This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick retired from wiki, in part because of all the stuff that has happened recently relating to this article and a couple of editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I am glad you were blocked, you utterly deserved it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
All the new cites needed
I see more cite tags have been added, so id like to check if some of the sources i find are ok over the next few days as ive no idea if they are considered reliable sources or not.
England annexed the island of Jamaica from the Spanish, [1]and in 1666 succeeded in colonising the Bahamas.[2] ( New Providence being the most populated island of Bahamas) or [3] . The Bahamas later fell to the Spanish/French before being returned to GB rule, i dont know if that needs to be mentioned at the end of that sentence? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
They look good to me, the peoples of the Americas one is edited by a professor of the university of wisconsin, so that might be the best. The other two however are historical documents (as far as I can tell), so also good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Trumbull's Declaration of Independence
I think its rather eerie that the section about the Thirteen colonies doesn't include the famous painting by John Trumbull: "Declaration if Independence". It is the pure embodiment of the loss of the thirteen colonies and very much a defining moment in British history. Because it marked the loss of the most important parts of the Empire at the time. It much more important than the the surrender of Cornwallis painting.
I agree. If only one picture has to be chosen, it should be the one by John Trumbull. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Disagree. The Trumbull image represents a defining moment in American history, but the Cornwallis image reflects the moment at which the British truly lost the American colonies. The Cornwallis image also includes both "sides", which the Trumbull image does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)::
I completely disagree. The reason being that the painting reflects Englishmen seeking their right(s) as Englishmen from the British Crown. The painting also depicts the Union Jack and the St. Georges Cross in the background!!! Meaning that we are dealing with British History all the way. True that its "American", but the painting depicts the very moment that the British colonies are about to declare their independence. They were not de facto independent thus still formally British colonies. Therefore its unreasonable to make it "American" when they weren't even Americans at the time. Peace
Two quick points: first, could you please sign your posts on talk pages? In case you don't know , you do this by adding four tildes - ~~~~ - after your comment. It makes it much easier to figure out who's speaking. Second, before we even discuss the relative merits of one image versus the other - the Trumbull image that you are suggesting is lacking source information, which is required for images in FA-level articles. Obviously our opinions differ on which image is more appropriate here - I'll let others weigh in on that - but we can't consider a non-FA-appropriate image for addition, regardless of its "importance". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I stand corrected! :D To the point about the source: The painting happens to be a featured picture, which means that it has been approved. I would argue that source information is relevant since it is well known where it is from. Or are you suggesting something else? Musse-kloge (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I assume you are arguing that the source information is irrelevant? It may seem obvious where it is from, but the source information - where this specific copy of the image is from - is still required. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I stand correct yet again. My apologies for not making myself clear. Yes I do believe that when one is dealing with such a high profile painting it is almost common knowledge. Thereby making the source information a minor - perhaps insignificant - detail. However I do understand the formality surrounding an FA-article. Musse-kloge (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
The Cornwallis painting is more appropriate for an article on the British Empire. The declaration is is key in US history but not British --SnowdedTALK 05:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I removed it because (a) the assertion was not sourced (b) because the assertion is wrong and (c) because we have a more appropriate image already. I didn't even check the image sourcing, but that's a fourth reason not to change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
No change is needed. present image is far more suitable. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Pointy citation needed's
...should stop. But fine, driving on the left side of the road [4], "Britain's imperial expansion spread the keep left rule over every continent, so that the sun never set on the left hand side of the road. The Indian Empire, Australiasia, and the African colonies all adopted the keep left rule..."
Rather coincidentally, there's that sunset thing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't contest the statement, my point is that such a statement cheapens this article, perhaps this statement could belong to the myth or lore section. There can be many such lores and legends included in it then. Lead is not the place for it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That statement may well be the definitive statement associated with the British Empire. Sometimes it is still used today! (thank you pitcairn) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Lede is the perfect place for it, its not a myth it was fact and it is one of the common ways in which the Empire is described. --SnowdedTALK 12:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have used myth/lore/legend. Let it be in the lead if you want the article to look silly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Half the disputes here would not happen if we read each others edits. This editor had suggested the following text for units: The colonial legacy of the imperial system of measurements has been maintained in the USA and also manifests itself in ways like the width of the broad gauge 1676 mm or (5½') used by Indian railways, but a source that says so has to be found.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've read all edits multiple times, believe me. I object to that, 1) it is unnecessarily specific, 2) no reason to specify Indian broad gauge, broad gauge is present in many countries, 3) the current sentence that imperial units are a legacy is in effect saying exactly the same thing, though with less detail (see 1) ). This is a summary of the entire British Empire, the current text in that section reads almost as a list, and that is about the right weight it deserves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(1)The best solution is to quote a reliable contemporary source. (2)Even traces of imperial units are taking their last gasps in such places as the gauge of broad guage, Delhi metro is partly using 1435 mm standard gauge, and don't forget the gauge is measured as 1676 mm and not 5.5'(3)The present statement is ambiguous, unsourced and misleading. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ive no problem with the sentence on imperial measurements being deleted, i dont think its as notable as some of the things that could be put in that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Just to note the proposed bit about broad gauge, it is a really a local Indian legacy most railways in the Empire were Standard Gauge so probable not worth mentioning either. Just as an aside some Imperial units are still used in the United Kingdom so they have not dissapeared completely outside of the US. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It is a colonial legacy, just as bunglows are, or hill-stations, or the summer vacations that courts take, or the shifting of capitals around, colonial legacy is not something that was practiced in old Blighty but what was practiced in the colonies. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Rather than being in this overview of the British Empire it looks like all this stuff is better in articles on India and Pakistan. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Isn't America sticking to Imperial units an imperial legacy? Just as English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh - the issue of units has been settled per this changeZuggernaut (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
No it is not, Imperial units is a colonial legacy in the US like English is. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Conflicts
The article has the statement 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. I dont have a problem with the British straight line approach causing problems but why are these five singled out for mention. As far as I can see the British didnt set the borders of Kashmir or Sri Lanka. Not sure about Palestine either the entry links to Israeli–Palestinian conflict which is more to do with the UN partition then any British efforts. Most of the current problems with Iraq were caused by British demarcation and that is not mentioned. Suggest that the contributing to conflicts bit be look at again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about Sudan and Nigeria, but yes, those are not very good examples. I would have raised India/Pakistan as a classic (given that the British mistakenly adopted highly arbitrary borders) and many African examples, as well as Iraq as possibly the best example of a place where line-drawing caused umpteen future conflicts. Israel/Palestine is somewhat fraught as of course the British mandate was an issue but it isn't a good example of the genre. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Redhat informed that the text has been interpreted from a map belonging to an atlas. Shouldn't a more reliable method be followed for a FA? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
At this summary level just saying Africa and Asia would be enough --SnowdedTALK 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
That statement is the interpretation of a map by an editor, isnt that leaning to wp:orYogesh Khandke (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks and editor has changed the words and the statement as corrected is OK but as I think Yogesh is trying to say it needs a reference although I dont know what a map has to do with it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I asked for a reference for the statements, editor Redhat informed that the statements are based on a map, which belongs to the Atlas cited. isn't that wp:orYogesh Khandke (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What a featured article should not have imo
“
At the peak of its power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" because its span across the globe ensured that the sun was always shining on at least one of its numerous territories.
”
A featured article is the best that wikipedia can offer. Like an article in a very prestigious journal. Would such an article contain a statement like that? Please dont get me wrong. I am not contesting the fact at the moment. The statement is trivial, frivolous and puerile. Please take it off. Or perhaps create a section like British Empire#Myths generated by the British Empire and take it there. Should not be in the lead of a FA. IMO. Bad style.
The line about imperial units is incorrect and misleading, the US is the only major country that uses imperial units that was once a British colony. Please qualify the statement with that.
This article (no hard feelings) deserves an immediate recall from FA status. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The Sun never setting is a famous statement, deserving of the lead.
All British colonies at one point used the imperial system of measurement, whether use it currently of not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh, it is a famous statement and calling it "trivial, frivolous and puerile" is well, trivial, frivolous and puerile. Instead of game playing on the FA status and lodging the odd rant, how about proposing some properly researched changes or additions? --SnowdedTALK 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh points out correctly that other than the US, the imperial system of units is not a legacy in most of the other former colonies. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
A lot of them changed in the same period as Britain, but they all used it --SnowdedTALK 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Given that they don't use it anymore, can it be called a legacy today? Zuggernaut (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
A legacy should be about things in practice today,
for example you could write that the status of English as one of India's official languages(pl check the exact status) is a British legacy,
or the broad gauge railway tracks at 1676 mm is a British legacy,
but imperial units are obsolete in India and elsewhere. In India since 1956. Ther are used only in the US, so the vague statement is misleading and not factual.
The statement "sun doesn't set..." comes across as trivial more tabloid than broadsheet, should not be in the lead but as I said in a section say myths, if it must be there.
Please see my comparison of this article with the Mongol Empire article at FARC and please check the number of negative adjectives used about the Mongol Empire which are missing here. Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Please editors be to the point and do not use allegations like "game playing" or pass remarks like "rant", please consider this as a informal indication of this editor's dis-comfort. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Imperial units were used throughout the empire and were a legacy. The wording might be tidying up a bit but its not irrelevant. The "Sun doesn't set" statement is one of the famous ones and is pretty accurate. You may not like it, but its far from trivial. Otherwise I'm sorry but I do think you and Zug have been game playing by using different forums rather than the talk page, and if there is a odd rant then I will feel free to point it out. --SnowdedTALK 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
So broad gauge railways are a legacy, but the measurements (which rounds to a much more sensible 5ft 6in on the Imperial scale) are not? Also, note that the sentence on scales is written in the past tense: "were retained", not "are" retained. As for the Mongol article, did it occur to the naysayers that perhaps that article is not written correctly rather than this one? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
I have expressed my dis-comfort for the record.
Independence 1947, republic 1950, metrification 1956, do you mean that this article intends to inform that in the few years after independence before metrification was implemented, the Indian republic persisted with the imperial system? Please edit the vague statement. The Imperial system in use in the US is a British colonial legacy would be OK.
I disagree with Wikied, the Mongol article is balanced, I did not check whether the negative words used belong to the sources quoted, if they are not then the exact words should be used.
Colonial systems continued to be used in the early days of freedom, those that were found useful were maintained others rejected, the broad gauge was not changed the units of measurements were. It is as simple as that. As I mentioned earlier, steel continues to be sold in fractions of the inch converted to mm and rounded up. Tiles measure 300 x 300 or 600 x 600 which are metric approximations of 1' x 1' or 2' x 2', I know because I am old enough to know inches and feet, the new boys won't be able to convert to save their lives.
On second thought perhaps the statement could be written thus: The colonial legacy of the imperial system of measurements has been maintained in the USA and also manifests itself in ways like the width of the broad gauge 1676 mm or (5½') used by Indian railways with an appropriate source stating the same.
Indians write the date in the form dd-mm-yy, that is a colonial legacy.
"Sun doesn't " gives this article the feel of a school essay written by an English school boy in the 19th century, Wikipedia is a 21st century encyclopaedia, if you think this statement is decisive, create a myth or lore sub-section and put this statement there.
Were a legacy, what kind of construction is that, does this article intend to convey that imperial units were used in the past by British colonies after independence for some years? Isn't that a little contrived?
Intransience is bound to lead to acrimony. Being reasonable never hurts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh, while we are on the subject of being reasonable, would you please read WP:INDENT and apply it. Nearly all your contributions are left margin with multiple bullet points and it makes the page very difficult to follow. Otherwise I am with WIki-Ed on this one --SnowdedTALK 07:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I have given a list so that replies could be specific. It is a pity that I don't get them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
1) Don't. This is not a forum for your opinion.
2) This article is not about India.
3) The article on the Mongol Empire is not featured. The community disagrees with your opinion.
Under increasing pressure from the British abolitionist movement, the British government enacted the Slave Trade Act in 1807 which abolished the slave trade in the Empire. In 1808, Sierra Leone was designated an official British colony for freed slaves.[77] The Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833 abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834 (with the exception of St. Helena, Ceylon and the territories administered by the East India Company, though these exclusions were later repealed). Under the Act, slaves were granted full emancipation after a period of 4 to 6 years of "apprenticeship".[78]
Not mentioned: A quasi-slavery indentured labour, was invented resorted to by the British in place of slavery.
Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No it wasn't. Land owners may have (re)turned to it after 1833, but as a practice it had existed for centuries. If this belongs anywhere it belongs at the end of the second paragraph on 'America, Africa and the slave trade'. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Is that accurate? This has not been mentioned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Early colonies like in the Caribbean and America were built on white indentured labour. As the empire grew, the practice extended. It was a way of emigrating in hope of a new life when you had nothing and no prospects at home and no means of paying your passage. Of course it was open to all sorts of abuses, not the least arising from the fact that the "importer" of indentured labour could then sell them on, and from trickery or force being used to obntain labourers. The indenture had to be signed and legally ratified before you left. The other form was redemptioners who took passage and then had to negotiate their terms on arrival. The great majority of white settlers in the US before the "Revolution" were indentured or redemptioners. Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Arindam Chaudhuri on the British Empire with reference to the CWG
Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri writes the following in his blog. This is a contemporary conception of the BE from the view of natives of former colonies. This article is incomplete without such a flavour (emphasis added)
“
...After reading all this, if you still want to be a part of the celebrations around these slavish games, then please go ahead. In my opinion, we have the United Nations, we have the non aligned nations. We don’t need commonwealth. Forget about celebrating the Commonwealth games; it’s time India considers withdrawing its membership from the slavish Commonwealth of nations itself. It’s a shame that instead of doing that, we are busy celebrating these games which are nothing but a celebration of the British empire – in other words, celebration of racial discrimination, colonialism, imperialism ...
Please do post spam or nonsense on the talk page. Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri's blog has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think that's exactly NPOV. Check out the comments on this indian newspaper article where the British get some nice compliments from random online bloggers if you want.
On topic, no article should have flavour, that leads to a POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Prof. Arimdam Chaudhuri has been a member of the Planning Commission of India, and is a notable person. He is not a random online blogger. Please check the internal link which has been provided for the very purpose. This is a well sourced remark. A blog of a notable person is a self-published source, which can be used except to verify claims, for which a third party verification is needed. Please be careful editors before using words like nonsense, please check the facts. Words are here to convey a meaning please do not twist them or use analogies literally. To Arindam imperialist is a derogatory term, the mention of the British Empire brings the same visions as the mention of Nazis bring. This article for obvious historical reasons cannot have a neutral point of view, like an article on a conflict, so each side needs to be represented fairly, so this article's pro-Empire point of view needs to be balanced with what the former/contemporary natives of the (former) colonies perceived it as, just as it quotes imperial sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It can have a neutral point of view, and it does. Nowhere does it extoll the greatness and brilliance of the British Empire, so I don't see where this basis of imbalance is coming from. As for analogies, I don't see how the Nazi's relate to the British, Nazi Germany wasn't imperialist or colonialist, and it was way more racially based then the British Empire. I guess you could say they both had a tendency to favour whites over others, but that's as far as it gets. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Imperialist, racist and colonialist that is what a good source calls it, this article should contain such terminology.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is getting silly and a waste of time. personally I think the British Empire, like the English one that preceded it was (like all other Empires including those in India) were an unmitigated disaster. However that is my opinion and it has no place in this article, neither despite his "notability" do the views of Chaudhuri (is the same author whose views are being advocated as objective on Famine in India by the way? If so by bringing attention to the blog above you may have helped sort that article out). This article describes the Empire, it is not a resting place for polemical blogs about a current sporting event. To be honest if this (the pursuit of a narrow Indian Nationalist POV) goes on it will have to go to ANI. I'm also personally disturbed at being put into a position of being on the same side in an argument as British Watcher! --SnowdedTALK 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
An unmitigated disaster? But what about the broad gauge 5ft 6in railways? Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
The professor is talking about the 'Commonwealth of Nations', not the 'British Empire'. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
No the professor is referring to the British Empire whose legacy the CWG are. Editors do not threaten with ANI etc., bring specific issues, one problem is that Arindam's article first appeared in a blog, not wp:rs. Today the article has been carried by been carried in a news paper The Pioneer[6], and The Sunday Indian so it now belongs to a reliable source. Are the above comments relevant now? Please be specific. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Having read further, his isn't a neutral opinon. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
ANI is the place to go if dealing with tendentious editing. You (Yogesh) seem to think that just because material is sourced it should be put in the article. The material is not relevant per above comments. --SnowdedTALK 06:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
(1)It is not a blog now. So that matter rests. It is now a reliable source. (2)Arindam refers to the legacy of the BE, as he perceives it. (3) Arindam’s comments are not about a sporting event, but on the Commonwealth one legacy of the British Empire, very pertinent in the legacy section. (4)Please ask editors to explain the content that they wish to bring into this article. Please do not issue threats, or make accusations. If anyone have specific issues please come up with them and if they are reasonable they will be complied with right away, just like the indent issue was. One should be on the side of truth and not worry who is standing by ones side. (5)This article has a legacy section; can Arindam’s comments be included there? (6)If it cannot can we have a better one? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've read his opinons further. Heck, I don't think it'll end the world, if its added to the article. However, make sure you get a consensus first, before adding. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose any insertion based on this issue. This guys view is not notable for the section or this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I really fail to see what material about current indian nationalism has top do wiiht an empire that ceased to exsit 50 years ago. It may have a place in the page about contoversies associated wiht the commonwealth games (by the way I agree with him the whole thing is a pointless anachorism that should be closed down). Aslo how is it not a blog now?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Lol i have just looked at this new reliable source. I couldnt help but notice that in his second sentence it says "and the Sun has long set on the Empire,". Rather interesting those words were used and maybe something to do with the "sun never sets on the British Empire" phrase that Yogesh wants removed from the introduction and placed in some myth section because it isnt notable. The irony :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I meant that the said lines are not serious, they impart a frivolous character to the article. I have never alleged that the phrase is not used. I wonder why the sarcasm in Arindam's comment does not get across. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Scottish Colonies
didn't Scotland have their own independent colonies for a little while in what is today Panama (around that area) before they united with England and her colonies? --24.126.188.244 (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
They tried and failed, which is actually the reason they united with England. It could be included as a sentence in origins if other editors deem it notable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The Darien Scheme is already mentioned. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Nova Scotia was originally a Scottish colony but the last time I suggested any merit in mentioning the Scottish foundation of parts of the British Empire it was shot down in flames. Oh and for information the Scots imposed union on the English, something the anglocentric word likes to forget. Justintalk 12:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The scots did what now? Point me to a relevant wikipedia article or something, or I will badger you with my curiosity for all time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
He was next in line. Anyway, that's monarchy, what about the individual parliaments (or whatever they were called)? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
A moot point anyway seeing as the comment concerned the fact that the Scottish colonies weren't covered per WP:DUE. The IP made a good point but then its been raised and ignored before. Justintalk 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
OT: James unified the two monarchies not the two countries. England and Scotland still had separate parliaments and governments. It wasn't until Queen Anne, when the Darien Scheme failed bankrupting Scotland, that the English parliament agreed to bail the Scotts out in return for their uniting with England. Scotland lost their parliament and their government was absorbed into Westminster.
Shouldn't electorate of Hanover be considered part of the British empire?
if the Kingdom of Ireland(pre 1800 act of union) is considered a part of the British empire, should also Hanover, as it was ruled by three British monarchs during the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.63.238 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The Kingdom of Ireland didn't make Ireland part of the British Empire, as England/Great Britain just shared a monarchy with it, it was the Irish Free State - which wasn't part of the United Kingdom (like it's predecessor) but was a Dominion of the United Kingdom. Similar with Hanover, it wasn't actually a territory of the United Kingdom, just united under a common-king. Both are much like the Kingdom of Iceland and Denmark between 1918 and 1944. --George2001hi 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
im not talking about the irish free state. Im talking about Ireland before it joined the United Kingdom. It was still part of the British Empire during the 18th century, under the same circumstances at which the electorate of Hanover existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.63.238 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It was not the same circumstances at all. Ireland was a crown permanently united with that of England; its parliament was subject to that of Westminster; its chief officials, including its governor were usually Englishmen and were chosen by the British government. The Kingdom of Ireland was, effectively, an English colony. Hanover was a separate state of which the British monarch happened to also be the ruler. Its chief officials were Germans chosen by the elector-king alone, with no input from the elector-king's British advisors. To the extent that it was subject to any higher authority than that of its own elector, it was that of the Emperor, the Diet, and the Reichskammergericht, not the British crown, parliament, or government. The situations are not analogous. john k (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
"Westernize"
Regarding the discussion about the causes of the 1857 rebellion taking place at FAR and here, I would propose replacing "westernize" with "a desire for autonomy and attempts to Anglicize India across civil, military and religious domains" as a better summary of the sources. Fainitesbarleyscribs 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I have not been watching the FAR debate can you give us a quick summary and context as your suggested wording sounds like it was invented by a committee and really doesnt make much sense in English. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
So here's what the change will look like (Fainites, correct me if I'm wrong on this) -
Current version: "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India."
Proposed revised version: "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to a desire for autonomy and tensions arising from attempts to Anglicize India across civil, military and religious domains." (note: I added the italicized part to improve flow). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah thanks. That's about it. Sorry about the "committee effect". A number of editors felt that "westernize" didn't capture the complexity of the causes. Here is part of one of my posts on the source from the FAR. The source says, at various points, "Western legal reform" and "full scale Anglicisation" and "free trade, evangelism, western law and english education". It also mentions modern theories labelling it as "a rural revolt, a Muslim holy war, a Mughal restoration, a Hindu Maratha revival and an Indian national war". . Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Hang on, when you say "a number" you mean two editors who have been desperately trying to insert their POV all over the place. Their opinion is not grounds for changing this article. 'Anglicise' sounds similar to 'Anglican' and in this context could misleadingly simplify the sentence when there so many other factors involved. 'Westernise' is well sourced and expansive - it can be used to cover all the points. This is the appropriate sort of language for an overview article. If they want to discuss the causes in detail then they can go and annoy editors on the relevant article instead. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Savarkar has given the cause as "Swadharma (ones own religion) and Swarajay (independence)", would the following be appropriate?
“
The mutiny of the native soldiers of the Company conflagrated into a wider conflict fought in which Indians fought to protect their religion and for sovereignty. One result of this conflict was that the Company was dissolved and the British government forced to assume direct control.
”
The company did not honour the treaties made with the Indian rulers Jhansi, Satara, Nagpur, Avadh, the rulers of those Indian kingdoms which remained allied to the British would not deal with a double dealing Company and so the British government had to step in. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Nope that doesn't cover it all. Some of them were fighting to protect privilege and some were fighting to restore the Mughals as well. I was trying to propose a neutral wording which covered all the domains of causes of unrest without labelling it with any one pet theory. I'm not that fussed between "Anglicize" or "westernise", except that I think in the context of the times, Angilcize is more accurate.Fainitesbarleyscribs 12:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Lets have a reliable source shall we for any phrasing before we change it. I am afraid that I for one have little trust in two editors whose POV has been showing here and elsewhere in multiple edits. --SnowdedTALK 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The phrases in quotation marks above are from the source already used. I was simply attempting a slightly more comprehensive summary. (I can see the POV issues by the way). The original discussion is towards the bottom of the FAR review page. Fainitesbarleyscribs 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification and although I suspect that westernisation does not really cover the causes. This is a really a summary article as the individual subjects already have in-depth articles so we should reflect the conclusion from those articles rather then re-invent the wheel. I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source but the contents would have to have been reliably sourced. I think we are trying to add to much into what is a summary can I suggest The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into civil unrest against the Company. the detail can then be found in the related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually that's not a bad summary! How about The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into civil and religious revolt against the Company.Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Fine. Good solution - avoids the analytical bit altogether. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm good with this. Excellent effort! Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Why religious revolt? The rebellion was notable for the lack of religious fervor (except for some cases in Delhi, one would hardly call religion a defining motif of the Indian rebellion). Also, civil unrest is patently incorrect. The rebellion was military in characteristic. Finally, 'spilled over' is weak. The mutiny of sepoys grew into a revolt against company rule. Perhaps, The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which then grew into a large scale rebellion across north and central India against Company rule--RegentsPark (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Grew into is more accurate than 'spilled over' and 'north and central India' is also more precise. We are avoiding explaining the causes entirely which seems alright since another article can handle that. Both of the last two version work IMO. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean by civil conflict. Does it mean civilians were involved in the conflict? Was it a civil war. Not at all. Savarkar's explanation is concise and accurate. Swadharma and swarajya. Could also transliterate into honour and country.
How does it look like?
“
The mutiny of the native soldiers of the Company conflagrated into a wider conflict fought in which Indians fought for honour and country. One result of this conflict was that the Company was dissolved and the British government forced to assume direct control.
”
There is no original research, synthesis, etc. in this quote. An entire chapter in Savarkar' book on the events is deals with the causes which he titles Swadharma and Swarajya. Which as I have stated above transliterates into honour and country. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not very NPOV. After all this, I find myself wondering if we even need reasons. Surely "The mutiny of the native soldiers of the Company conflagrated into a wider conflict which caused the company to be dissolved and the British government to assume direct control" is enough.
I like this last one. Succinct and clear. Though I'd suggest tweaking the wording to: The mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government (conflagrated is not a valid form of conflagration, sepoy is better than native soldier). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
(1)Sepoy is a jargon should be avoided, native soldier is exact. (2)Conflagrated is a valid word, past tense and past participle of conflagrate. please see one example of it in use in the title of an article the abstract is also given for understanding the context.
For several decades, religion has been a visible and potent force in the domestic politics of Muslim countries. Within Asia, the issue has attracted considerable debate and a good case study of this is Malaysia. Issues of religious conversion, demolition of temples, apostasy, and Islamic state discourse have widened fault lines among different religious communities in Malaysia. While on the one hand the role of the state is seen as being a constraining factor to these divisive tendencies, on the other hand politico-social compulsions have coerced it into acceding to the majoritarian demands. The opposition Islamic political parties and the contradicting interpretations of the constitution and religious texts have aggravated the problem. The global financial crisis has further accentuated the fissures and minority protagonists of majority religious groups have become more assertive. The level of religious sensitivity is not the same as it was before. If it was, we would have no problem. But some people consider certain matters as too sensitive. (Former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi)Fifty years after independence, race and religion remain divisive issues in Malaysia, with the nation at times coming 'close to the brink of disaster'. (Former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh Khandke, did you post the above in error? --RegentsPark (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I like RegentsPark's version. Less emotive wording. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Keep it simple - Regents idea is not that far from what was proposed earlier and Sepoy is the correct term as per the related article so we have The mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. This is a general article about the British Empire if you want to know the detail use the links to the related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm OK with Regents as well. The actual causes, motivations and participants are too complex and controversial to be successfully summarised in this article. I'm happy with something that mentions military/civil/religious components, or something that mentions none at all. Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with RegentsPark with the exception that there are sources clearly stating that the trigger for the mutiny was fueled by religious sentiments. The latest version looks good since the focus here is to explain the demise of EIC. I've updated the article with the latest version. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I think Regents is the best offerd. After all Indians also faught to preserve company rule.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Looks like we have all agreed to leave the hornets nest to dedicated pages.Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No RegentsPark my comment above is not a mistake. It is an abstract of whose title uses the word conflagrated. One editor had remarked that conflagrated was not a valid word. Therefore I presented an example.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
On the consensus why use jargon? Why not the very easily understood word soldier and with the adjective native to indicate that they were Indian. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
No opposition to this suggestion it seems.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Changing sepoy to soldier. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd object on the grounds that the common name of the rebellion is the sepoy mutiny. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sepoy is jargon, it means soldier and has no special or specific meanings. No need to use jargon when a simple easily understood English word conveys the meaning exactly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's a relevant historical, if not modern, term. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
I remain quite unconvinced, sorry. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Not sure keep repeating the question will change the consensus on Sepoy. The Sepoy article makes no mention of the term "jargon" and it a contemporary term that is still in use in the Indian Army today. They appears to be no reason not to use it, perhaps we can close this. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Please submit proof that sepoy is a contemporary term in English for soldier, and not an archaic, historical word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Certainly. The OED defines Sepoy as a particular kind of soldier: "A native of India employed as a soldier under European, esp. British, discipline," without noting it as archaic or obsolete. There are no sepoys anymore: the Republic of India does very well with soldiers under Indian discipline; but, like hauberk or janissary, it remanins the current word for a bygone military institution.
It is probably worth considering whether we need to specify sepoy on every occasion we use it, or whether soldier will do. But the same applies to, say. cavalry. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Sepoy
One editor above, has noted that the word sepoy is in contemporary use in the Indian army, admittedly it is but only as a designation of a rank. The sepoy is the junior most rank in the army. Does this article mean to convey that only the junior-most rank in the army rebelled and the others simply twiddled their thumbs? Sepoy is not used as a generic word to denote soldier, not even in Hindi, in Hindi the word Jawan is used. [7]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The article states it as an Indian in European service, which is much more specific then just soldier. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean the Bharat-rakshak.com article quoted by this editor? Where? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
The point made that the word Sepoy is still used in the Indian Army was made in response to your inaccurate suggestion that the word "sepoy" was just jargon. It is twisting things to suggest the responding editor was making some hidden point about rank. Fainitesbarleyscribs 09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh the word Sepoy is a historical word, an Anglo-Indian word which means soldier, a wikipedia article is not a wp:rs, the argument is not that sepoy is wrong, the argument is that it is unnecessary jargon, which has a very different meaning from its current usage say as in the Indian Army. A reader who does not have time and is not aware of jargon would be simply confused. It serves no purpose but to confuse. Native soldier or native troops would be a simple and easily understood alternative. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree it is unnecessary jargon (source for that anyway?), and a person who is unaware of meaning can simply click the wikilink. The alternative would have to be "native troops serving under the British" or some other such long phrase. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
The 1857 mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Could be written as The 1857 mutiny of its native soldiers grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Does that make it too verbose? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Sepoy (from sipahi) is the accepted term for the rebels and is the term used by most sources. I see no reason to change it to 'native soldiers'. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see above arguments as evidence for change. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I have seen them. 'Unnecessary jargon' has been adequately shown to be an invalid argument. Repeating that is borderline tendentious. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
It has not been shown so. wp:te is about editing on article pages and not on talk pages. If you refer to ancient sources, the word sepoy would be common, give evidence of modern sources to prove your point that sepoy is a commonly used contemporary English word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
(od) From WP:TE on how to recognize tendentious editing in yourself: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
All right. Please give evidence of modern sources to prove that sepoy is a modern English word in common use and not jargon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That's an odd argument. A word is not either in common modern use or jargon. Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
(od) Take your pick: Google Books, Google Scholar, Google itself. With over 600,000 results from only sources published in the last 10 years (and even assuming that some are reprints or invalid sources), I think it's safe to say that "sepoy" is a commonly-used term in English. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite to the contrary, please see the links, they are (1)Dictionaries (2)Refer to sepoy a rank in the Indian army quite different to the generic sense in which the word is used (3)Refer to the events of 1857. No demonstration of contemperory use of the word in English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
There is no consensus to change the term so really keep repeating the same questions is disruptive and we should consider the discussion closed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes questions are repeated because they are not answered correctly. The point is that when you use terms which are jargon and write sepoy mutiny you give too much weight to one perspecitve of the events of 1857, which is against wikipedia policy of wp:npov. It is not this editor's fault that editors here are reluctant to use a neutral easily understood and accurate pair of English words, and prefer jargon, other editors are indulging in disruption. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
If sources refer to the events of 1857 using Sepoy, then the word passes WP:V. Furthermore, I don't see how the one word gives a perspective either way, and that is because it doesn't. It's just a word, a completely WP:NPOV one. There's no reason for it being jargon than your own opinion. That's all I have to say, thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The use of the word sepoy gives weight to one perspective on the events of 1857, that it was a sepoy mutiny, to make it neutral this reference should be avoided and a neutral non jargon term used. See a reader going through would read, "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great" that is what makes it anti wp:npov, with the statement "1857 started with a mutiny in the camps, and then conflagrated" that would make it neutral, plus another benefit would be avoiding of use of jargon and trouble for a reader to check the link to know what sepoy meant. There is a limit to the power of words to convey thoughts, especially at the hands of a novice like me, if you editors (many of whom are administrators) cannot understand and appreciate, I think I have to give up for the time being at least, some other time, there is lot of it. Remember the largest circulating English paper is Indian, English is going to be more and more non-native. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I request those baring fangs here to give their attention to edits here that prefer unsourced material and remove material that is wp:V and wp:rs, seriously compromising Wikipedia standards. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
This See a reader going through would read, "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great" makes a lot of assumptions about the readers. It assumes they will have a certain kind of emotive reaction based on certain words. Totally unwarranted in my view. It's almost like some sort of Monty Python parody. Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't know anything about the so-called sepoy mutiny, but reading the sentence I tend to think "rah-rah, sepoys! ..suppressed? damn EIC!" Pfly (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not arguing sepoy vs soldier any more. Just a clarification What I wrote on second thoughts is not what I meant. What I meant to write is that the text reads as "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great", am I hallucinating? Tilting at wind-mills? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The article at many places come across as that. Written like an obituary, even witha a sub-section "The end". It does not have a scholarly treatment such as "...Europe’s expansion into territorial imperialism had much to do with the great economic benefit from collecting resources from colonies, in combination with assuming political control often by military means. Most notably, the “British exploited the political weakness of the Mughal state, and, while military activity was important at various times, the economic and administrative incorporation of local elites was also of crucial significance".." (quoted from wikipedia article Imperialism) I hope editors here understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Or like this "This form of imperialism can also be seen in British Columbia, Canada. In the 1840s, the territory of British Columbia was divided into two regions, one space for the native population, and the other for non-natives. The indigenous peoples were often forcibly removed from their homes onto reserves. These actions were “justified by a dominant belief among British colonial officials that land occupied by Native people was not being used efficiently and productively.”..." ibid Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
If editors still feel that I am halucinating and paranoid, then I am being tendentious and I need to stay away from this place.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Coming here from an ANI thread, it seems to me that we are adopting British usage in the editorial voice of an article segment that is as much or more about Indian history as it is about British history, and if that is what Yogesh was objecting to, above, I think he had a legitimate content point. Here for example is an Indian news source, commenting – not inappropriately perhaps – that
"We read, see and analyse history in different angles. So is the case of India's First War of Independence or The Revolt of 1857. For Indians it is the First War of Indian Independence but for British it is a Sepoy Mutiny."
Note that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857; so one idea would be to follow mainspace article usage and make it, "The Indian Rebellion of 1857 grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company ...". Thoughts? --JN466 05:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
And what was this wider conflict? Sorry, but "grew into a wider conflict which" is meaningless. HLGallon (talk) 08:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right, of course, but there are ways to get this right. For example, something like:
The Indian Rebellion of 1857, sparked off by a mutiny of native soldiers employed in the Company's army, led to the Company's dissolution and the assumption of direct control by the British government.[1] The rebellion took six months to suppress, with heavy loss of life on both sides. ...
Basically, if it is possible to get the article to read as naturally to an Indian reader as it does to an English reader, we should try and do so. --JN466 11:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
See the discussion under "westernize" above. This was a continuation of a discussion that started on the FAR page. There were so many strands to the occasion that either they had to be listed, which made the entry rather large, or summarised as simply and neutrally as possible. All suggestions gratefully received. Fainitesbarleyscribs 16:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this a continuation of the discussion which came to the conclusion that we did not have a consensus to change the term Sepoy? MilborneOne (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No I meant the broader discussion about the resons/causes of the event. I thought this discussion was veering off into that again.Fainitesbarleyscribs 09:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Is there a problem with the wording I suggested? I was hoping it would not inconvenience Western readers, but would read better to Indian readers. (Actually, I think we should say "Indian soldiers" rather than "native soldiers".) --JN466 18:07, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Can I suggest a compromise - The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of sepoys (Indian soldiers employed by the British East India Company's army), led to the Company's dissolution and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Not that different. MilborneOne (talk) 18:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I honestly don't think we need the term sepoy here. We have it once before in the article, in the "Company rule in India" section (where it should perhaps be placed in quotation marks, given that it is a distinctly British and historical usage of the word). Otherwise, your wording seems fine: The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of Indian soldiers employed by the Company's army, led to the Company's dissolution and the assumption of direct control by the British government. (We don't need to repeat the Company's full name, as the full name is given at the beginning of the section, and it then is just referred to as "the Company".) Would that be okay? --JN466 18:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that the term Sepoy Mutiny is the common name for that event and to remove the term Sepoy would confuse many readers who associate the term with the event. Endless discussion above supported the use of the term so we dont have a consensus at this time to remove it. MilborneOne (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Given that Sepoy Mutiny redirects to Indian Rebellion of 1857, and that Sepoy Mutiny is perceived as a clear Britishism in India, we'd surely be better off with the more neutral term. I believe anyone who knows the terms sepoy and sepoy mutiny is unlikely to be confused when presented with a reference to the "Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of Indian soldiers employed by the Company's army". Please reconsider. --JN466 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you get the idea that sepoy is perceived as a 'clear Britishism' in India. To use only the term 'Sepoy Mutiny', to describe the events of that period, is perceived as a colonial view (which is why wikipedia's article is at the Indian rebellion of 1857, but assuming that there is a distaste for the term sepoy, and that it should be removed en masse from the article, is a bit far-fetched because it is commonly used by Indian historians (c.f. [8] this article from EPW in JSTOR where the author, an Indian, writing in a well-known journal, Indian, refers to the events as "The sepoy war of 1857-58"). The fact that the rebellion started as a mutiny of sepoys, and spread as a cascading mutiny of sepoys that later grew to involve various local rulers, is fairly well established. You cannot take the sepoy out of the Indian rebellion of 1857 because it was largely fought by them. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
If Sepoy Mutiny is perceived as a Britishism then it would seem to be appropriate for an article on the British Empire written in British English. I dont have a problem if the terms are reversed and it is changed to The Indian Rebellion of 1857, which began as a mutiny of Indian soldiers employed by the company's army and known at the time as the Sepoy Mutiny, MilborneOne (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Quite, although there is no need to change the order to reflect a small group of editor's POV. It was fine when the article was featured and it's fine now. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a good compromise, MilborneOne; I would sign up for that. --JN466 11:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not the word Sepoy that is the problem with the "First War of Independence" viewpoint so much as the word mutiny. But it began as a mutiny and developed into an Uprising with multiple strands/causes/motivations. Sepoy just means an infantry private. It had been used pretty much throughout for the soldiers of the EIC and that is what they were called. It wasn't the first mutiny but it was the biggest and the one that turned into an uprising - not least because it gained Mughal backing.Fainitesbarleyscribs 08:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the issue really. The above compromise just dance's around the word Sepoy, making it unnecessarily verbose. I also dislike the change in chronology, the sentence as it is says A leads to B, not B lead from A, which I find better for a history article. Furthermore, it's still known as the Sepoy Mutiny, although maybe not in India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. 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.[90]
An editor above expressed concern that this made it sound as though most deaths of starvation occurred before, rather than during, the British Raj; the present wording can be read as though it were blaming the East India Company's lack of attention to the matter for the millions of Indian deaths, and as though it were praising the British Raj for making sure that after Company rule was over, these things were gradually brought under control. In fact, as was discussed earlier, most of these deaths occurred during the British Raj. An elegant solution might be to simply delete "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,", leaving something like this:
India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. It took until the early 1900s to bring the problem under control.[90] --JN466 19:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I would support that change. I would replace the words "widespread famines" with the worst famines in Indian history (ample sources can be provided). Also there are plenty of sources that state the famines were exasperatedexacerbated by British policy. Cormac Ó Gráda frequently uses "policy failure" in much of his work when he discusses/compares Indian famines with the Great Irish famine (which is called genocide in Ireland and recognized as such by the state of New Jersey). Zuggernaut (talk) 02:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I take it you mean "exacerbated" by British policy. HLGallon (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for pointing out - I've fixed it. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No it isn't generally called "genocide" in Ireland. For genocide some intention is required rather than general laissez-faire negligence and stupidity. Fainitesbarleyscribs 17:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
A great many in Ireland felt and still feel it was genocide.
Francis A. Boyle calls it genocide under the 1948 Hague convention. ("Clearly, during the years 1845 to 1850, the British government pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnic and racial group commonly known as the Irish People...Therefore, during the years 1845 to 1850 the British government knowingly pursued a policy of mass starvation in Ireland that constituted acts of genocide against the Irish people within the meaning of Article II (c) of the 1948 Hague Genocide Convention." Ritschel, 1996)
Peter Duffy suggests it looks like genocide to may Irish. (Duffy 2007, pp. 297-298)
James Donnely says it looked like genocie to a great many Irish. (Donnelly 2005)
Records show that food was being exported from Ireland to England when people were dying in Ireland. (Kinealy 1995, p. 354) Zuggernaut (talk) 19:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
No mainstream sources consider it to be deliberate. They mostly either didn't care or didn't think it was anything to do with them. Most of the ruling classes didn't care about people starving on their doorsteps in England either. Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide some sources for "worst famines in Indian history" here on the talk page? --JN466 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
So two editors have extrapolated a meaning from the wording that might suggest something other than what it actually says. As with the earlier discussion, this is not grounds for change. The failure to delist the article and the temporary ban for trolling on this (and related Indian topics) should really give a pretty clear indication that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Present consensus at ANI is that that block for "trolling" was a bad block. The present wording, whether intentionally or not, implies that things somehow got better under the British Raj. They didn't; the worst famines occurred during the British Raj. We should fix this. --JN466 11:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting point about the implications. I'd personally avoid a blanket statement "famines were the fault of the raj", as well as avoid a statement saying they were completely vindicated. Perhaps it needs to reflect that the British raj tried to analyze and fix the effects, however the famines reputedly got worse? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
The current wording does not imply anything to most readers, and the article's FA status (did anyone notice how it is still a Featured Article despite certain editor's best efforts?) would suggest it is neutrally written. That said the last part of the paragraph does not follow the general narrative style of the article ("which took until the early 1900s to have an effect"). We should remove this element of analysis so there is less chance of even the most ardent POV-pusher from reading things that aren't written. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for being prepared to look at the wording. If we deleted the passage you highlight, we would then have,
India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. 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.
That still does not work. What I get from that is that Indians could not look after themselves, the Company failed to do it properly, but the British Raj did it, as kind and responsible helpers, even though it was a tough job. This does not reflect those sources that say that colonial rule itself, including and especially under the British Raj, was co-responsible for impoverishing Indians to the extent that they starved in their millions, to a degree unprecedented in their history, while the English prospered, in part because of the wealth they extracted from India. The article passed through FAR without being delisted, but there were several FAC regulars who drew attention to the fact that the article could be improved by reflecting more recent scholarly coverage of the economic and moral aspects of colonialism. --JN466 15:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
"Scholarly coverage of...moral aspects" is arguably an oxymoron! But anyway, when I read that I get the impressions the famines occurred beginning under the rule of the EIC, continuing on into the rule of the raj. The raj however, decided to investigate this. No fault going to anyone. Trying to think of a way to suggest the theory that the raj exacerbated the problem in an NPOV fashion. Perhaps
The East India Company failed to implement a coordinated policy to deal with the famines it may have caused occurring in areas under its rule. While famines became worse under the Raj, it set up commissions after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies.
How about, The Company failed to tackle famines occuring under it's rule. Famines increased in severity and frequency under the Raj until investigative commissions set up after each famine finally led to effective famine prevention policies at the beginning of the 20th century. It is estimated over 15 million people died in the latter half of the 19th century under the Raj.Fainitesbarleyscribs 16:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I'd prefer wording that starts with the famines. Something like: Several famines occurred in India during the 200 years of British rule. While the causes of these famines are complex, it is generally accepted that administrative and policy failures on the part of both the EIC as well as later British Raj authorities contributed to the scale of the devastation caused by these famines, in which over 15 million people died in the latter half of the 19th century. Or, alternatively, Over 15 million people died in India in several famines in the latter half of the 19th century. While the causes of these famines are complex, it is generally accepted that administrative and policy failures on the part of both the EIC as well as later British Raj authorities contributed to the scale of the devastation caused by these famines.--RegentsPark (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
This is an improvement but it still leaves out the fact that these were the worst famines in Indian history. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
It also leaves out the fact that policy in the first part of the 20th century was successful - apart from the Bengal famine 40 years later which occured during wartime. The famines were actually worse under the Raj than under company rule until the 20th century.Fainitesbarleyscribs 19:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I like Fainites, simple and notes both increasing severity and the attempt to counter them. Regents is good, but too long i think. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks guys, these are good proposals, and thanks to Zuggernaut for posting the sources. I like RegentsPark's second proposal best; building on that, I would offer, Droughts and crop failures caused exceptionally severe famines in India in the latter half of the 19th century, in which more than 15 million people died. It is generally accepted that administrative and policy failures on the part of both the EIC as well as later British Raj authorities contributed to the scale of devastation these famines caused. --JN466 14:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Works for me. --RegentsPark (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Did we miss the bit about the work the British administration did to prevent the famines? MilborneOne (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that is strictly necessary. JN's recent version is about the 19th century, not the 20th. And, the big one, the Bengal famine, took place after the work the British administration did to prevent famines. That's one reason why I'm not keen to put down a reason for the famines (the 1943 one was not because of crop failures) and would rather just say that there were many famines during british rule and that poor policies were a contributing factor to the scale of devastation. That view is generally accepted by historians of all stripes. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I support Jayen466's version. User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick was trying to distinguish between the British East India Company and the Raj in that the former had no policies at all and the latter devised some of the most sophisticated Famine Codes of the day. However, the back-story on this is that the Famine Codes were ready in 1880 but not passed until 1883 due to a conservative Governor General. Even after they were passed/enacted, they were not implemented effectively until the famines of the early 20th century. Then again in 1943 they were not implemented during the Bengal famine for reasons best left alone for now because they are far to inflammatory - besides the Bengal famine is outside the scope in the current context. Keeping all of that and MilborneOne's point in mind, here's my proposal: India suffered some of the worst famines in its history in the late 18th and the 19th centuries during which it is estimated that over 50 million people died. 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 such as the Famine Codes of 1883, despite which the worst famines occured in the last quarter of the 19th century causing an estimated 15 million deaths.Zuggernaut (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that suggestion I was just trying to make the point that the British administration didnt just ignore the situation, one example (although from the 20th Century) was the Lloyd/Sukkur Barrage which took nine years and £15 million pounds. Although that should be balanced as you have said by the huge loss of life particularly in the last years of the 19th C. MilborneOne (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I think which did not take effect until the early 20th century is better. Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Between infrastructure developments of the 19th century (if any) and the Famine Codes of 1883, the latter had a more intense and a lasting impact because they were applicable throughout India and not limited to a geographical area (the Sukkur Barrage would have helped improve irrigation in a few miles radius). There were various reasons for this but I would think that the primary reason was that the Codes made it mandatory to import food in to the province affected by a drought. Until then wheat, grains, rice was still being exported from India to the UK to feed the poor in that country as it was a mandatory duty of the government per the poor laws of 1834. Very similar observations of food exports have been made in other parts of the British Empire (Ireland) during the same period. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:01, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Which source would we cite for the "over 50 million" figure? --JN466 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Several authors give the figure of about 37 million deaths from famine for the period 1800-1900. Adding to this the deaths from the Great Bengal Famine of 1770 (11 million deaths), Chalisa famine of 1791 (10 million deaths) and the Doji bara or Skull famine of 1789 (11 million deaths), we are well past the 50 million number.
Source for 37 million number - Bose, Sudhindra (1918), Some aspects of British rule in India Monographs University of Iowa, 5, The University, pp. 79–81
Source for Great Bengal Famine of 1770: Desai, Meghnad; Raychaudhuri, Tapan; Kumar, Dharma (1983), The Cambridge economic history of India, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, ISBN9780521228022, p 528
Source for Chalisa famine of 1791: Grove, Richard H. (2007), "The Great El Nino of 1789–93 and its Global Consequences: Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Even in World Environmental History", The Medieval History Journal 10 (1&2): 75–98
Source for Doji bara or Skull famine of 1789: Grove, Richard H. (2007), "The Great El Nino of 1789–93 and its Global Consequences: Reconstructing an Extreme Climate Even in World Environmental History", The Medieval History Journal 10 (1&2): 75–98
Well be careful here. Bose says 32 million between 1800 and 1900, but earlier famines you cite are not all in parts of India under British rule. For example according to the article on the Chalisa famine, the main famine in the second year was in areas under Indian rule. What does your source say on this? The Doji bara or Skull famine (11 million) was not in areas of British rule at all according to this timeline. Where does your source put it and what does it say about company rule having anything to do with the famine? We can't just take 1765 and say everything after that is "british rule". Here's a map of company territory in 1765 and 1805 if it helps. India also has specific drought prone areas - western Rajasthan/Kutch, Udaipur, Gwalior, Malwa plateau, Gujarat, north of Madhya Pradesh to Southern Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, south west Bengal and northern Rajasthan. In my view, the simplest way to put this is as I suggested above, that famines increased in severity and frequency under British rule etc etc until 1900 etc etc. There is an article on Famine in India and individual articles on each famine.Fainitesbarleyscribs 18:49, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You are right about the 32 million. Numerous regions remained Princely right until the end in 1947. It is unfair to claim that a particular area was Princely or not under British administration when faced with these sort of situations and then go ahead and paint the entire map in pink/red to be shown under the British Empire as is done in the map in the infobox. Also, the Princely states were Princely in name only. They were completely subjugated by the British and were indirectly under British administration. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Not in 1765!!! The EIC did not walk in in 1765 and take over the whole of India and you can't conflate much later assumptions of authority or dominion of other parts of India in order to claim the EIC was directly responsible for all Indian famines from 1765. The map just shows the largest extent of the empire. That is why I asked specifically what your sources say on the issue of any company involvement in or responsibility for the Skull famine and half the Chalissa famine. There is no doubt famines were worse in the 19th century and that is largely the repspnisibility of the then british government, their taxation policy and their obsession with Malthusian type ideaology. You just can't extrapolate back from that to 1765. I'm not saying there was no reponsibility. I am asking what your sources say. Fainitesbarleyscribs 08:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)Fainitesbarleyscribs 08:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Grove says on page 83 The mortality of the 1790s famines must be blamed on the British, who had a responsibility to provide alternative famine foods when the main rice crop failed. He also gives detailed, district by district numbers on the deaths from that period, for example 141,682 people died in Muglatore in the Madras Presidency, 184,923 in Peddapore, 7,800 in Cottah and so on. The Bengal famine of 1770 is very well known as the first famine under the British. Adding all of those numbers to the Bose number we are easily over the 50 million figure and possibly approaching 70-75 million. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Bengal is certainly in the area of British responsibility. Grove is there talking about the Madras and Bengal presidencies. The point I'm making is you can't just take total mortalities in a famine like the Chalisa which was pretty much over the whole of India when the EIC was only responsible for limited parts of it. What is really needed is a decent scholarly source that gives the rough total otherwise we get into extensive OR arguments, most of which belong in the famine articles. Personally I would imagine "over 50 million" is about right if we have Bose + Bengal (1770) plus some of the other late 18th century famines but I'd like a decent source to say so. The other point to make of course is that we know so much because the EIC and then the British started keeping better records than had been done before. Famine did appear to become more frequent and severe under British rule though.Fainitesbarleyscribs 18:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Hang on, if what you say is true about record keeping why are we even discussing this? We can't have comparisons when one set of data is known to be inaccurate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's not quite that bad! There are some records. Major famines appear to have occured approximately every 40/50 years or so until the end of the 17th century. Things were particularly bad at the end of the 18th century because of el nino. Mortality was very high during medieval and more recent times as often various plagues/diseases and so on accompanied famines, but famines were more frequent under British rule. What Atreyi Biswas says is ....famines are not just a malady of the modern age. India has suffered from time immemorial from the devastating effects of natural calamities. At times, damage wrought by these natural calamities was worsened and acccelerated by man-made causes. Detailed records of these calamities are not available currently due to the general apathy of the Indian writers to record the conditions of the ordinary people at that time. He then goes on to write a whole book of what is known about ancient famines. He uses Hare's table of famines. Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) How about India suffered some of the worst famines in its history in the late 18th and the 19th centuries during which it is estimated that over 50 million people died. The Company failed to tackle famines occuring under its rule. Famines increased in severity and frequency under the Raj until investigative commissions set up after each famine finally led to effective famine prevention policies at the beginning of the 20th century. This sort of combines the points made above though I would still prefer one source for the over 50 million figure.Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks good to me; and I'd agree about the source for the 50 million. (I've corrected a typo.) --JN466 20:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Bose as a general summary source and another (hopefully) for the 50 mil. Fainitesbarleyscribs 20:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is a useful-looking source: A brief history of India, Judith E. Walsh, Infobase Publishing. The numbers are incomplete, and do not back up a total of 50 million, but the book describes for example how food was moved out of famine areas due to fixed contracts, and provides background on how famine relief measures came about and finally took effect. --JN466 22:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Sen, the problem was not generally food shortage as such but rather poverty. Calamitous natural conditions like drought and flood meant the agricultural labourers and artisans were thrown out of work in their millions and had no means to buy food.Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here is Mike Davis, Late Victorian Holocausts (the table at the top of the page gives Indian figures for 1876–79, and 1896–1902; note that the highlighted summary quoting 30 to 50 million includes other countries as well, but is restricted to the 1876–1902 period). --JN466 22:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Not much help if it includes other countries. We could say eg India suffered some of the worst famines in its history in the late 18th and the 19th centuries with over 32 million deaths from famine between 1800 and 1900 alone. The Company failed to tackle famines occuring under its rule. Famines increased in severity and frequency under the Raj until investigative commissions set up after each famine finally led to effective famine prevention policies at the beginning of the 20th century. That gives some idea of the scale of the thing without having to analyse all figures.Fainitesbarleyscribs 22:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Mm ... Bose is from 1918. Do we have something more recent citing him or backing him up? Davis quotes totals ranging from 12.2 to 29.3 million for India, for 1876–79 plus 1896–1902. Given that things were worse in the second half of the century, the lower end of that range (12.2m) wouldn't be compatible with 32 million for 1800–1900, would it? --JN466 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Bose uses Digby's figures which are also used for Hare's Table of Famines. He gives 1,000,000 for the first 25 years, 500,000 for the second, 5,000,000 for the third and 26,000,000 for the last quarter. I understand these are famine commission figures. Doesn't seem to fit quite with this though. It appears there's a lot of guesswork as figures in the princely states were unknown. The comparison of the 1891 and 1901 census, allowing for natural population growth, effectively showed over 11 million decrease in the worst affected provinces. The timeline figures for those years (which appear to be sourced to a much more recent paper on those late 19th century famines, unfortunately on jstor) show 6 million famine deaths in British areas and unknown figures in the affected Princely states, hence the later use in 1901 by Digby of census figures presumably. It looks as if the 12 million figure might be a conservative estimate of actual known figures collected in British areas at the time, with better guestimates made later. Fainitesbarleyscribs 23:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's existing version is quite robust in terms of flow and construction of the sentence. I would propose to stick to it as closely as possible. I have seen the Bose-Digby number in several places and am OK with it. Once we have consensus on the actual number, we can plug it in place of the 'xx' below.
Sources:
Bose for the 32.5 million in the 1800-1900 period.
Grove for the Doji Bara and Chalisa famines of the 1790's (both 11 million each)
Desai for the Great Bengal famine of 1770 (10-11 million)
Adding all of these takes us over the 50 million number. Such addition is OK under WP:NOR
Current
Proposed
India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. 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.
India suffered a series of famines in the late 18th and the 19th centuries, due to droughts and policy failures in which it is estimated that over xx million people died. 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 famines to investigate causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect by which time xx million people had died in the last quarter of the 19th century.
For sources stating that the famines under British rule were the worst, see:
Page 299 of Davis, Mike (2001), Late Victorian Holocausts, Verso Books, ISBN9781859847398
Chapter "VI.4: Famine" of Murton, Brian (2000), The Cambridge World History of Food
Pages 463-532 of Desai, Meghnad; Raychaudhuri, Tapan; Kumar, Dharma (1983), The Cambridge economic history of India, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, ISBN9780521228022
Page 585 of Thakur, Baleshwar; Sinha, V.N.P; Prasad, M; Pratap, Rana (2005), Thakur, Baleshwar, ed., Urban and regional development in India: essays in honour of Prof. L.N. Ram, Concept Publishing Company, ISBN9788180691997
The impression created by this article that after the Raj and 1900, the problem was remedied is also contradicted by the Bengal famine of 1943 which many sources claim was one of the worst:
Page 32 of Rorabacher, J. Albert (2010), Hunger and poverty in South Asia, Gyan Publishing House, ISBN9788121210270
Millions of tons of wheat was being exported to England when people were dying of starvation on the streets in Bengal. For sources stating that this was due to policy failure see the table and related content of:
Page 23 of Ó Gráda, Cormac (2009), Famine: a short history, Princeton University Press, ISBN9780691122373
Table:
Estimated death tolls from relevant famines (Source: Ó Gráda)
What do the sources say, precisely. The above table is a perfect example of WP:CHERRY. Please quote what the sources say, because unless they support the edit, your table is an example of WP:OR and WP:SYN. You need a source to support the claim, even then the best you could do with that is state that it is the author's opinion. Justintalk 01:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The format of the table is replicated here as it is in the source. A few rows have been deleted but the table is not going to be used in the article. It is simply illustrated here to support the claim that policy failure was a cause for the famines which is actually very well known. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
For the second time of asking, what does the source actually say. You appear to not understand that original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Justintalk 08:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as page 23 of Ó Gráda is concerned, what you see in the table is what it says. We should be able to use this source to support content like policy failure and drought were observed in the famines x, y and z. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Economic impact on Britain and the colonies
Would there be support for adding a paragraph on the economic and human impact that the British Empire had on Britain and the colonies? I think it is fair to say that the Empire made Britain wealthy, and that wealth was transferred from the colonies to Britain. After all, that was the point of the Empire. We'd have to do some source research to see how sources in Britain and the former colonies are covering this. --JN466 00:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
That would be incorrect, investment went both ways. The British Empire was more successful than other European empires as it invested in its colonies to develop their economy and further trade. Britain certainly became wealthy but then so did its colonies. You're starting from a premise and looking for sources to "prove that". That is cherry picking. Justintalk 00:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayen466 is actually quite right. The net economic effect of the British Empire on India was very negative. Sources and numbers of how India's share of global income fell from 22.3% (nearly equal to that of Europe's of 23%) in 1700 to 3% or something like that has been archived in these talk pages. The source, as I remember, was the Cambridge or Oxford economic historian Angus Maddisson (quoted by sitting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while receiving an honorary Ph.D from Oxford or Cambridge). Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was the sort of thing I was thinking of. We should present data on other colonies as well. --JN466 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I will need more time to generate content on the economic impact. Human toll is something I haven't yet looked in to. The human toll of an enslaved people can be disastrous and can take centuries to overcome, if at all. Again, I don't have anything on this right now but can come up with content in time. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be good to cover. And we shouldn't forget that there was actually also a considerable human toll on the British themselves. I don't know how many Britons died as a result of war and disease in the colonies, but the mortality rates among colonial soldiers were high. --JN466 08:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I remember reading somewhere that there were about 300,000 people in the British administration in India. We can certainly include the mortality numbers of the British but that number is likely to be small and within that number, a very large percentage is likely to be Indian sepoys/soldiers serving in the British administration. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
You would also need a source to demonstrate that countries in the same region developed faster outside of the British Empire. Without this the bare comparison with europe assumes that india would certainly have undergone two agricultural revolutions and an industrial revolution had it not become part of the BE. No other country did outside of europe, so why India? How fast did China develop in the same period? Outofsinc (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sources may differ on that, and we should reflect the spectrum of sources available. There are certainly sources arguing that colonialism created the Third World, and undeniably many Third World countries are former colonies. The progress of China, which had been doing very well until the 19th century, was checked by the opium wars, through which the British Empire asserted its right to continue drug trafficking from India to China, and the crippling conditions imposed on China in the wake of those wars. Japan, on the other hand, never was a colony, and has been an industrial superpower for decades. --JN466 08:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No, there is not support for this. Counterfactual history has a place, but it is not on Wikipedia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree. Let's leave the original research to university faculty. --RegentsPark (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I doubt there is any need to resort to original research for this; just source research. --JN466 16:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Two economic historians who do this/have done this for us as part of their careers are Niall Fergusson and the late Angus Maddison. I am sure there are many more. The bottleneck in getting that content in this article here has been the lack of consensus. RegentsParks observation isn't accurate. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Drawing together multiple (reliable) sources to produce/support novel interpretations is original research. How would you address the questions raised by Outofsinc (the tip of the iceberg - there are many more)? Balancing counterfactual theories (sourced or not) is not our business. Indeed, User:Zuggernaut's proposal to "generate content" should send shivers up Wikipedian's backs. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not interested in promoting novel interpretations. All we should do is give an overview of existing influential interpretations. --JN466 17:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
No thanks the political agenda that seems to be taking place here led by Zuggarnaut should not result in major changes to this article which has successfully passed a FAR. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As for "leaving original research to university faculty", here is a source for the point made above about China, and the creation of a Third World: Maps of time: an introduction to big history, David Christian, University of California Press. That original research has been done, and published. It's not up to Wikipedians to say it is "counterfactual" (though of course, if there are alternative views, we should include them too). --JN466 21:45, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here's some content that was proposed in the past: 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.
There is no doubt that our grievances against the British Empire had a sound basis for. 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. Indeed, at the beginning of the 20th Century, "the brightest jewel in the British Crown" was the poorest country in the world in terms of per capita income. However, what is significant about the Indo-British relationship is the fact that despite the economic impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Indians and Britons, even at the time of our Independence, was relaxed and, I may even say, benign.
”
The Angus Maddison quote that Manmohan Singh is referring to can be found in his book which has the following table on page 263:
Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)
Year
0
1000
1500
1600
1700
1820
1870
1913
1950
1973
1998
United Kingdom
-
-
1.1
1.8
2.9
5.2
9.1
8.3
6.5
4.2
3.3
India
32.9
28.9
24.5
22.6
24.4
16.0
12.2
7.6
4.2
3.1
5.0
The problem with this content is that it is India specific. If we could come up with similar content (African colonies, Malaysia, Singapore, etc) then this will enhance the article significantly (if we have consensus). Zuggernaut (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. The percentages don't tell the whole story. There was an enormous growth in World GDP between 1700 and 1952 based mainly on the eurocentric Industrial Revolution. So it is at least possible that the percentage reduction in the Indian share of GDP corresponded to a low growth in Indian GDP rather than an absolute reduction. To put these figures in context it would be useful to at least know how world GDP grew over that period. In addition to African colonies, etc., it would also be useful to include the percentages for a non-Imperial country such as China in the interests of producing a balanced picture. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding China and USA though I do not think China is an appropriate comparison for the reasons provided by User:Jayen466. A comparison with the USA would be more appropriate:
Shares of World GDP (Percent of world total)
Year
0
1000
1500
1600
1700
1820
1870
1913
1950
1973
1998
United Kingdom
-
-
1.1
1.8
2.9
5.2
9.1
8.3
6.5
4.2
3.3
India
32.9
28.9
24.5
22.6
24.4
16.0
12.2
7.6
4.2
3.1
5.0
USA
-
-
0.3
0.2
0.1
1.8
8.9
19.1
27.3
22.0
21.9
China
26.2
22.7
25.0
29.2
22.3
32.9
17.2
8.9
4.5
4.6
11.5
There's no question about the European ingenuity of that era which led to the Industrial Revolution but I'm sure, free and democratic nations such as India would have industrialized or even surpassed Europe in the industrialization as the United States did. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Bit of a strange table most of these countries did not exist for most of the span of the table. MilborneOne (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree the economics of the British Empire should be in the article. It should mention that the Empire in the twentieth century was a burden on the Exchequer. It cost more to defend than it yielded in revenue. Due to the prevailing laissez faire orthodoxy, the British government in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries never actively sought to exploit the Empire's natural resources to their full potential. For example, in the years 1925-1929 the colonial empire supplied the UK with just 8% of its raw materials. In 1901 the colonial empire made up just 4% of the UK's export market. Due to Free Trade, less than half of the colonial empire's imports came from the UK, and the colonial empire in turn only sent 42% of its exports to the UK. 71 out of a 100 Indians worked on the land and only 12 out of a 100 in industry, so India added practically nothing to the UK's industrial capacity (the measurement of national power). In 1913, India's home market was worth £70,273,321 for the UK's exports. Compare this to France and Germany, which was worth £69,610,451. As for the UK's overseas investments, India was worth not much more than Argentina. As for imports into the UK, India accounted for less than half of the British-settled Dominions, and half as much as the U.S. Therefore the economic worth of India to the UK was outweighed by the immense strategic and diplomatic burden she was.See the Royal Institute of International Affairs, The Colonial Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1937) and Correlli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power (London: Eyre & Methuen, 1972). For the the rest of the colonial empire, I believe Harold Macmillan (when Chancellor) in the 1950s wrote an audit for the British Empire and it revealed that it was a burden on the UK.--Britannicus (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
This article is completely unbalanced - it does not go into enough detail on the positive effects of British rule in India
This article does not give enough weight to the positive effects of British rule in India. We ABSOLUTELY MUST MENTION that Britain's legacy in India was:
the English language, why India and not China is where services are being outsourced to
parliamentary democracy, law and order, freedom of speech and the press (again compare vs China)
superb education systems
establishment of rail and road networks
postal, telephone and telegraph networks
dams, bridges, irrigation canals
the abolition of the barbaric practices of sati and infanticide
the fact that India as a nation never existed until it was united under British rule
the fact that until the British arrived, the Hindu population was under Muslim control
We must mention these things. We must. And I will repeat this until I am blue in the face. This article is not worthy of featured article status until we do. I think three or four paragraphs devoted entirely to this should be enough? No, wait, make that five. We don't need to mention any other colony, just India. India, India, India.
But I'm Bwitish (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Go ahead. I like blue. More relevantly, find reliable sources for your claims - not just that they happened, but that they were positive. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I was making a point, in the light of this incessant "we must have the negative Indian POV included", although that seems to have been lost on you. But I'm Bwitish (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we could add the British role in challenging the ghastliness of the Mughal caste system, which effectively enslaved tens of millions of poor Indians in permanent genetic semi internal exile and destitution. This is often commented on by Indian writers oddly enough. I suspect the modern improvements to India where they have occured are at least partly down to reduction in the intensity of caste barriers, particularly in the high-growth cities, which are also of course a result of the British railway network, commercial expansion, etc. Really, the latter half of Mughal India was one of dereliction and decay, which is totally unreflected at Mughal Empire - as with Mauryan Empire, the Indian nationalist POV has been at work. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Ceylon
And now for something completely different, and hopefully less controversial -- we mention Ceylon gaining its independence, and we briefly mention Ceylon being exempted from the abolition of slavery in 1834, but I can't see that we mention how Ceylon came to be part of the British Empire (mainly through the 1802 Treaty of Amiens). Could we please add this in the para where we mention Amiens? Thanks. --JN466 11:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Done. [9][10] --JN466 13:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
New proposal
How about Indian/nationalist editors create a new article, perhaps "Effects of Imperialism on India", or "What if the British had never ruled India?" or just simply "British Empire boo hiss"? Obviously it would get slapped down with NPOV, OR and all sorts of other tags, but at least those tags would be there and not on an existing Featured Article (whose status was recently confirmed despite the best efforts of said editors to change it). Just as a reminder:
This article is NOT about India;
It is not about what might have happened;
It does not address whether something was "right" or "wrong";
It uses a neutral narrative style using reliable middle-of-the-road sources;
It does not analyse or summarise the historiography;
Its talk page is not a forum.
Proposals which do not adhere to these points will fail. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
What about a page the `British Empire caused the 2010 financial crisis in Ireland --Rockybiggs (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
We actually have an article called Historiography_of_the_British_Empire (start-class). I see no good reason why a Featured Article should not at least give a summary of the Historiography; some of the commentators at FAR suggested as much. --JN466 16:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, I wasn't aware of that article, but the fact that it exists rather strengthens the argument for this article to remain focused on a narrative of what actually happened, not on cause/effect interpretations (as far as that is possible). A short internet article cannot cover every interpretation of the consequences of each event (or the Empire as a whole), and certainly should not do so when they are controversial, as many of these topics are. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Of course this article cannot do more than give a broad overview of any aspect of the British Empire; I am not proposing to turn it into a coatrack whereby we spend 9,000 words on telling what happened, and then 5,000 words quoting Late Victorian Holocausts. But a short section on the historiography would add value, and yes, somewhere in that section there should be a mention of the nationalist Indian POV. --JN466 17:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
The attempt to flood this article with Indian nationalist POV is wrong. This recently passed a FAR which was started for pathetic reasons by someone who was failing to get their POV crap added to the article. I oppose any change to this article that adds such POV and there is only so much room in this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is the time to speak of "flooding" the article with the Indian nationalist POV, because as of now, that POV is not represented at all. (If I've missed it, do point me to it.) It is, however, a significant point of view. --JN466 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Which points of view are represented here exactly? The North American? The Irish? The African? The Australian? I don't actually know whether it reflects any of them, but I do know that it does not reflect the British perspective. I also know that because there are lots of significant nationalistic points of view it is not possible to balance all of them. We should achieve NPOV by mentioning none of them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
It seems to me that we seem to be working toward a wikipedia where scholarly sources are less important than extreme nationalist viewpoints. If that is indeed the case, and someone can point me to the new policy description, then I will support adding whatever JN466 deems necessary to satisfy the 'Indian viewpoint'. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
There's been no policy change on Wikipedia and we are still working with scholarly, academic sources who publish in peer reviewed journals. If a view is not mainstream, it is not presented in articles or is clearly stated as a minority view. British Empire is odd in that mainstream views are chosen selectively. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Despite your best efforts to undermine this article, it survived a FAR you sparked. Its neutral and does not need flooding with your POV crap. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF BW that is verging on uncivil. Zuggernaut I think sincerely believes his statement above. I think he is wrong, and does not pay attention to WP:WEIGHT in his selections, but its not right to accuse him of POV crap, that is name calling. --SnowdedTALK 11:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark, there are Indian scholars of history, and there are scholarly summaries of the British Empire's historiography even by Western scholars which mention Indian scholars' points of view. We do nothing of the sort; of 218 citations, 217 are to British or American sources as far as I can tell.
And by the way, you are mischaracterising WP:V policy, which explicitly allows the use of non-scholarly sources. I know that, because I recently tried -- and failed -- for several weeks to have that paragraph changed to state more clearly that scholarly sources, where available, are preferred for statements of fact. Even in the version I proposed though, the policy would still have allowed editors to source statements of opinion and public perception to quality media sources, as it does now. The relevant passage is Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source,
Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history, medicine, and science. But they are not the only reliable sources in such areas. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include university-level textbooks, books published by respected publishing houses, magazines, journals, and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria.
That is policy, and has been for some considerable time. So if there were a salient media source, we would be quite free to use it. Now, I generally don't like using media sources much when there are scholarly sources covering the same ground, and I don't propose that we resort to media sources unless there were very good reasons, but we should broaden the range of scholarly opinion a bit. And indeed, Mike Davis should get a mention too. --JN466 15:05, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are examples of the types of sources I am talking about:
The Blackwell companion to Hinduism by Gavin D. Flood, p. 51ff. (referring among others to Raychaudhuri in The Cambridge illustrated history of the British Empire by Peter James Marshall, Cambridge University Press; Raychaudhuri is much cited in the literature)
The Oxford History of the British Empire has a whole volume on the debates surrounding the Empire's historiography (perhaps too much to be useful for a summary).
At any rate, such summaries describe prevalent viewpoints of all types rather than endorsing them. That is the sort of thing I had in mind. I'm using India here as an example, because India constituted three-quarters of the Empire's population, but this is really about any postcolonial assessments and writings on the Empire. It doesn't have to be more than five or ten sentences, but we should have something on this, and name some notable authors. --JN466 20:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
JN466, there are many views of the British Empire and many editors who have come here trying to put forth positive or negative views of the empire. The article, as it is currently written, deals with the historical sequence of events without digressing into value judgements. If we allowed one set of value judgements into the article, then it would become necessary to allow other sets as well and the article would quickly become long, unwieldy and hard to read. That would be a disservice to our readers. On the matter of economic effects, I've long supported a specific article on Economic effects of the British rule of India, and, IMO, the correct thing to do is to write that article and include it in the see also section of this article. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:34, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree with this. My original post was perhaps somewhat facetious - RegentsPark has summed up what I was getting at much more eloquently. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that providing a balanced summary of the various perspectives in a paragraph would be easy, but we could try. --JN466 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I am not uncomfortable with having multiple value judgments in the article; I only have a problem with there not being any, even though they play a prominent role in public discourse about the empire. --JN466 11:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The British Empire was like a lot of previous empires, it had its good points, and it had its bad points, depending on whether a person/country, etc. benefited from its effects or not. People of all nationalities/cultures tend to dislike being governed by 'foreigners' as a rule, and so any criticisms of the British Empire need to bear this in mind, however when seen in comparison with some other people's empires, the British do at least seem to have been one of the less reprehensible ones, compared to ones such as Stalin's or Hitler's. And the British didn't send armed cavalry to hunt and kill their Indians, unlike some countries I could mention. Instead they sent the likes of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi to their universities to be educated.
Also in criticising the British it should be tempered with asking whether the 'native' administration of the time could have done any better for the colonial people's well being or not, and in most cases the answer is probably not, many were still effectively Medieval in outlook, if not downright stone age. Like it or not, the British Empire effectively dragged a lot of countries into the 'modern world', for-better-or-for-worse.
Nevertheless, it is always (in my humble opinion) better for a people to govern themselves, providing they don't cause trouble for the rest of us. That's because I have a Western 'liberal' education, something that the rest of the world would lack knowledge-of, were it not for the British Empire.
And it may also be as well to point out that whether one likes it or not, people on this English Wikipedia are using the language of the British Empire. Writing as an Englishman, this is my native language, although for many (perhaps the majority of) contributors on here, it may not be. I'd just like to say thank you for learning my language. I'm very flattered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.75.103 (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Unsourced changes
A lot of unsourced and incorrect changes were made to this article recently, e.g. "in personal union with the monarch" - Hanover wasn't part of the BE. "ruled or administered by the monarch" - misleading - QEII didn't rule or administer the empire. "This territorial scope is indicated by the style of the monarch" - says who? For a long time after the loss of their territories in France (until 1801) English monarchs still styled themselves king of France: doesn't mean that they were. But I'm Bwitish (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
So George V was continuing a long line of mendacity - is that your argument? Was the territorial scope of the oath of George V less than the territorial scope of the actual empire? Or the territorial scope of the oath of George V greater than the territorial scope of the actual empire? Or were they equal? What exactly is your complaint anyway? Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
You didn't put in any sources and added your own "original research", some of which is obviously wrong (eg the stuff about personal unions). You changed the introduction (for the worse) which was perfectly fine and as far as I can see has been stable for months if not years. But I'm Bwitish (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Piffle. Go to the article on George V and you'll see that I lifted the style directly from it. Go to that talk page and argue for its deletion there first before attempting to delete it here. Go to the Kingdom of Ireland for an explanation about the personal unions of the English, Scottish and Irish crowns. In short, do some research before accusing others of OR. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:46, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Bwitish is right that your changes were unsourced. Some of them are aslo debatable, such as changing "settlement" of Ireland to "colonisation". And Bwitish is also right, Hanover was not part of the Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Drawing a link between the style of the title of the monarch may provide some indication of the extent of the empire at the time, but it is not useful and does not belong in the introduction. Asserting that the territories were 'ruled' by the monarch is inaccurate - it suggests far more involvement in governance than was actually the case (certainly after c17). The plantations section took a while to sort out - there are historians who believe it was an intrinsic part of the development of the Empire and there are those who do not. We have taken the most neutral route - the consensus was to keep this narrative section short. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
No, the fact that Philip II of Spain was jure uxoris king of England for four years doesn't make England a Spanish colony, if that's what you're saying. Gabbe (talk) 12:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
What a load of rubish! King Philip of Spain was king only in that he married the Queen of England, his name was entered on legal charters as King by marriage. He held no sway over the English what so ever. He could not even speak English! And anyways, the Queen was the monarch of England if you argue for England to be a colony of Spain, then we English could theoretically argue that Spain be a colony of England.English n proud (talk) 16:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
How did he build up the English navy then?( which, in a funny sidenote, was used against him in the equally funny spanish armada. Oh and also in the even more funny but taboo English armada.
OttoVonGosu (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
More information needed on slavery in british colonies
This article needs alot more informaition on the benefits of british using slave labor to build it's empire. Slaves were the integral to the british having an empire. Also this article needs information on how british people treated their slaves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.138.108 (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Slaves may have been integral to the British Empire during the 18th century. But during the 19th century they were phased out. This is one of the things that is unusual about the British Empire: it was the first empire to make slavery illegal, even if it did take nearly a century to remove it entirely. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:27, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Locations once controlled by the British Empire missing from the map
(please add/remove as necessary)
Tangier (1661-1679) (ceded to Britain after Charles I's marriage to Catherine of Braganza) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.3.71 (talk) 10:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What is this article about, really?
If there was a British Empire -- and we know that Victoria was styled as "empress", than that entity must have come into being on a certain specific date, like all other empires, and ceased to exist on a specific date, as all other empires.
For Goddess' sake, we know when exactly Octavianus Augustus proclaimed himself the emperor, but we do not know when it was done in Britaina nd alk about colonilaism from its beginnings??!
Why is this article not named "British colonialism" then?
Can we have the length of the legal existence of this empire? Anyone, kindly fetch that and post it here and half this overly long pamphlet!
When a power has colonies, it can be considered an empire. British colonialism would be more suited to discussing the effects of such, as opposed to the overarching empire. Something does not have to be formally declared on a specific date to exist. Xtremerandomness (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
British colonization is a process, not an entity. British colonialism is also an abstract thing rather than referring to the sum of british colonies and their relation to the Crown. At the time, and as the preferred term ever since, it has an should be referred to as the British Empire. There is no requirement of a founding date to be an [Empire], as defined in our own wiki article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire . Jbower47 (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Semi-protection
I believe Semi-protection is now required; nearly all the edits since the last FA discussion have either been vandalism (and its reverting), or unexplained changes, mostly from newly registered, and IP users. Those affected by this can always use an edit request, if the need arises. --George2001hi (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I would decline a request for semi-protection, one edit every other day is not like an edit war and this article has 689 watchers to keep it inline. If the disruptive IP edits were every more regular then it could be considered. Frustrating but I dont think it is a big problem, not all IP editors are disruptive. MilborneOne (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Some Excitement, I See
Guys, I just stopped by to find out when the British Empire was established and when it was disestablished. Specifically, I was wondering because of all this Birther nonsense about Obama being born in the British Empire. I see this has been the object of some excitement around here. Nonetheless, I would like to know the dates something called the British Empire existed. It is a shame this article does not provide this simple fact. It is a resonable question, I hope we are able to provide a factual answer. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 12:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
There is no clear endpoint when the Empire is thought to have ended, or when it began. Before "Britain" even came into being, there was an English Empire, and almost a Scottish one, so when the United Kingdom was formed in 1707 there was already an empire. As for an endpoint, an often cited date is 1997, when Hong Kong was given to China. A good span would be perhaps 1497-1997, if only because of its beautiful 500 year timespan. As Obama is a President of the USA, I would assume he was born in the USA, which has not been part of the British Empire since its independence. So unless he's very old, I highly doubt he was born in the British Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
If the birthers are saying that Obama was born in Kenya, then that is consistent with saying that he was born in the British Empire because Kenya became independent (of the empire) in 1963 and Obama was born in 1961. Of course, it is equally possible that he is lying about his age and that he was actually born in that evil city New York (then a part of the British empire) in 1761. Now that's a conspiracy theory worth exploring! --rgpk (comment) 13:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
While that is at least as plausible as the standard birther scenario, it does not serve the purpose. Born in 1761, he would likely be covered by the "...or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" clause. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Let me phrase it this way, which British kings styled themselves as King-Emperor? Who was the first and who was the last? Paul, in Saudi (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't sound particularly useful to me. You can have an empire without emperors and emperors without empires (or clothes for that matter). I'm not sure how to answer your question. Queen Victoria was declared "Empress of India" in 1876 but that says nothing about her also being an Empress of Kenya. Unless Obama was born in pre-1947 India. --rgpk (comment) 16:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it is not useful. But as fairly disinterested reader, one not involved in the politics of the editors here, I would like to know and it seems to be a reasonable question one could expect to be clearly answered in this article. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 01:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
You're asking for a clearcut distinction that does not exist. The British monarchs didn't style themselves as King-Emperors, just as Kings or Queens, but I suppose if you wanted to have the date for King-Emperor (or Queen-Empress?) than it would be 1876 with the acquisition of control over India. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, as unsatisfying as it is, I shall bow to your superior knowledge. I had heard once the BE had formally existed for only a very short time, less that a century. But it all quite a bit more complex than I imagined it. I sahll leave you Smart People to it. Thank you. Paul, in Saudi (talk) 10:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
The reason why your question doesn't make sense is that there is never a clean start date and end date for an empire. They grow gradually, possibly through hubris, and die gradually (as all things must one day). If you want some degree of exactitude, then, I suppose, one could say that the British Empire started with the establishment of Jamestown in 1607 and formally died with the handing over of Hong Kong in 1997. A healthy 390 years. A more realistic view of Empire would be, perhaps, from the ceding of New York to the British by the Dutch in 1674 - though the desire for empire predates this by a few decades to the time of Sir Walter Raleigh - to the end of the 2nd World War (1945) when it became clear that the days of empire were over. --rgpk (comment) 17:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
And if you wanna get really anal we could go back to the Plantagenet interest in France?Gazzster (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Kenya was a British dependency in 1961 so if he was born there (which he wasn't), he would have been born in the British Empire, because in the early 60s that term was still used, though it was never an official term. The "Emperor" part of the "King-Emperor" title only applied to India, which was classed as an empire in its own right, though one that was ruled by the British. This was abandoned in 1947. ðarkuncoll 16:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe it was officially the Colony and Protectorate of Kenya after 1920 (see the brief article at Kenya Colony) and before independence. I couldn't immediately find references to FO documents of the period on Kenya but probably it was officially referred to on an everyday basis as a "Crown Colony" and so the mythical Obama Birth would have been as some kind of British Colonial. "Colonial" was not quite the term of abuse at that time that it has since become. All convenient fictions to mask the sense of being owned by the imperial power of course, but the BE traded on such fictions very well for a long time. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
There is an argument that the British Empire still exists obviously in a much reduced form, so its not possible to put an end date on it yet. British Overseas Territories could be argued to be the last remnants of Empire. After all Britain took over direct rule of the Turks and Caicos islands in 2009 after allegations of ministerial corruption. That seems to be a colonial power being exercised, I think one or two Turks and Caicos politicians played that card at the time as it has become an emotive term, even pejorative. You would be hard put to find anyone in the UK call them colonies but in practice I think they could be called that. If we look at places like Gibraltar or the Falklands they say the want to stay "British" but they wouldn't describe themselves as a colony I wouldn't have thought? They have their own governments but so did Hong Kong when it was a colony (Legco). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.168.118 (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Minor Edit : Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)
from 'Britain was left virtually bankrupt' to 'Britain was left virtually bankrupt having carried the flag for democracy alone between 1939 and '41', as pertains to the facts.Twobells (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
That sounds fairly extraneous. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
All the countries in the Empire apart from the Irish Free State had declared war on Germany in 1939. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
Suez and its aftermath section
I am correcting a few details. Firstly the British and French did not capture the Canal because the US pressure forced Eden to call a ceasefire before troops could reach the Canal. Also it was Nikoli Bulganin, not Kruschev, who sent the letters to London, Paris and Tel Aviv threatening Soviet intervention on the Egyptian side. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
Very open to factual corrections - can we have the references to support those statements please. And in the mean time stop edit warring. I've reverted you per WP:BRD, apologies for the vandal statement that was an accident --SnowdedTALK 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
I have added a reference to show it was Bulganin who threatened intervention. Also Sudan gained independence in 1956. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
Please take note of [WP:INDENT|how to format comments] here. You have been reverted by three editors. That means you present the evidence here and gain agreement to changes. You should self-revert now and do that. --SnowdedTALK 17:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Since my information is factual and referenced there is no need to revert. A quick look at the article on Sudan will show you it gained independence on 1st January 1956. Kruschev did not say anything publicly during the Suez Crisis, it was all left to the prime minister Nikolai Bulganin. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC))
You may well be right, but you still make the case here. You are edit warring and heading for a block. Self revert and make you case here. I formatted your comment for you (again) by the way. --SnowdedTALK 17:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Re Sudan, read the text: "it was it was agreed that Sudan would become independent by 1955", not Sudan did become independent in 1955. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 18:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Apologies to anon: I reread the cited source [11]. The agreement was self-determination by the end of 1955, with a "target date for independence shortly thereafter". I updated the text accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 18:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Re the canal, it's not true that the troops did not reach the canal. At the point Eden ordered the withdrawal, they were in possession of 23 miles of it, plus Port Said. I modified the text though as it said the troops captured "the" canal. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 18:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Just a minor point the text reads like am agreement on the withdrawl of British forces and the self-determination of sudan was made at the same time but the Anglo-Egyptian agreement on Sudan was in February 1953 the removal of British forces was made in a different agreement in October 1954. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
it seems that some editors remove all references to genocides, ethnic cleansing etc,(a fact of life to those who lived under this empire).
note, most of the text in the article is not cited, so why remove only these references? people who remove these in good faith because of any deficiency in citing should remove all other uncited text from article as well if they are not working for an agenda to whitewash the history of this empire.
Claims of genocide will be contentious in any country. This one has been challenged and thus sources are required. If the claim is solid, then sourcing it should be straightforward. Bielle (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
1/ so are you claiming no genocides, ethnic cleanings, and forced relocations took place? 2/ most of the article is contentious and uncited but you only edit out this section displaying a pro british double standard and bias. if you are in good faith kindly remove all unsourced text in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.89.15 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
as requested i have added several sources for some of the british genocides,ethnic cleanings,and forced relocations etc. in fact because Britsh committed many such acts, in so many places, at various times, they are too many to number in sentence or even a para ( as such their source references are also numerous). i am new here and am not an editor, but given the importance, in addition to the sentence in intro, an editor should create section in article for these british empire genocides so they can be detailed and a separate article that can be linked as well. (doing this by those editors who were so quick to selectively remove original sentence claiming spurious lack of sources before, would take some of their shame away ) 123.231.89.15 (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
seems that editors with pro britsh agenda want to keep any reference to britsh genocides , etc. covered up here. the sentence in intro was removed again. before they said it was bc of no sources , i provided sources ( and more avail;able as i pointed out above). no they removed without giving a reason . shame! 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
now ( after latest genocide denial attempt by removal of well sourced sentence) they claim (btw somehow they fail to make their arguments here after they told me to make my argument here ) that no consensus was achieved. but no consensus was achieved for many other sections of the text. so why remove only this? pro britsh agenda? that is the only logical conclusion for such double standard. saying that is not a personal attack. that is logic and use of words according to dictionary definition.
at this rate of moving the target for inclusion resorted to by these pro british editors i will be banned for trying to include a well substantiated facts in to the article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The page as it stands is at its consensus version. If you want to add something new, and no-one objects, fine; by nobody reverting your changes, you can assume that everyone that's seen it thinks it's a worthwhile inclusion. However, if a number of editors do object to a radical new inclusion, they'll revert and it's down to you to work with the objectees to achieve a compromise. So far (with your constant, petulant personal attacks) you're not doing a great job. The ball's in your court. JonChappleTalk 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia, and by extension its editors, is under no obligation to stick to your version of the history of the British Empire. The whole point of a collaborative encyclopaedia is that consensus on controversial additions must be achieved and Wikipedia policy, within reasonable limits, must also be observed. For most new and/or anonymous editors, I recommend following the bold-revert-discuss cycle and observing the three revert rule. You'll tread on less toes that way. Oh, and accusing editors of being biased wont get you very far.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
i have so far provided sources requested and replied to all objections here is talk (again as requested) . so far nobody ( including you have given any reason why the genocide reference is not valid or why they do not agree. they just removed it without reason. as such i have to come to the logical conclusion that this is done due to a pro british agenda and prejudices they cannot rationally defend. if you have any reason (other than 'we don't agree bc of our bias') why well sourced references to British genocide should not be included please state them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you read over your comments again. Perhaps then you'll see why other editors have little interest in dealing with you.--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
i suggest that you give concrete reasons for excluding a well sourced sentence in intro about British atrocities instead of making snide remarks to cover up your lack of substantive reasons for excluding it. 123.231.87.123 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you stop IP-hopping to evade a block and/or page protection. Create an account, for heaven's sake. JonChappleTalk 09:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
123.231.87.123, this an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There have been many British atrocities (and even more English ones, before there was a British state or a British Empire). Where there are reliable sources for them they belong in the appropriate articles. The consensus here is that British atrocities were not so prevalant that they should figure largely in the parent article. Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
whose consensus? who and when did you arrive at that? to the point that even even well sourced statements are excluded merely in the name of that consensus? do clarify. did those who achieved this consensus say that atrocities committed in the process of occupation. maintenance and exploitation of empire don't deserve inclusion in a article about empire? maybe non westerners (like me) don't count when arriving at this consensus? maybe 10s of millions non westerners who died as result of british atrocities don't count as 'prevalent' enough? do clarify 123.231.87.123 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
... 10s of millions non westerners who died as result of british atrocities - hmm, actually I think you'll find that with the probably exception of India, the entire populations of every British colony combined didn't add up to ten million people. In about 1920 the population of London was around that, and even today the population of London is still greater than the combined current populations of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, put together. So your 10s of millions is a ludicrous figure. For one thing, the predominately agricultural economies of most of the colonies couldn't have supported anywhere near that number of people. Perhaps that's what you meant, however, I don't see how it could have been the fault of the British if the population outgrew the economy. This had been happening throughout history in a number of these countries, and AFAIK, still does. It's called Famine, and IIRC, the last one of note was in around 1985 when Live Aid was held - I'm pretty sure that countries like Ethiopia and the Sudan were no longer British colonies by then. And I'm pretty sure that these countries had had famines for centuries before. In other words, I don't think Britain can be blamed for them, no matter how much Anglophobes would have liked them to be. Luckily, these countries are no longer burdened by being run by 'foreigners' so they are free to organise their countries and governments however they see fit.
... and if Britain had such a bad reputation then one would be forced to wonder why so many from the former colonies chose to move over here and live here. London is probably the most multi-cultural place on Earth - and has been so for at least a century. Presumably no-one in their right mind would want to go and live in a country guilty of the 'atrocities' and 'genocides' you mention - even Hitler and Stalin had to force 'foreigners' from their empires to work in the home country. You may have heard of Adolph Hitler - the British Empire was what saved the World from him, when everyone else was either surrendering or trying to make as much money as they could out of the situation or use it to their own advantage. And, people of all colours from the 'colonies' were queuing up to fight for Britain and the Empire/Commonwealth.
... oh and another thing. You need to be really organised to commit genocide, such as when the term was used in the former-Yugoslavia and in the Rwandan Genocide back in the 1990s. Britain ran the whole of British India for two hundred years with only around 20,000 people. You can't commit genocide on a population of perhaps approaching a billion with that few people, even if you wanted to - and the British most certainly wouldn't have wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Simple Chart?
Is anyone willing to create a simple chart of names and dates of British colonies joining and unjoining the empire? 'Cause, y'know...that'd be good. Can't make heads nor tails of this long article when all I want want are some simple data.
i propose that all secondary sources ( history books, etc ) based and funded by Britain be excluded as not credible if the facts they cite are not backed up by at least one other other non british source. primary sources if they are available and authenticated are not to be excluded whatever the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.89.15 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Half measures like that show you up for the pusillanimous Anglophile that you are. If you really meant to exclude British bias you would call for the exclusion of ALL books written in English or written in other languages by an English-speaker. No one writing in English can be trusted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
A "pusillanimous Anglophile" is, as far as I know, a timid person who loves the English. That can't be what you meant. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I think Mr Ross is being sarcastic. The IP is a pointy single-use account determined to whack in unsourced, unencyclopaedic drivel in the opening paragraph. Deaths under the Empire are discussed elsewhere, and claims of "genocide" are extremely contentious, especially within a historical period before the term was even recognised. JonChappleTalk 06:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What me? Sarcastic?? How could you say such a thing! Perish the thought!! Now I'm going off to bed all hurt and stuff!!! I'll probably cry myself to sleep!!!! And it'll be all your fault!!!!! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
PS. I was actually trying to be facetious and thus point out the absurdity of the anon proposal. Top Marks to Bielle for realising what "Pusillanimous Anglophile" means. Slightly less than Top Marks for missing the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
1/ genocide has been used in wikipedia repeatedly (ref armenia) to events that occurred before 'the term was recognized' 2/ most of british genocides and ethnic cleansings occurred in mid 20th century. last of them in 1970s. and all well substantiated as i said there are plenty of sources. 3/ there is no reference in intro to the brutal way the british controlled the empire or the killings they did. and hardly any in the rest of text. the article gives the impression that it was all sun shiny to to all those who were under bestial britsh boot. is that what wikipedia editors want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
The "bestial British boot". I like that. The sources you've added include Late Victorian Holocausts, hardly a balanaced or indeed arguably very factual account of British rule (in India, specifically); The Zulu Kingdom as a Genocidal and Post-genocidal Society, which refers to alleged genocide committed by the Zulus, not the British; and two about the Kenya emergency, which is dealt with on the Decolonization of Africa and Mau-Mau Uprising pages. If, however, you can provide some quotes from the texts you added which do refer to British actions in Kenya as a genocide, perhaps we could include something in the "Wind of change" section. It still doesn't belong in the lead unless you can find a large number of independent, reliable sources that do back up your claims, which so far you haven't done. JonChappleTalk 06:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Derek Ross: I did realize that the balance of your remark was facetious or, rather (given the difficulties of ensuring the proper reception of even the broadest type of humour on the Internet) I hoped that it was. I wasn't so sure about the words "translated" because so very many people do get "-phile" and "-phobe" backwards. I will take less than top marks; I have done fine in life with just that. :>) Bielle (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Jonchapple yes i am biased, but unlike you i am open about it. 2/text i included in article was backed with several sources. it is not based on my word. so claiming my comments here are biased wont advance your argument. 3/your lack of substantive arguments ( and bias ) shows when you claim "Late Victorian Holocausts" is not balanced. on what grounds? explain yourself. or are we to obey merely on your word? 3/ you say "The Zulu Kingdom as a Genocidal and Post-genocidal Society'" is all about "genocide committed by the Zulus, not the British" in fact it is about genocide committed by both. on what ground are you saying it isn't? explain yourself. 4/ your choice of words from British narrative of history ("Kenya emergency") again display your one sided prejudices. 5/ both "Late Victorian Holocausts" and "The Zulu Kingdom as a Genocidal and Post-genocidal Society" refer to genocides including in their titles. so your request for more text is redundant. if you want to exclude them as sources show reasons. books on kenya refer to variety of brutal repressions carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.87.123 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Which particular genocide by the British against the Zulus is documented in The Zulu Kingdom...? I only ask because I've never heard of any. Could you perhaps provide some quotes from the text to support this view? I'm sure you've read it, so it shouldn't be too much trouble. As for Late Victorian Holocausts, even if it was a reliable source, it doesn't actually mention genocide, but, to my knowledge, claims that laissez-faire free-market economics and political ideology led to a lot of unnecessary famines. That's not genocide. Genocide is the attempted deliberate destruction of a particular ethnic group.
The fact that you've just admitted your own bias also isn't going to stand up too well here, I'm afraid. And my choice of words is irrelevant; I'm British and I've always known the conflict as the Kenyan Emergency (notice I linked to it as Mau Mau Uprising earlier, anyway). I've said that if something's properly sourced I wouldn't object to including something in the "Wind of change" section dealing with the decolonisation of Africa, but you've yet to provide me with any quotes that refer to the Emergency as a genocide. JonChappleTalk 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and please sign your posts using four tildes (these: ~). JonChappleTalk 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
yes i admit my bias, you are free to not admit your very obvious and already demonstrated bias. but if you want to exclude the externally sourced text i included, you have to give reasons. instead you and few others 1/ chose to abuse your editor privileges by repeatedly excluding text without giving reasons. 2/ now you make mere assertions when asked to give reasons "book A is not balanced". "words are irrelevant" "not belong in lead" "does not refer to britsh genocide but to zulu only" " "never heard". your assertions are not rational arguments. 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
here is an example of you confused logic : first you said "'Late Victorian Holocausts', hardly a balanaced or indeed arguably very factual account of British rule ". now after i asked you to explain your assertion you say "even if it was a reliable source, it doesn't actually mention genocide". no mention? maybe you want me to refer to British 'holocausts" then? lol @ type of ppl who want to whitewash british empire 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
@Jonchapple article lead should give overall picture of the subject. as of now it does not indicate that this empire was forced upon millions of ppl by (at the start) a oligarchy of British elite and then later by ppl who participated in what is called democracy in Britain, regardless of wishes of ppl in occupied territories. no indication that British exploited the resources and peoples in other countries to their benefit. no indication that there was continuous resistance to occupation and exploitation, both violent and peaceful, throughout the whole time in almost all occupied countries. no indication that all resistance both violent and peaceful,was crushed with violent repression by the British including mass and individual killings ( and by use of genocide , ethnic cleansing and forced relocation etc ) . all this is excluded. instead we have a sunshiny and inaccurate picture of empire in this article and lead. i merely inserted a well sourced sentence to at least rectify one of those exclusions. but it seems that you and others want to keep the picture of how it was all sunshiny to all under the empire and will not tolerate well sourced facts. shame! 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Article leads should maintain a neutral point of view on the subject and not include weasel words. Controversy surrounding a subject should be dealt with in the main article, not the lead.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You still haven't provided any quotations from your texts of reference to support accusing the Empire of genocide (and you're going to need a lot of them to support including it in the lead). It shouldn't be hard; just open and up and quote away. I'll be waiting! JonChappleTalk 10:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
why are you waiting for me to quote words that are even in titles? you suffering from denial? lol 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
so according to you neutral point of view here must result in exclusion of any reference to - 1/British forcing their empire on others, 2/ british exploiting others, 3/violent and peaceful resistance offered by subjected ppls, 4/ resulting violent repression including mass and individual killings (and use of genocide , ethnic cleansing and forced relocation etc ). all of these exclusions integral parts of empire throughout its existence. such exclusions neutral? lol. since you have taken the task of defending the article as it is current, explain why all these are excluded. i am waiting! 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Just because a book's called something Holocausts, it doesn't mean you don't have to provide specific references. Which pages in that book refer to British policy as genocide? I could write a book today called The 123.231.87.123 Ripper and fill it with pictures of puppies. It wouldn't make you a mass-murderer. As for 1), 2) (to a certain extent; "exploitation" is subjective", 3) and some of 4), it's all in there already if you bothered to read the thing. The only thing that's missing is your favourite word, "genocide". I'll say it again; quote me references. And as per the established consensus, I haven't got any such task, you're the one trying to change it; the onus is on you. JonChappleTalk 11:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
i have provided as much references and sources as required by wikipedia to support the statement i introduced. they are no less than all other sources and references in this article. why the double standard? don't run from arguments made. as all can see above, you have failed time and again to address my arguments, instead every time you make irrational assertions. as when you said ""'Late Victorian Holocausts', hardly a balanaced or indeed arguably very factual account of British rule " etc. when asked to explain your assertion you change the subject and move the target. i am not going to follow you into tangents about "ripper'. you said book is not balanced. why? either you should prove your point that book is unbalanced , or give up the point and explicitly admit that the book is not unbalanced. when you thus prove yourself seriously interested in truth instead of biased denier of all reason and facts that go against your pro british agenda, i will take your requests for further quotes from book seriously. otherwise every time i prove a point rationally you will keep on changing the subject and moving the target without admitting the point.
on argument on neutrality of article and its exclusions - 1/you assert (irrationally) that claiming british empire was forced on the occupied is 'subjective'. why ? was it freely chosen by the people in occupied territories? how and when did they do that? was there no resistance? lol. far from being subjective, occupation by force is the conclusion that tally with facts. exclusion of references to this hardly make this article neutral as you claim. 2/ same with exploitation of empire. why did british maintain such an empire? explain. far from excluding it, the article to make sense should explain why the British maintained the empire. if it is not for exploitation for their own uses, give other reasons if you can. where is subjectivity here? explain. 3/ contrary to your irrational and contradictory (see 1)denial, references to violent and peaceful resistance offered by subjected ppls throughout the whole time in almost all occupied countries, are mostly excluded from article, especially in the introduction. 4/ similarly references to violent repression of resistance including mass and individual killings (and use of genocide , ethnic cleansing and forced relocation etc ) are also excluded . you claim otherwise, saying only word 'genocide' is excluded. not only i but all can read, references to atrocities are not there. since you love quotations, as a start, quote and point the statement about british atrocities in intro? after all as you said "lead should give overall picture of the subject" . --- on an article about a political entity these 4 points should be focused on, not excluded as they are now. all who claim there is consensus about content of article please explain why they are excluded upto now and how and when a consensus for their exclusion was reached. or was there no consensus contrary to what some editors keep on claiming? 123.231.80.247 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Seriously, this one's been hashed out here so many times. Next. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Even if this was serious, the other anon's point about bias is ridiculous. It's no different than claiming the article on the USA must have 0 non-American sources unless backed up by sources from another country. Absolutely ridiculous. 92.7.23.80 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Forget Libya?
Why isnt Libya on the map? It was a under a United Nations Trusteeship by the United Kingdom untill 1951.--77.166.165.137 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
That doesn't make it part of the British Empire, any more than occupied Germany was part of the British Empire after WWII. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Security threat to GB from Ireland
I reverted this edit [12]. The source backing up this statement (p315 of James's Rise and Fall of the British Empire) states "A semi-independent Ireland would always pose a danger in any future war, and one MP reminded the Commons how, in 1798, Irish nationalists had made common cause with France. The threat to national security and possible harm to the empire convinced a substantial body of Liberal MPs...to defect and vote against the bill." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 15:29, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
But that bill would have given Ireland less self-government within the UK than the states have within the USA. So it wouldn't realistically have caused this. --67.52.221.226 (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome to provide some sources to that effect, but as long as it's your own personal opinion, there's nothing to discuss, per WP:NOR. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 22:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Moral assessment of British Empire
The last edit by Wikiain is a nice touch. I hope it addresses some of the last edit disputes of this page. danielkueh (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, good work Wikiain. I think it addresses the issues in the latest dispute Beefcake6412 (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Sorry but I would disagree, its based on a single person's opinion. Richard Gott is not someone who is renowned for either accuracy or objectivity. I have reverted that addition. It is hardly encyclopedic, we deal in facts not opinions. Wee Curry Monstertalk 19:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, that edit didn't say much at all. Of course opinions differ. I assume readers will know that about anything. We have Historiography of the British Empire for any specifics people wish to add. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:02, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
I was testing the water and expected to find it choppy. My intention, as I explained in my tag, was not to express or favour any opinion but to begin to note as facts the range of opinions about the Empire that are being expressed in British public life. When a current (Tory) Prime Minister and a former (Labour) Prime Minister get nostalgic about the Empire, and at the same time a long-established (Left-wing) writer is horrified by it, their statements are facts that I think are significant about British self-identification. I thought that Gott's piece was particularly handy because he provides a link to a report of Cameron's speech to the 2011 Conservative Party Conference, an occasion very much concerned with identity not only of party but also of nation (I thought of including that link directly, but didn't want to clutter). To the point about self-identification, the historiographically accurate and inaccurate are both relevant. So are statements, such as Cameron's, that are not historiographic - he was speaking of history, but not as a historian. One could also include, for example, British Jamaican poet Benjamin Zephaniah's rejection of an OBE in 2003 because, he said, it reminded him of "thousands of years of brutality" and of "how my foremothers were raped and my forefathers brutalised". Not historiography, but not a lone voice either. I hope that the issue of British self-identification in relation to an imperial past will get some space somehow. Maybe a section "The Empire and British identity". (I also added Gott's forthcoming book to the list of references and trust that it will be taken into account - whether climbed upon or shredded.) --Wikiain (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
This page already has 58kB of prose, it doesn't need another section. British self-identification sounds like a rather abstract topic that would be hard to write well about. Considering this is an FA, and considering that if the article strays from a description of what happened into opinions on it the door to a whole mess of POV is brought it, opinions on the empire are best left to other articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. danielkueh (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Points taken on board. However, I understand "British self-identification" to be a process-focussed take on the topic "British identity" - with, closely related, "identity in Britain". This has been a topic of scholarly debate for some time: e.g. OPUS. Googling to "British identity" picks up this and more. It is (or has recently been) a British school sociology topic: e.g. The Sociology of British Identity - don't ya love da music? Difficult to write about, indeed, but I don't think an unsuitable topic for an encyclopedia. Some of it is already in British people, although (to my taste) with a rather "Rule, Britannia" flavour. --Wikiain (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
References
The only thing I would like to see in the way of an improvement is the References section. Complete MLA or APA references (footnotes) would be a great help to college students seeking to reference their research papers. As good as Wiki is, it is not suitable to use as formal reference so we need to backtrack as far as possible to the original research. An authors name and a page reference isn't an adequate footnote reference unless it points to a previous complete reference. Annotated footnotes are even better, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell for an excellent example. Traceyed (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Traceyed
The full details for each reference are in the bibliography. The Oliver Cromwell article is actually a hodge-podge of styles, for instance some give full details, others don't and refer instead to the bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - click on the author's name in the reference section and it takes you to the full details of the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgive my refactoring for clarity. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Germany and Palestine
From 1871 to 1918 Germany should be referred to as the German Empire. Furthermore it was due to political pressure from the United States that the UK abandoned its mandate for Palestine in 1948. (92.7.26.173 (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC))
Re Germany, says who? It's perfectly fine to refer to "Germany". We can, however, pipelink to German Empire.
Re Palestine, your edit is extremely misleading and suggests British withdrawal from Palestine was solely due to US pressure. Some sources:
The Oxford History of the British Empire, Volume 4 (p. 298): "The campaign for a Jewish state was supported by massive propaganda, particularly in the United States, whose pressures on the British government to permit mass Jewish migration into Palestine greatly added to Britain's difficulties....In Feb 1947, in mounting despair, and appalled by the cost of the campaign, London announced that it was passing the problem to the United Nations for solution. Under pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union, and to the chagrin of Britain, the United States recommended partition".
Simon Smith's British Imperialism (pp102-103) "The American President wrote to the British premier demanding the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees into Palestine. In an attempt to involve their American critics in the problems of Palestine, the British established an Anglo-American Commission (which) failed to harmonise British and American policies. To make matters worse, British personnel became the target for Jewish attacks. Such was the level of disorder in Palestine that its strategic value to Britain was being progressively eroded. What is more, the annual cost of maintaining Britain's military presence there had reached (an) unsustainable figure. On February 1947, the British cabinet resolved to refer the whole question to the United Nations."
Niall Ferguson's Empire (p. 297) doesn't devote much space to the matter, but: "In Palestine..the British cut and ran, in 1949, bequeathing to the world the unresolved question of the new state of Israel's relations with the 'stateless' Palestinians and the neighbouring Arab states."
Your edit [13] is completely misleading when compared with those sources. The US applied pressure on Britain to admit Jewish refugees. Britain invited the US to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. Realising the futility and expense of maintaining its military presence there, Britain announced its intention to terminate the mandate and refer the matter to the UN. The US (and USSR) then applied pressure at the UN for partition. Compare those facts with the original wording and your edit:
"Rather than deal with the issue, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve"
"Under heavy pressure from the United States, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve"
The former is consistent with the facts, even if it glosses over the complexity of the matter (this is an overview article so there is no room for complexity). The latter picks out one topic - "heavy pressure from the United States", conjoins it with the original final clause in an act of synthesis to incorrectly give the impression that this was a Suez-style withdrawal.
ps I found the reference you cited on Amazon's "look inside" feature. It seems to me you are cherry picking words. It does say "under American pressure", but it also says "..but by no means reluctantly, Britain (withdrew)". That's quite a different kettle of fish to your claim - I underlined the important bit omitted from your edit which entirely changes the meaning of it all to suggest a Suez-like exit at the behest of the Yanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 01:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The American pressure should be mentioned because it was President Truman who was determined to create the state of Israel, despite the objections of the UK's Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. (92.7.13.102 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC))
What about the pressure from Zionists? And the attacks on British troops? And the pressure from the financial commitments of keeping an armed presence there? Again, you are picking one aspect of the matter, and injecting it into a summary article on the BE which cannot possibly give all the aspects the mention they deserve. But that's OK because the reader can click on Palestine to find out more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
The financial implications and attacks on troops were NOTHING compared with the immense political pressure from the United States. (92.7.16.26 (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC))
If that were the case then the sources would reflect this to the exclusion of all other factors. Generally speaking domestic pressure is far more important to politicians than external pressure from allies (unless the latter could lead to domestic consquences, e.g. raised fuel prices). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say that it would probably be more accurate to refer to the German Empire. One of the factors usually cited in the outbreak of the First World War was the German desire for an Empire like other European states at the time. Why is there not room to refer to it as the German Empire?
On Palestine the article currently states "Rather than deal with the issue, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve, which it did by voting for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state." "Rather than deal with the issue" doesn't really cover the mounting despair felt at the situation and what it was costing Britain. I think there is room to improve the wording here. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It's one thing to argue that the technically correct name was the "German Empire" as 92.x.x.x was doing (although debates like that are silly - following that logic we'd end up always referring to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" instead of "the UK" or "Britain"). It's quite another to say that because Germany wanted an overseas empire we have to refer to it as the German Empire - that doesn't make sense at all - "Deutsches Reich", or German Empire, refers to the homeland, not the overseas empire.
Actually I would disagree, it was the conflict with the German Empire that led to WW1 but it seems your mind is closed to considering that so I won't press the issue.
Well at the moment, it simply states that Britain didn't deal with the issue. If we look at the books you quote above, they state, for example, in mounting despair, and appalled by the cost of the campaign, London announced that it was passing the problem to the United Nations for solution. It would be more accurate to note the cost and frustration of the Palestine Mandate led Britain to pass it onto the UN. Thats all I was saying. BedsBookworm (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
As I had no response to my comment, I've copy edited the article to better reflect the source. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted that, sorry, it was way too close to the source. The current summary seems apt, although if we note it was an expensive issue that may be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
OK since you object to the wording not the edit, I've had another go. Is that better? BedsBookworm (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Better, but still not that great. That information isn't from the source given, which is the major issue. There also wasn't a campaign, which your wording implies. It also loses the information that the British simply passed off the problem rather than bother about it themselves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The British did try to sort it out they delayed making it a trust territory and passing it back to the UN while an Anglo-American Commission spent time coming to a recommendation, but nobody accepted it, and further talks and conferences failed to come to a conclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti, taking a nibble is actively discouraged. (Been looking forward to trying that out since I created it) BedsBookworm has a point, the article as currently written doesn't reflect what the sources say. It is inaccurate as MilborneOne points out, the British did try to sort the problem; the UN was new then so it may have seemed the solution. Chipmunk may I ask why you didn't try rewriting the text to address your issues rather reverting twice? Wee Curry Monstertalk 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I was hoping that The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick would comment on the edits, being the one who provided the sources above and who mostly wrote the existing text. I wouldn't feel that comfortable sourcing something from a paragraph of text from a book I haven't read, lest I misrepresent the books point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
The Truman administration put immense pressure on the Attlee government to announce the UK was abandoning its mandate for Palestine no later than May 1948. This should definitely be mentioned in the article. The Britsih government, especially Ernest Bevin, was opposed to the craetion of the state of Israel but the United States insisted on it. In addition "Britain" should never be used when discussing the UK, because Northern Ireland is not part of Britain. (92.7.14.190 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC))
"Britain" is common shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Your other point has already been addressed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
No, that's the UK. (92.7.14.190 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC))
Britain is a common shorthand. That's undeniable. Whether it should be is different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Britain refers to England, Wales and Scotland. (92.7.6.232 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC))
No, that's "Great Britain", a geographical term. "Britain" on its own, particularly when used in a context like this, is short hand for the political term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
No, it only became "Great Britain" with the Act of Union in 1707. Before that the island was just called Britain. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain, it is part of the island of Ireland. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
Wrong. The island was first referred to as "Great Britain" by Ptolemy 1800 years ago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
It only officially became Great Britain by act of parliament in 1707. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC))
You are failing to make the distinction in your mind between geographical and political terminology. Read Terminology of the British Isles, and if you wish to dispute that, take it up at Talk:Terminology of the British Isles. Though, please note that article is not only sourced, it is the result of many debates with editors like you who are misinformed. Regardless, this is not the right talk page for the "Britain" terminology debate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Mid Importance
Can anyone tell me why this article isn't Top Importance? OKelly (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Palestine
(easier to start a new section) How about "The British Mandate of Palestine, where an Arab majority lived alongside a Jewish minority, presented the British with a similar problem to that of India. The matter was complicated by large numbers of Jewish refugees seeking to be admitted to Palestine following Nazi oppression and genocide in the Second World War, while Arabs were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. Frustrated by the intractability of the problem and the increasing cost of maintaining a military presence in the region in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve[1]. This it did by voting for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state." Not sure if that reads OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 00:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I would say that is a distinct improvement. Wee Curry Monstertalk 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
The "This it did" is potentially ambiguous, but besides that it's good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure this reads well (the phrase is too long and unwieldy): "Frustrated by the intractability of the problem and the increasing cost of maintaining a military presence in the region in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations". Any suggestions for improving it? It would read better if "in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations" was omitted, but that would be leaving out an important point. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 00:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
"Frustrated by the intractability of the problem, as well as the increasing cost of maintaining a military presence in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations," I added commas and replaced "and" by "as well as". Hopefully that would keep key points together? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
We could just rewrite that sentence. "The General Assembly voted for a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state." Something along those lines. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I updated the article with a slight modification from the wording above - what do you think? Probably should add some references to it... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
It reads fine to me, but yes, definitely reference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. Can I ask why my contribution kept being removed, from my reading of the guidelines this is edit warring isn't it? I don't edit very often so its discouraging that when I do and it gets removed. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
A revert isn't warring. The repeated insertion of a contribution is warring, much better to do as above and discuss it on talk. CMD (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
I moved the newly added info on the Mau Mau uprising to the Winds of Change section [14] - leaving it as a single sub sentence was not very good. Not sure it's the best prose though - any suggestions for improvements? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps just change "not a peaceful process" to "not always peaceful" or something similar? CMD (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Cyprus deserves inclusion
Cyprus, which the British had ruled on lease from the Ottomans since 1878, became a Crown Colony in 1925 after Turkey had signed away any and all interests in the island in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. This is an interesting contrast to the Balkan countries, which gained independence after their respective liberations. This deserves to be edited into the article, not merely the late 1950's war against the colonial rule.
Agreed. The Britannica article mentions Cyprus (Cyprus, which was, like Gibraltar and Malta, a link in the chain of communication with India through the Mediterranean, was occupied in 1878.) so why not this one?
LINK: <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/80013/British-Empire>. It is also worth comparing this article to Columbia's entry. ie Wiki vs Britannica vs Columbia, print out all three and see what else could be mentioned here.101.161.156.249 (talk) 05:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
The British empire WAS an empire...
..it's no longer! Biased editors are clearly trying to obfuscate the fact that the British Empire has ended by using subtle words that are not completely clear. Plain and simple, the British Empire IS GONE and the causal user might find that important. Why, you must think? Type in "Is the British Empire" to the Google search bar and the first suggestion is "Is the British Empire still around". 1 thank you. --134.71.161.235 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually, it arguably wasn't an empire at all. It e.g. never had an emperor. It was sui generis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Isn't the article in discussion "British Empire"? Keep the witticisms to yourself and stick to the subject matter. Thank you. --134.71.161.235 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
See etymological fallacy. I'm referring to your edit, which puts, in my opinion, undue weight on the term "empire" for something that was very unusual for an empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
It might be good to have a few sentences in the article on this point, which is interesting - it was some kind of "assumed to be an empire" empire - for example, there was never an "Empire Office" in Whitehall, the Queen was "Empress of India" after 1876 but only that, there were various commercial companies and products using the phrase "Empire" and there was at least some of the machinery of Empire (Governors, District Officers, Imperial Message services, etc) but not formally at the highest levels. It's an interesting empire in the sense that it significantly maintained itself partly through the illusion that it wasn't an empire in the old sense. I suppose the modern equivalent is the US which always denies the imperium whilst filling the planet with military bases, constantly interfering in foreign governments, assuming its laws apply to all countries, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I think that's an anachronistic point of view. I don't recall that the Romans or the Mongolians had an "Empire Office" either. The British didn't go to great lengths to pretend their empire wasn't an empire (Kipling certainly didn't!); it was simply, de facto, an empire. Perhaps historians of the future will classify the US as an empire when its time has passed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well the precise term "emperor" is of course from Rome, but I agree there is a lot of variation in past "empires" about how they described and thought of themselves. Often those who are in great power have self-serving reasons to avoid wishing to advertise to an extreme extent just how supreme their authority is. Even the Roman system posed as some kind of Republic most of the time, just with a head man. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the title of Queen Victoria "Empress of India"? danielkueh (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes. But she was Empress of India, not Empress of the British Empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Which is why I think most of this article is wrong. The British Empire was only really India - the King or Queen was only ever Emperor/Empress of India. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, that is rather strange that they would restrict that title to India. I wonder why it never caught on with the dominions. danielkueh (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
It would be worth doing some digging on that; I vaguely remember something about it being discussed at the time between PMs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies (note the terminology - it's hard to have Colonies without it being an Empire!) and they kind of collectively decided it would be unwise to declare the British monarch a sort of World Emperor, even though (s)he nearly was at times. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
If it said "comprises" you might have a point, but it doesn't. The word "comprised" is already past tense. Your edit is unnecessary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Also, with reference to the alleged biased editors and their evil program of obfuscation, if 134.71.161.235 bothered to read to the end, (s)he would find a section entitled "End of Empire", followed by "Legacy". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 16:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps you should change your name to "The Tinfoil Hat of Pat Ferrick"? :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
An emperor (or empress) is a ruler who has kings and queens of the empire countries or territories who swear fealty to him/her. The British sovereign was the recognised sovereign of places such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, etc., who at the time had relatively small 'native' populations often spread over a wide geographical area, and often with no recognisable indigenous ruler to be ruled-over. Therefore the reigning British monarch of the time was not 'Emperor' or 'Empress' of these countries, and was the de-facto head-of-state.
Hence, why the title 'Empress of India' for Queen Victoria. The Indian part of the Empire had several legitimate, i.e., recognised by the native peoples, Indian heads of state and maharajahs who theoretically owed allegiance to her, so she wasn't technically 'Queen of India' like she was 'Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland' or 'Queen of the Dominion of Canada'. In India, she was titled an 'Empress' rather than a 'mere' queen, and was that country's head-of-state also.
An empire is usually obtained through wars of conquest in which the defeated country's rulers submit to the conqueror and swear loyalty to him/her. This is how previous empires, such as the Roman and Ottoman ones had been gained and enlarged. This was not, on the whole, the way the British Empire came into being, as in many cases the British simply went to a place and started trading peaceably, conflict only occurring with the 'locals' when the indigenous ruler of the territory became heavy handed with the traders or in some cases killed them. This is a gross oversimplification of course, but the fact is that the British Empire was, unlike many previous ones, for the most part, not obtained through deliberate conquest. In many cases, the countries/territories were obtained by accident or default, such as the ones after the First World War, which were allocated by the League of Nations, or ones that had been colonies of other colonial powers that Britain had gone to war with, and beaten. The other reason is that a number of the Empire countries were, on 'discovery' by the West, inhabited by 'primitive' people who to the British, had little or no organised civilisation or legal system in which to deal in matters such as trade. A 'clash of cultures' perhaps, but that's the way it appeared to the British. And when you're in the middle of the Industrial Revolution it must have been very difficult, despite the benefit of the Enlightenment, to know how to (literally) deal with peoples who are still using simple stone or iron tools. In some of these societies there was little, if any, conception of property or even of keeping's ones word, so trading deals or contracts 'signed' with the local inhabitants were meaningless. How do you trade with someone who has no calendar, or even names for days of the week. What time do you agree to meet them - some had no conception of time in the Western sense. The British view of them at the time may have seemed condescending towards 'native' peoples, but that's a damn-sight better than some other 'civilised' countries viewed them.
Good or bad, the British Empire is a fact of history, but for the most part, it wasn't planned nor was it obtained through invasion and conquest. It just happened. Like Topsy, 'It just grew'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
China
I attempted to change a sentence in the lead stating that the British Empire transferred sovereignty over Hong Kong to China, rather than to the "People's Republic of China", for reasons brevity and nonambiguity. The article named China used to be named "People's Republic of China", but a long discussion and examination of the sources found overwhelming usage of "China" to refer to the PRC and nothing else. I was reverted by a user who said that "It is important to distinguish it from the "Republic of China AKA Taiwan". However, nobody calls Taiwan "China". A "part of China" maybe, but I don't see how a reasonable person could interpret "Britain handed Hong Kong over to China" as "Britain handed Hong Kong over to Taiwan". Shrigley (talk) 23:02, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Also, if the article is now "China" then that's what we should link to here too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 23:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Someone has recently been making unexplained edits to the subheading Britain's imperial century (1815–1914), changing the last date to 1902, then 1915, 1914, and then 1902 again. I just changed it back to 1914 for the following reasons. 1) It's a significant enough edit that it ought to be explained. 2) All sorts of dates could be proposed for when the British Empire's dominance ended. Personally I would prefer 1947, as that was the year the British passed the torch to the USA, in accordance with an agreement between Churchill and Roosevelt in 1943. However, historians seem to prefer 1914. 3) A Google search on British Empire 1815 1914 gets a huge numbers of hits, including on Google Books. Try the same with British Empire 1815 1902 and you get a bunch of stuff about the Boer War. Zyxwv99 (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you need to justify reversion of edits that aren't explained. The new same editor has been fiddling around with stuff on "hyperpowers" and nonsense like that so I assume the date change is some sort of POV pushing, but I really can't be bothered to put any thought into working how or why. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
I changed it to see the reaction people would make and whether someone would change it back it is exactly for a POV purpose as I am not certain when Britain's unchallenged dominance truly ended so I changed the date to see whether it would be accepted. I also added the Hyper-power thing as from 1815-1914 Britain was a Hyper-power and I felt that bit of detail needed to be added. Apologies for any inconvenience. --Sam2295 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Rhodesia
I added some stuff on Rhodesia, some of which has been reverted by Danielkueh (talk·contribs), who wishes to discuss the changes first. The two changes in dispute are:
the wording surrounding Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). The present wording states that Rhodesia declared independence "from the British Empire". I would say this isn't strictly true, as the UDI document explicitly stated that the Rhodesian government retained loyalty to the Queen. Given their own way, the Rhodesian government would have preferred to maintain constitutional links with Britain in a similar manner to Canada and Australia (and it actually acted out the charade of doing so right up to 1970). I would say independence "from Britain" would be better wording, as saying "from the British Empire" could be seen as showing point of view. As it is, the sentence could be read to imply that Wikipedia is stating its opinion that UDI was illegal.
the description of the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) attached to the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) and its Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) as communist organisations. I added this description, but Daniel removed it. I think the weight of evidence in favour of describing them as "communist" is fairly heavy; their party members were (and still are) officially titled "comrade", senior officials are called "commissar" and the governing party (ZANU-PF, a fusion of ZANU and ZAPU, created in 1987) to this day maintains a politburo (see here), and retained its declared Marxism long after 1980 (see here). Before and during the Bush War, both ZANU and ZAPU were Marxist-Leninist by their own account (aligned to the People's Republic of China in the case of the former, and to the Warsaw Pact in the case of the latter), and both guerrilla armies prominently displayed communist insignia (ZANLA used the red star, ZIPRA used the hammer and sickle). The "comrade" term was used in the field by guerrillas from both ZANLA and ZIPRA during the 1970s, and the public political rhetoric of ZANU in particular was strongly communist in tone, describing the war with terms such as "revolutionary drive to eliminate settler oppression, imperialism and capitalism" (see ZANU Chimurenga war communiqué No. 8, issued by ZANU High Command in Lusaka on 27 March 1974). ZANLA's eventual coming to power has much to do with the Maoist population subversion techniques introduced by the Chinese instructors who trained the bulk of the ZANLA officers and cadres (see here). All in all, I don't think it's a stretch to describe them as communists. —Cliftonian(talk) 17:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Cliftonian. First, thanks for taking the time to respond to my concerns. I see your point about Rhodesia. My question is whether "wanting to be in the empire" is the same as "being in the empire." In any event, I don't mind the alternative, "independence from Britain".
Thank you for the JSTOR reference. I don't like the term "communist" because these groups were also "nationalists" (as stated in the JSTOR reference)." I am not saying that these two terms are mutually exclusive, but many communist groups at that time tend to be internationalistic in their outlook. Thus, the use of one term may oversimplify the politics of these groups. If we have to include political labels, I would prefer "marxist-leaning" and "nationalist." Both of which are buttressed by the source you gave. But then again, it would the make sentence a little too long and wordy. Might as well just leave them out and keep it simple. danielkueh (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I think we can agree that "independence from Britain" shows no point of view, so I'll put that back now. Re: the second point, you're probably right that it makes it a bit too wordy, so we'll probably just leave it as it is. Thanks for helping with this. —Cliftonian(talk) 18:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Independence from the United Kingdom would be better as per the actual UDI article and UDI document. MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
The recent edits to Rhodesia are making a bad situation worse (much of which is my fault) in that the size of the various sections increases as we move more recently in time. Case in point: the loss of the Thirteen Colonies, arguably a huge event in the history of the British Empire, is described in 97 words, while the detail on the independence of Rhodesia, tangential to the course of the British Empire in that it was already on death row by this point, is described in 113 words. Moreover, if every country that gained independence had 100 words written about it, this would be a huge article. We can (and do) link to Rhodesia and Unilateral Declaration of Independence through which the reader can learn more. So I have condensed the Rhodesia info into one sentence. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 22:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I also think the Suez section should be shortened: it's the same length as the Global Struggles With France section, even though the latter deals with events which had huge repercussions for the world, ie the end of French aspirations in India and North America. (For the record, most of this was authored by me, so I'm not complaining about others' work here...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 22:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Have qualified 1980 as internationally-recognised independence. —Cliftonian(talk) 11:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, maybe, but thanks to your efforts it has a little gold star and been remarkably stable for a long time if one ignores the occasional IP POV crusader. I'm not saying that it (or anything) is so perfect that we can't consider changing it, but I don't think we should rake over old coals. E.g. I recall some heated discussions about the relevance/implications of Suez in the past. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't you agree though it's heavily skewed towards recent history? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 23:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, to some extent, but that's inevitable with history: more sources and more relevance to the present. Again, I'm not opposed to change, but I think there's a limit to what we can/should say in an overview article. Realistically we're likely to trim material from the more recent sections rather than adding to the older sections. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's true - e.g. take the four volume Oxford History of the B.E. One equal-sized book per century! The chronological bias in this article reflects more the interests of the editors than the fact that there is less information available about the early history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 23:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I find "internationally-recognized" to be redundant. Was there any country that officially recognized Rhodesia? I know South Africa supported it but that is different from actually recognizing it, no? danielkueh (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
No country did ever recognise Rhodesia, but in my book simply referring to 1980 as "independence" is again showing point-of-view, and is furthermore rather misleading. It implies once that UDI in 1965 was illegitimate, and might confuse the casual reader, who is likely to be unfamiliar with the UDI issue and the Rhodesian situation. The view that UDI was illegitimate and illegal was indeed the opinion of various international polities and people at the time, but the view did (and still does) exist that Rhodesia was already independent as the result of UDI in 1965. It was, at the very least, de facto independent: even Britain admitted this by negotiating and dealing with the Rhodesian government at various points during the 1960s and 1970s, and by conceding that Salisbury was still in control. In my opinion, 1980 really should be qualified as the year of internationally-recognised independence in order to succinctly make this, one of the basic issues of the matter, clear. It is only two extra words, and I feel they quite effectively summarise this part of the issue without being overly loquacious about it. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
My point is that if no other country recognized Rhodesia, then we could just shorten it to say, "recognized." To qualify it as "internationally-recognized" is to potentially imply that there was a handful of states that did recognize it. A potential confusion that is not necessary. danielkueh (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I think you're right here. I'll shorten it now. —Cliftonian(talk) 16:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I've decided to test something on the talkpage here... is the Empire really over? Hong Kong seems to have become the universally recognized endpoint for the empire, and we mention it as such either directly or through inference a few times in the article. But I want to propose a hypothetical situation: Bermuda declares independence. It's not a particularly unlikely scenario, it's certainly been discussed on more than one occasion and a referendum has been held. If it were to happen, we would no doubt be inundated with sources similar saying that this was the end of the Empire. And would they be wrong? Aside from population, there is no legal difference between Hong Kong's status and Bermuda's. I bring this up in relation to two current media narratives: the animosity over the Falklands and the upcoming Scottish referendum. Numerous articles on both have casually mentioned the British Empire as though it were extant, often with commentary to the effect that a handover or a yes vote would be the end of the Empire. Indeed, the British Empire was generally regarded as being dead long before people suddenly remembered Hong Kong was a place that existed in 1997. It was considered to be dead for the most part by the mid-60's, even. Is it really proper for us to deal with such finality when the possibility exists that there might yet be something more to say on the subject from a historical perspective? -- MichiganCharms (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
There was a legal difference between Hong Kong and Bermuda; and there was also an issue of size and significance. I'm not sure how to respond to your assertion that "people suddenly remembered Hong Kong was a place that existed in 1997" - I'm pretty sure there were a few hundred million people who were aware of it since it was (and is) a fairly important place [15]. Also, I highly doubt we would be "inundated with sources" claiming that the independence of any of the remaining overseas territories was the end of the British Empire, especially since reliable contemporary sources have now fixed on Hong Kong as a convenient end-point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You could by the same token say that the Empire never started; it's not like some guys sat down around a table and prepared some document signing it into law. It evolved over time, and as Wiki-Ed says above, the vast majority of modern sources regard 1997 as the end. And if Bermuda were ever to declare independence, so long as most of the population were behind it, Britain's present policy would say to simply let them go (although, as any student of British political history knows, the British are very rarely good for their word). —Cliftonian(talk) 10:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
You both seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at. The gist of it was that: a. before 1997, there were no contemporary sources saying the British Empire still existed, either. They merely pointed to Hong Kong like the other BOTs in the same way we do here. b. that can absolutely change just like 1997 changed how people perceived the British Empire's status in the previous 30 years, from having been dead to having been thriving in Hong Kong apparently. c. any major territorial loss will bring up such comments, it's naive to believe they won't because they already are: [16] and [17] and [18]. Here it crops up with reference to Gibraltar, [19]. The whole point being, as long as there are external territories of the UK, regardless of what they're called or how peacefully they might be allowed to leave if they chose to do so, there will be references to an extant British Empire. I'm not saying we should change the article to say the British Empire didn't end in 1997, since Wikipedia doesn't work that way. But we shouldn't treat 1997 as a fixed point in time, either. And I absolutely believe we should have more emphasis on the BOTs and the effect of the Empire on contemporary British politics... the subject, I believe, of a new Oxford History companion series volume that I cannot afford. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure we do actually treat 1997 as a fixed point in time. The wording we use is "The handover ceremony in 1997 marked for many,[210] including Charles, Prince of Wales,[211] who was in attendance, 'the end of Empire'."[203][212] That's their opinion, not a concrete statement that's what we think. Perhaps it may be better if we put the section title in brackets ("The end of Empire")? For many readers, the reference will be clear, and it is given in the last sentence of the passage. —Cliftonian(talk) 19:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I actually retract the claim about us treating it as a fixed point in time, what I should have said is that I think we place more emphasis on the Hong Kong handover than perhaps it warranted, in spite of academic sources have come to a consensus on it being the endpoint. I hate to use hypotheticals, honestly, but if the Falklands were handed over and at the ceremony Prince Harry said it was "the end of Empire", how would we have to restructure the article to reflect that reality? I think a simpler, less contentious solution would be to simply move the paragraph about the Overseas Territories up to the End section. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
MichiganCharms, I see you point about Hong Kong and the other overseas territories. But I prefer WP to follow rather than lead. As you said, the current consensus is that the handover of Hong Kong marks the end of the British Empire. Unless that changes, I don't see any harm leaving it as is. And if it does change, then WP will just have to change to reflect that new consensus. danielkueh (talk) 19:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
This sentence doesn't make sense:
The handover ceremony in 1997 marked for many,[210] including Charles, Prince of Wales,[211] who was in attendance, "the end of Empire".[203][212]
Shouldn't it be 'the end of the empire'? Crzyclarks (talk) 03:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
No. It's a quote, as indicated by the quotation marks. 12:48, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but obviously the quote isn't used with the right sentence structure. Crzyclarks (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Umm, yes it is. Can you be more specific about how you think the sentence should be structured? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
The sentence looks okay to me. In a nutshell it says: The handover ceremony in 1997 marked for many... ..."the end of Empire". It just had some parenthetic clauses where the dots are. Also, the phrase "end of empire" can have a meaning in itself, independent of "end of the empire." In this case "empire" seems to refer to a stage that Britain went through, something like "end of childhood." Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:44, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know the full quote it's taken from, so I can't be more specific. I've never seen it used in that way. If it was 'Empires' (as in worldwide) or 'the end of Britain's Empire' it would be correct. Crzyclarks (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
As editors have said or implied already, it's hard to say when the Empire ended, firstly, because no-one can say when it began, and secondly, the 'British Empire' was never a formal entity. There was a formal Indian British-ruled Empire, but the British Empire had no formal institution of government or defined boundaries. Some territories were ruled by the UK Colonbial Office. Others, like Australia and Canada, were self-governing. Others were vassals or, in the case of Egypt, vassals of another power (the Ottomans). Of course, popular imagination and the press seized on Hong Kong as the last remnant of Empire. Yet depending on what starting point you take, Scotland and Northern Ireland are still imperial subjects, as are the Falklands, Gibraltar and Bermuda. Gazzster (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
If you count Scotland as an imperial subject of the British Empire then you have to count England as the same. Interesting thought though. Following through on it, if Scotland became independent would that count as splitting the British Empire into a Northern British Empire and a Southern one? Just as the Roman Empire was split into an Eastern empire and a Western one latterly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Considering the Falklands and Gibraltar, the Empire has not ended. It just feels like it has because all the glorious possessions are gone, the last being Hong Kong. It felt like the end of Empire. You can feel like death warmed over, it doesn't make you Death. The designation didn't even change until 2002 (to British Overseas Territories) so 1997 cannot mark the end point looking at it from a purely clerical standpoint of naming things. The Falklands and BVI,etc fall afoul of the Monroe Doctrine. The British Antarctic Territory is nothing if not an imperial possession. (a spot of nothing on the far side of the world) The Turks and Caicos qualify under the British North America act to try to be part of Canada (were Canada to accept them... as some politicians suggest), because they are British Colonies. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
May I remind everyone that this isn't a forum for general discussion and debate, it's for discussing the article itself. If anyone wishes to challenge the current state of the article AND has reliable sources stating that the BE is still in existence, or it ended on a different date, or whatever (rather than their own personal theories) please put them forward here. Otherwise, let's not continue this debate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt 15:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti, taking a nibble is actively discouraged. (Been looking forward to trying that out since I created it)