask what the image problem is? I'd look, but I'm rather against squabbles and rather bored by reading replies and that.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 15:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Current FA problems mainly revolving around licensing and other complicated legal stuff. Nothing really to worry about in terms of content. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought it'd be the amount of images or something else simple. Anyway they're all free - either by age or author. Strange. Thank you for informing me.
--George2001hi (Discussion) 15:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Removal Candidate

The review of this article has now moved onto the next stage with some wanting to remove its featured article status. Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#FARC_commentary_4. The main issue that some of the editors are raising there is use of the Oslon source, so i have created Talk:British Empire/Olson which lists its use throughout the article. There are sadly a lot which is part of the problem, so over the weekend ill make a start looking for some other sources to back up some of the sentences as id rather we try to replace some of these sources than it be delisted because of peoples dislike of Olson based on his other works which are not related to the sources used in this article. I think it would be helpful if we try to list the sources there, so they can be checked over, there is little point replacing a source if its still not deemed reliable enough and it seems rather difficult to know what is or is not acceptable. Changing this source may not change the result of the FARC but it could have an impact so if others want to help try over the next couple of weeks that would be great thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson is over-relied on, so this is likely to be useful work, thanks for doing it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced a number of Olson refs before seeing this message, so check to make sure you're not scrambling to find a source for a statement already otherwise referenced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A side-line to the above: there are two N Ferguson (2004) references in the bibliography, and the footnotes don't tell us which reference is to which book. Sorry... hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing some of the refs, will mark those ones off on the page i created and others if they are added. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Negative economic impact - new proposition

Based on the feedback, here's a much shortened alternative version of the proposed addition:

“

India's share of global income slipped from 22.6% in 1700, nearly equal to that of Europe's of 23.4%, to 3.8% by the time of Indian independence. Despite the negative economic impact of the Empire, Britons and Indians have enjoyed a benign relationship since independence.

”

Same sources apply. Feedback is welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is the paragraph is very misleading. Indias wealth increased, it did not decrease. The difference is the rest of the worlds wealth increased more. So in 1700 before the USA was a country to 1940s when the USA had become an economic superpower clearly that has an impact on Indias global wealth in proportion to the rest of the world, yet the whole paragraph is aimed at blaming it on the Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to Zuggernaut's point, it's a pretty big fall to be entirely attributable to global growth. Actually, a great many economic historians hold similar views, including right-wing British ones like Niall Ferguson. There could be plenty of sourcing to support such a statement, although we could argue over the precise wording, context, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be sources talking about its decline in proportion to global wealth, but it can not be attributed in such a way as though it was completely down to Empire. There is also a problem of why just India? We can not talk in detail about the impact of empire on each nation, there are specific articles covering these things. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, i do not know how "share of global income" is calculated especially from 300 years ago, do we have figures for what it is today since empire? For example Indias GDP today is just 2.1% of global GDP. If that was higher prior to independence (i dont know if it was because im unsure of how the calculation was done), should we say since independence Indias share of global GDP has declined to 2.1%? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have a source per WP:RS and I don't think we'll have a problem with other WP policies for this statement. The environment of this article is more evolved and mature as compared to some of the other articles so stability/edit warring won't be issues if we are able to form a consensus. The question is whether criticism can be handled in this FA. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources have to be credible and the figures well worked out. Calculations of national and global income, especially variations "caused" by events, are notoriously controversial. Still, if well-sourced, it might be worth a mention. A number of economic historians have made this particular speculation trendy in recent years. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is quoting Angus Maddison. Do we really need to get in to doing the math ourselves when we have a reliable source? Zuggernaut (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The right place for in depth discussion of what happened in India is British Raj. Picking out one country out of the 50? 60? countries of the world that were once in whole or part British territories and then picking out one specific topic (economic impact and relations between the two countries) is just a very odd tangent for the Legacy section to suddenly embark on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Timeline of the economy of India

"1952 - India's economy had a 3.8% share of world income."

"1973 - India's economy was $494.8 billion, which accounted for a 3.1% share of world income."

So for 20 years following independence, India's share of world income declined. It also says..

"India's economy is $3,815.6 billion (purchasing power parity) which accounts for a 6.3% share of world income, the fourth largest in the world in terms of real GDP."

However, i notice purchasing power parity is used rather than nominal GDP. The two things are different and i dont know what calculation Maddison based his original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming very tiresome. There are three core policies on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut appears to have tenuous understanding of one of them - verifiability, but that's not enough. We also have no original research which guards against editors, for example, coming in and synthesising revisionist history. We also have, most importantly, WP:NPOV which governs what sort of verifiable information appears in an article (i.e. in proportion to its relative weighting in the sources). To balance (i.e. NPOV) what he wants to include we would need far more information for India and all the other colonies/dominions, much of which would be speculative counterfactual OR. Such an analysis would take up a vast amount of space in a historical article just to satisfy his desire to communicate a controversial and sensationalist concept. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Wiki-Ed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut may not have the correct sentence, but it isn't OR if there are good, verifiable sources that say it is so. It isn't irrelevant because India was the most important part of the BE. For that reason there wouldn't be a need to "counter-balance" it by reference to other specific parts of the empire. By all means argue about the notability of the sentence, but don't say something is "tiresome" just because you don't happen to agree with it's inclusion. In fact, the only OR above is coming from BW. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for anything ive posted here to be included in the article. His proposal however does seem a bit like WP:Synthesis though. A source saying Indias proportion of global income declined is one thing, but then to follow that statement by "Despite the negative economic impact of the Empire" is clearly a problem. It is suggesting that without the Empire Indias proportion of global income would not have "declined" which is highly questionable. Its obvious as Europe rose up from the ashes of the dark ages and its colonies expanded all over the globe, Indias proportion of income would have fallen. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For people's interest, Niall Ferguson on the subject [58]: "I did a simple calculation to show the ratio of British per capita income to Indian per capita income over the very long run. It reached its maximum extent in 1979. And in the case of more or less all of Britain’s African colonies, income and equality between Britain and the African countries has vastly increased since independence. You could conclude that if the British had really wanted to impoverish people in developing countries, they would have given them their independence long before, because nothing has impoverished people in sub-Saharan Africa quite like political independence." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but India was a rich, old country in the first place, though in bits. However, simple comparison is probably facile as between 1700 and 1900 Britain had firstly an agricultural revolution and secondly, the worlds first Industrial Revolution. Then the USA and other European countris caught up and overtook. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no "India" per se, but that aside, I don't understand why Jamesinderbyshire has cited that particular paragraph. It undermines his previous comment - if reliable sources are analysing this in depth (generally they're not - it's counterfactual and most historians avoid that - but let's assume they are) then we would have to represent views such as Ferguson's on sub-Saharan Africa to give it proper weighting. I see no reason why India should be singled out. Some may say it was the most important part of the Empire, but others would identify the US as being the most important - and certainly to-date it has had the most significant effect. And yes it is tiresome - he's effectively trolling - successively setting us up to argue on pointless debates about tweaks to the article. This article was stable for a long time - the talk page was quiet. Now look at it. There's so much more to be done on WP than tinker with FA to appease those who don't understand neutrality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't citing it to support a POV. You may or may not believe me Wiki-Ed, but I don't have a strong POV on this issue - just trying to get an interesting article. Ferguson is interesting because he is a "right-wing" view on this topic, which has a lot of "left-wing" authors abounding, saying that it was all ghastly and Britain undermined poor old India. I thought other editors here might be interested in a wider scope. Some of this discussion makes me think that there are simplistic POVs around that think we can "prove" something about how bad the BE was. None of which means that India wasn't central. The US really isn't a valid comparison, although it's interesting, because it never had the population, scale or economy to compare with India during British rule. India was a quarter of the imperial population. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate you often bring a neutral view to these discussions.

As for Ferguson I had not perceived him to be particularly right wing, but I don't read the Guardian (found reviews via Google) so no surprise there. His perspective is neither David Irving nor Eric Hobsbawn... and I don't believe we should seek to balance the article by including contrasting views (for example of those two authors) when there are plenty of reliable sources - like Ferguson - sitting in the relative centre of the political spectrum and providing consistent and comparatively neutral analysis.

As for the importance of India or the US - the latter was at least as important to the "First British Empire" as the former was to the second. However, the latter has had a more significant and lasting effect on world affairs. The effect of the Empire's legacy on the US is much more important (i.e. notable) for an encyclopedia with a global audience. However, it doesn't get proportionately more coverage than India. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RHPF - British Raj is the right place for a detailed discussion of this but a summary statement should be alright in BE. Jamesinderbyshire - I don't know what right-wing Fergusonian politics is about but his numbers do make sense given that it takes time to change or even overturn policies for a large country like India. Also, the virtual elimination of large scale famines in post-independent India, the improved health-care and reduced mortality caused the population to boom in that period. Population of Britain was more or less stable by then so I'm not sure what to make of the per-capita comparison. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I agree with Zuggernaut. It is fairly well established that the economic effects of the empire were negative and that the economies of the colonial nations were organized to serve British economic interests rather than local ones. All this has a long term legacy that needs to be included in the article and it is surprising that the article makes no mention of any economic effects. And, focusing on India is not out of kilter because India was Britain's main colony (it wasn't referred to as the jewel in the crown for nothing). However, that said, I agree that a comparison between India in 1700 and India in 1947 is misleading because of several reasons. For one, by the early 1700s, the Mughal Empire was beginning its long decline (for independent reasons) and one doesn't have to be a student of history to see what the decline of an empire does to the economy. Secondly, British economic policy is mostly confined to the 1800s when it consolidated its rule over India so attributing the entire decline of India's global income share to its past as a colony is not correct. And, finally, as many comments above assert, the rest of the world changed, at the least it became much larger. Bottom line, the article should include something about the economic effects of the empire but perhaps not in a manner as definitive as zuggernaut's proposed text implies. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But surely then it should be a more even-handed view. Whilst it may be true that the economics of empire were organised at a macro level to serve Britain; there is also the view that economic organisation on a micro level improved the standard of living for colonial subjects. I mean, it is extremely complicated. To be simplistic, the vast rail network erected in India directly contributed to an increase in internal market effects on "colonial" Indians, even though the railway network was established not with that motive in mind. So, does one therefore just represent the view of what was intended, or what actually happened. It is also very tricky in "legacy" subject matter to disentangle facts from the post-colonial environment. Personally, by going down this route I think people will be opening up a huge can of worms. The only alternative may be to create a specific article on the economics of empire and then be able to note viewpoints whilst referring to that for greater clarification. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this further.... the alternative may be to include an "imperial/empire" caveat. AS in, "Like other economic networks established by empires in history, the colonial territories of Britain were economically subservient, as in India where....." I mean, the way things get phrased is very interesting. In histories of Rome there is very rarely any element of criticism in the economic setup of the empire - at least, in terms of Rome "using" its empire. I think that is what people object too... not the reality of what happened with India (or anywhere else) but the direct criticism that is often implied or even directly stated. As far as I'm concerned, anything about the legacy of the British empire should be written in the same tone as if one were writing about the Roman or Persian or Chinese. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well beware of that because absence makes the heart grow fonder where empires are concerned. An empire within living memory is an Evil Empire, responsible for all ills. An ancient empire is a wonderful exmple of human endeavour and a lost Golden Age (Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mughals).Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is generally accepted that the net economic effect of colonization on the colonies is negative. Obviously, this comes with some uncertainty because no one can ever know what would have happened if these countries had not been colonized. (That works both ways though. Would there have been railways in India without the British? Probably, yes. Because railways everywhere were built in those centuries.) However, as I say above, definitive statements of the sort that zuggernaut is proposing are not a good idea. And, any statement should be rooted in a reliable, generally accepted view of empire. The comparison with Rome and Greece is not germane because they don't have the same recency as the colonial empires and are not viewed in a manner similar to the Eurpoean empires of the 18th - 20th centuries by historians. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely my point regarding the empires of Rome or Persia.... the past isn't periodised, humans do that in their conceptions. There is an increasing move among historians to move away from the "period" thinking. Of course, this may be besides the point, but the legacy of Rome directly continues today in language, civics, and roadworking. A number of histories are increasingly looking at this integrated view of the past. If this article is supposed to represent historical viewpoints - what historical viewpoints is it representing? I see no reason why one view of history (which privileges highly critical assessments of colonial empires) should prevail over others. IMO the best historians to source for this type of "legacy" content would be those that write world histories. Anyway, I'm getting off the point here. Recency should really have no bearing upon objectivity and the way the past is approached - and if it does, then obviously it is for subjective reasons. I know of many histories that treat the British Empire in the same way as other empires throughout history. So not "all" historians have a postcolonial viewpoint. And whilst it is true that railways were built during this period all over the world - guess who built them. The construction of railways in Europe and the US during the early to mid 1800s was funded by British money and British investment. In America, Russia, and Northern Europe in particular the British were the ones who funded the construction of railways, just as they did in the empire. Is that a positive economic reflection of empire then? I am also unsure as to what a "generally accepted" viewpoint is in the contemporary world. I dare say there are sufficient histories written that would require a qualification to any statement about the negative economic affects of empire. Remember, we are also talking about a long period of time. The American colonies were generally regarded as immensely successful economically. They come from an earlier period, and India a later - but why should one be previleged over the other? The British Empire is a very different case to something like the French or Spanish - it lasted longer, was larger, and incorporated a far greater variety of economic units, economic management styles, and economic histories. I don't want to sound like an apologist - just that the economic history of the British Empire is a subject in itself - anything about its legacy should really try and avoid any type of value statement imo. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that anything about legacy should avoid value statements. If it is generally accepted that a empire had a net negative affect on the economies of the colonized, we should state that. What we need to avoid is implicit value statements, because they are usually a means of pushing a POV. Saying that India had a higher share of global income in 1700 than it had in 1947 is an example of an implicit value statement that should be avoided because the only reason to include it is to tar the empire with a broad brush of badness. However, and I don't know if this is supported by reliable sources or not, if it is generally accepted that the empire exploited its colonies to extract resources and used those resources to fuel its own industrial development leaving the economies of the colonies handicapped when they became independent, we should say that as well. Similarly, if it is generally accepted that the railways and other infrastructure legacies of the British Empire are a positive legacy, we should say that as well. Value statements that are generally accepted are fine. Value statements that come out of OR or a desire to push a POV are not. (I really don't think we should be discussing Rome here. Whatever their logic, historians don't treat Roman colonies and British or French colonies the same way. And that should be all that matters.) --RegentsPark (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that we could find value statements that reflect both sides of the discussion you (two) have just had. Broadly speaking you would (probably) find Marxist historians concentrating on the negative economic effects of imperialism (for those who were conquered) while most of the others would (probably) focus on the positive (and negative) social or political consequences. To some extent we can reflect both views, but for an article with such a broad scope any sort of analysis will cause problems as there simply isn't the space to cover the perspectives in sufficient detail. People have written whole books on the subject you are discussing, but we only have a few hundred words to play with so we have to be careful not to open cans which might contain worms. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair and realistic assessment. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

[1] The Antarctic Treaty, National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs

[2] CIA World Factbook

[3] ttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sg49AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA18

[4] ttp://www.worldstatesmen.org/Br_Ant_Terr.html

[5] McDermott, James (2001). Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 190. ISBN 0300083807.

[6] McDermott, James (2001). Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 219. ISBN 0300083807.

[7] Drake, Francis (1854). The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. Hakluyt Society. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[8] Sugden, John (1990). Sir Francis Drake. Barrie & Jenkins. p. 118. ISBN 0712620389.

[9] Drake, Francis (1854). The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. Hakluyt Society. p. 225. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

Image

Papua was not a mandate

1815 map is wrong re Canada

Demographics

Plantations of Ireland

FLORIDA

Oman

Cleaning Spam

No end

Attrocities

Hong Kong end?

UN as the cause of decolonization

Ball Games

USSR & USA Reason For British Decolonisation?

Hyperpower/superpower/great power

Straw Poll

"More than 10 million Indians perished..." - WP:SYN violation

Why not mention casualties

Height and foremost global power?

My hernia bigger than your hernia.

British Antarctic Territory; Map displayed??

References

Drake and England's "First Territorial Claims"

References

Categories created by User:Zuggernaut

Problems with the maps

Map original research

Western or Christian?

Is the map Original research, unreliable source, synthesis?

Imperial units

Kashmir: Could we have an excerpt please

Emporer of Delhi rant

Removed pov word suppress

Mutiny or war of independence and the word suppress

POV tag

"Westernisation of India"

More POV ranting added to the article

Published underground

Unsourced?

Dickens on the events of 1857

Britannica Encyclopaedia

BOT map

Olson sources

RfC

Legacy

Spoken?

Featured Article Removal Candidate

Negative economic impact - new proposition