Talk:British Empire/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

RfC

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

---

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

No one has objected to saying that there was a perception. Slatersteven (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't even know why the article should go into this level of detail. The U.S. took advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars to declare war on the UK. The resulting war ended in a stalemate and tensions between the U.S. and British Empire ended. What more is relevant to the huge topic of this article? TFD (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The U.S. took advantage of Britain's involvement in the Napoleonic Wars to declare war on the UK.

This is clear POV, aside from being wholly unfounded. 021120x (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't apply to talk page discussions, it also happens to be a British perception, Shall we add that as well?

Two comments. 1. No one has objected to saying there was a perception, that's a strawman argument, the objection is to an edit that failed verification and stated perception to be a fact. 2. Whilst not objecting to the premise of the RFC, I do wonder whether listing the pretexts used to justify attacking Canada is due coverage in an overview article on the British Empire. The article already covers what is considered by historians as the main causes. As such I'm minded to suggest its not included. WCM_email 13:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

This "perception" was based in reality, supported by evidence, and accepted as factual by historical consensus - and it should be described as such. 021120x (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No it's not based in reality. The claim that British guns and knives were found at Tippecanoe for example was only made several years after the battle by someone who had not been there and had participated in the massacre of Indians. Furthermore, it would have been recorded in the meticulous records kept by British quartermasters which are now publicly available. TFD (talk) 15:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We already have references showing that the Natives were receiving British weapons. Do you have any references showing that they were not? 021120x (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Of course it's founded. The U.S. would not have declared war on the UK were its navy and armed forces not required in Europe. TFD (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Close malformed RfC. The question in the request for comment is not contentious. The issue being discussed is whether it merits inclusion in the article not whether or not it's true. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Support close. Slatersteven (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Was perceived British incitement of the Indigenous peoples a cause that led to the US declaration of war in 1812? Is this clearer? 021120x (talk) 13:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

That is not what the RFC asked. So this needs closing and you need to ask the question you actually want to ask. Slatersteven (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

As was stated above, there is no objection to adding "perception". So, can we proceed with adding 'and a perception of British incitement of the Native Americans'? 021120x (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No as your own sources neither says this was a primary reason for the war, and that this a false perception. Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

So you do object to adding perception, in contradiction to the straw man arguments given above, and there is no basis for this request for closure. 021120x (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

No I object to the text you want to add, now if you want to add "the false perception" that would be fine, as that is what the source says it was. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Where in any of the above sources do you see "the false perception" stated? 021120x (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Your correct its "Western Americans continued to claim, inaccurately", so that is what we say, it was an inaccurate claim, or we do not include the claim at tall. Slatersteven (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, it is not a strawman, when I made my comment I assumed you had accurately quoted the source, only when you made the claim again (but it was obvious you had edits it) did I check and found out in fact the source does not even support the text in the RFC. Slatersteven (talk) 14:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

* Support closure as per Celia Homeford and Slatersteven. WCM_email 15:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

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

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

General Comment

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

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

Reader-friendly introduction

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

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

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

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

@Rrius, Peter Ormond, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Wiki-Ed, Wee Curry Monster, Snowded, Doctor Boogaloo, Chipmunkdavis, Marek69, Derek Ross, AlexiusHoratius, Nikkimaria, Susvolans, Guy M, Chelman, Planetary Chaos, and Cooksey87: Pinging editors who'd possibly be interested in commenting. waddie96 ★ (talk) 14:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Rahter than what we have, which a part form one line contains much the same information. Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi Slatersteven, what do you mean by which a part form one line contains much the same information? If I understand correctly, it does contain much the same information as the rest of the lede, which if I placed that info into the first paragraph would only defeat the purpose. Otherwise I could make my proposition less identical to the later paragraphs which contain much the same information just much too detailed to piece the overall picture together. waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes that is what I am saying, we already say this in the lede, are you arguing we replace the lede with one paragraph? Slatersteven (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Many bits of the proposed text are duplication and the bits that aren't duplication are misleading because they're oversimplified. Not sure why we need to change anything anyway - it's hardly overwhelming. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The main change seems to be a summary of the timeline compared to the current lead. I can see an argument for that, although it perhaps may risk putting further the impression of there being a specific defined entity. One change that we should not do is open with "largest empire in history", better to introduce the topic encyclopaedically before adding accolades. One change I would agree with is removing the "the empire on which the sun never sets" sentence, firstly because the second half of it assumes the reader is dumb, secondly because it is peacocky without adding further information to the reader, thirdly it is not at all mentioned in the body. CMD (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Sorry but a lede that survived multiple FAR largely unchanged, I'm not seeing a compelling reason to change it. Nor do I see what is proposed as an improvement. Nor do I see the current lede as overwhelming. Is this about using the term "superpower" again, I note the misleading edit summary implying you'd reverted when you hadn't [1],[2]? WCM_email 09:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Your poor attitude compels me to take your statements with a pinch of salt. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

“discouraged by editors who suck the joy from content creation and instead seek to play petty mind games” as you’ve said on your User page before. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

“Is this about using the term "superpower" again” is so condescending. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the “sun never sets part”. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No it’s not that I argue we replace it with one paragraph. But before this snowballs, it appears my description has performed poorly, and developed misunderstanding. And I was better to put on talk page prior to adjusting. Thank you for your response. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Northern Ireland from Legacy

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2024

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

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