Talk:British Empire/Archive 11

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.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

Indentured Labour

There was an interesting programme on the telly recently about coolies in the British Empire. Which made me realise a big oversight of the article: that indentured labour isn't mentioned at all, and is only hinted at in the legacy section with the movement of people. I suggest it goes there, as one of the reasons for the movement of peoples. Either that, or a sentence in the intro to the "Britain's imperial century" section. What do others think? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

On further thought, I vote for a third small paragraph in the "Britain's imperial century" section, as this follows on closely from the abolition of slavery section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, there was quite a lot of bloodshed in places like Kenya in the 50s and 60s against Indians who had moved their to work for the Empire.Willski72 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

As it happens I was gathering notes for a section or sub article on atrocities, so given your comment below about a excessive BI focus (which is fair) I scanned those to see if there was any relevant material. A few things came up:

18thC use of convicts to replace or supplement indentured servants (50K to America between 1718 and 1775)
Arguments that the above was holding back prosperity in America (arguments repeated in respect of Asia in the 19thC)
The abuse of Indian indentured labour post the "abolition" of slavery
Forced labour in Africa on penalty of destruction of crops/villages etc. in the late 19thC (inc. Chibaro system)
Australia obviously, but the failure to extend asian and african approaches to the indigenous community and the impact on extermination and other related policies in consequence (this one is more difficult to source than the above)
The lack of awareness of some forced immigrants of the terms of their short term contracts (both male labour and the importing of "brides"

I have a personal opinion (yes so its OR and can't go in as such but I make the comment until I can find something) that much of this links back to Feudal models and my overall thesis that much of the form of the British Empire was informed by models and practices of the Anglo-Normals between the 11th and 14thC.

I am also involved in several projects with the International Slavery Museum in Liverpool and have some access to material there if it helps.

I found Stockwell's book the most useful here by the way. The medium sized box from Blackwells that arrived after I started to research the British Isles issue above had produced some interesting late night reading. Stockwell takes a theme based approach and I think that is why she has the most useful material here. --Snowded ^TALK 06:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

A sentence in the intro to the "imperial century" section seems most appropriate for covering the economic element and a sentence in the "legacy" section for covering the social consequences. I think more detail on this topic would be inappropriate for a high-level article. Isn’t there an article on the economics of imperialism somewhere? Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was planning to raise this as a general issue anyway. At the moment the article is featured, it seemed to be that developing more detailed articles on different sections was one way to go. There are already a fair number, but issues such as this would be good subs. --Snowded ^TALK 09:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I agree subarticles are the way forward, I think much of this stuff lies outside the bounds of an encyclopaedia, and more in the realm of an essay based series like the Oxford History of the BE. There are many, many, different "themes" one could explore in depth, and which that series does in fact do. Religion, trade, discovery, war, defence, migration, government, race, relations between settlers and indigenous peoples, relations between settlers and Britain, science, technology, historiography, philosophy, comparison of any or all of the above with other European empires. Then you have the problem of balancing the discussion of each them with the spatial (5 continents) and temporal (400 years) dimensions. What I'm trying to say is that there is a reason the OxHotBE runs to 5 main volumes each covering a century plus 7 companion volumes each covering a theme! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So if we all sojourn and allow you to get on with it do you reckon you can have it done in oh lets say.... a week.Willski72 (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section, para 4

There are two alternative suggestions for the wording of the third sentence of the final paragraph:

Millions left the British Isles, with the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand coming mainly from Britain and Ireland.

Millions left Britain and Ireland, including most of the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

I replaced the first version with the second version, which in my view is clearer and shorter, avoiding the unnecessary use of both terms "British Isles" and "Britain and Ireland". This has now been reverted, on the grounds of "inaccuracy", and that "The sentence referred to more than two islands". My interpretation is that this must mean that other islands (Isle of Man, Orkney, Isle of Wight, etc etc) are not included in the phrase "Britain and Ireland", and that they apparently contributed more emigrants than Britain and Ireland. Which seems unlikely. Comments welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not imply the smaller islands contributed more. The original version makes it clear that the majority came from Britain and Ireland, but does not exclude the other islands. Your proposal excludes the smaller islands altogether and is gramatically confusing. You could improve the grammar by changing it to say "Most of the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand came from Britain and Ireland", but this still ignores any smaller groups of colonists leaving the smaller islands. On that basis perhaps we should remove Ireland as well? Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd be happy with either "Most of the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand came from Britain and Ireland" or "Most of the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand came from Britain". Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont have a problem with changing British Isles to Britain and Ireland in this case, its clear the overwhelming majority of the migration was from Britain and Ireland. So im ok with this change aslong as its worded correctly, to be honest i wasnt aware British Isles was mentioned anywhere else in the article with the exception of the one thats been debated for weeks above. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I replied to you regarding its second use and said I had no problem with it as it was about a time when the British were genuinely in charge of the entire BI and so was incontravertable. However Red Hat took exception with smoke coming out of his ears, probably burned his hat to a crisp, telling me that it wasn't up to me decide when the term was valid or otherwise. Funny old world. --Bill Reid | (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I am inclined to quote one of the vultures on Walt Disney's version of the Jungle Book, "Now dont start THAT again!"Willski72 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see this [1]. "Emigration from the British Isles" is a very common phrase in reliable sources. I really don't see the need to reword this sentence and it strikes me that it's being targeted only because it contains the disputed term. I'm also left wondering why people are continuing to focus on this, yet when I raise a legitimate shortcoming of the article (no mention of coolies - slavery in all but name) I get one solitary response. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Why & how: the Evolution of the British Empire

This article would be better if it explained why and how the British Empire formed. Were they like pirates, diplomats, or did they simply move places? When they acquired territory, were these friendly or hostile takeovers? Rapid or gradual, and what was the reason? -- Chuck Marean 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of the British Empire goes into a bit more detail about the status of all the different colonies and how their status changed over time to independence etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it had a lot to do with needing allies for economic reasons, and English does seem more planned than Caveman would be. --Chuck Marean 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Devolution of the British Empire continuing today

Nowadays, there's talk of "devolution" of the British Empire: the United Kingdom of Great Britain after 300-some years may disapper in 5 or 10 years. The nearby "home nations" of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and maybe Cornwall of England; and to some extent the crown territories of Gibraltar, Isle of Man, and the Channel Islands (Guernsey or Jersey) are becoming more like semi-autonomous countries. The British might one day join the Euro zone if they vote or favor abandonment of the British Pound, already the English, Scottish and Welsh government banks issue separate pounds that are legal tender in England, but not Scotland (the pound notes issued by the Royal Scotland Bank) and vice versa. Recently, the far right British Nationalist Party (BNP) won their first two seats (a majority) in the EU parliament in Bruselles, as nostalagic British political chauvinism is a legacy of the old British empire and the deep sense of Britain "must" turn nationalistic to preserve itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.102.2.206 (talk • contribs)

Yes, very interesting. But this talk page is for discussing the article, not for general discussion of the subject itself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally Red Hat i wouldnt even go so far as to say "very interestiong". In fact i wouldnt go further than that its mostly absolute tripe, with a sprinkling of very one sided and distorted facts. But i agree with you that this is not the place to discuss such nonsense.Willski72 (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't possible to highlight the words "very interesting" with a sarcastic tone, but trust me, they were typed that way. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I smell a troll--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! Fair enogh Red Hat! I supposse it is "very interesting" in that it delves quite deeply into the mind of 71.102.2.206.Willski72 (talk) 10:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

He's a template now? ;) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 15:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Er no, not quite sure what i did there....Willski72 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Queen

So, this being the Queen Elizabeth's "birthday", I'm guessing some editors decided to coincide this article's day on the front page with this specific day. I'm just wondering though, was this to piss the Queen off ("hey, look what you don't rule anymore"), or as a kind of British "pride" thing (in which case, celebrating the empire may not be the best thing to do to have "pride" on her "birthday", what with the connotations and baggage that comes with this history)? ;) 163.1.146.76 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

-- Works for me, Happy Birthday to Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. Wishing you many more ma'am! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sheep21 (talk • contribs) 05:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It must of been a bit depressing for her majesty to see her once vast empire slowly given away.... her father was a king-emperor and now what is she, head of the Commonwealth. Not much of a consolation prize!Willski72 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II's birthday is on April 21. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She has two. Algebraist 16:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why I put "birthday" in scare quotes. 163.1.146.76 (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Two birthdays? Jeepers is she that old? GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

She's solid. Enough said. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Legacy

The 6th line of the 'Legacy' section states '...the British Indian Ocean Territory is claimed by Mauritius, Seychelles and India(.)' and gives the following ref [2]. The reference does not substantiate that BIOT has been ever claimed by India, nor does the wiki article on BIOT mention such a claim. I would hence request the editors to look into the issue and do the necessary corrections. Thanks. LegalEagle (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an edit earlier today, I have reversed it --Snowded ^TALK 12:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Snowded, LegalEagle (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is too much

it made me laugh. the story of the world rewritten by the british, this is funny. though it lacks a viva britannia at the end to conclude this ridiculously biased piece of propaganda in beauty. :) Cliché Online (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific about which bits are ridiculously biased? There are sources for everything or almost everything in the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourced to Her Royal Majesty's Biased Propaganda Agency, most likely!

But with all seriousness Cliché Online, care to point out specific issues? Or is the bias pervasive throughout the entire article? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Omg his suggestion about adding viva Britannia made me think, we have left something out of this article. There is NO mention (from what i can see) of Rule Britannia, surely an empire needs its theme tune mentioned?? lol BritishWatcher (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Only if we can have the Red Flag and International by way of balance. --Snowded ^TALK 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

How would that be appropriate? Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think featuring an article on the front page of Wikipedia is a poisoned chalice. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do about muppets with block histories longer than this article, but shouldn't it be semi-protected from IP editors while it's on the front page? Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

That's only done in extreme circumstances. See Wikipedia:Main Page featured article protection. Algebraist 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea I tried to get it semi protected about half an hour after it was put on the front page because there were several IP vandals, with it on the front page it seems like a prime target very strange rule that we cant just have semi protection for 24 hours . BritishWatcher (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cliche Online seems to be infatuated with Napoleon so thats why he's being difficult. Still smarting from the fact that the British Empire gave him a whipping! Of all the enemies of Napoleon, Britain was chief, its persistence drove him to distraction and in the end that "Nation of Shopkeepers" used their brains better than Napoleon to checkmate him. Viva la Duc!Willski72 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Subject matter unclear and unexplained

The only interesting thing about what is commonly referred to as "The British Empire" is what was (or, is) it? The article has a funny way of beginning with the "The British Empire comprised the ..."; it is all very clear what it consisted of. The unclear thing is what it was: a state, a block, a trading pact, a business enterprise. Apparently, it started as the latter. The most baffling thing is that it appears to be the only "empire" without an emperor. The "End of empire" section confounds the matter still further: so when did it exactly end (or did it?). Apparently, it had never been started, in the first place, and never legally existed as an entity - a mere figure of speech.Phanar (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is a troll given the tone and the fact that the questions are answered by the article. Try rereading it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It was an Empire. Theres an interesting article at British Emperor, not sure how much of that content is accurate though but there were never any rules back then saying an Empire had to have someone with the title Emperor, we are just too fussy these days but obviously the one leader would of been the monarch. Everything else is answered in the article itself as Wiki said. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

- Guys, you jesting: the article starts with "The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom (UK), that had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries. At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power." So WHERE is the definition? When was it constituted? Who was its head of state (assuming it was one)? When was it disbanded (assuming it was ever constituted)? These are dead serious questions; and there are no answers to those in this article, full of nonsensical platitudes. The obvious answer one can come up with, is the thing is a joke, or a kind of a three-ring circus the modern UK is known to be (according to the almighty British press) - looks it had always been.Phanar (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

All empires evolve through conquest or acquisition. The legal aspects of that expansion (and contraction) are complicated. The process of its evolution and of the independence of most of it is documented in the article with citations. Your opinions as to the current and past state of the UK may or may not be of interest to other editors however they have less citation support than the material in the article itself. --Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Snowded. You are missing my point: i am not trying to put my "opinions" in the article; i am simply saying the article does not so much as try to address the most basic questions vis-a-vis the subject designated in the its name. In a nutshell: what is it about?Phanar (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make my point clear: compare this to the lead of the UK: "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (commonly known as the United Kingdom, the UK, or Britain)[13] is a sovereign state located off ..." -- pretty clear. I assume this one should be defined as "colonial empire", although the relevant article (section) does not provide a clear-cut definition thereof.Phanar (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The UK is, the British Empire was. Given that the title and the opening sentence use the word Empire its pretty clear what it is. The article (and the current lede) got featured article status which implies it does not justify your description of it as "nonsensical platitudes". If you have specific issues, rather than generalised pejorative statements then list them --Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think i am being quite specific: the article lacks the most important thing for any article, namely a definition. Your above statement only goes to prove that you are unable to provide one ("The UK is, the British Empire was") - "was" what? A sovereign state - then put it there (thought i am not sure it was); it is pretty obvious that the Btitish Empire existed along with the UK and the former's status vis-a-vis the latter is precisely what needs elucidation and is absent from here.Phanar (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Then I suggest you shift from using phrases such as "nonsensical platitudes" and move to a concrete proposal and see what other editors think. --Snowded ^TALK 14:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont understand how you can ask that question if you have read the introduction which makes things very clear.

"The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom (UK), that had originated with the overseas colonies and trading posts established by England in the late 16th and early 17th centuries."

That clearly says we are talking about areas ruled or administered by the United Kingdom which is the sovereign state. If you click the links to dominions, colonies, protectorates, and mandates it goes into detail about what those things are and how they are governed. Like Dominion goes into detail about Canada and Australia and how they started out as colonies and became more autonomous. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

BritishWatcher, "areas ruled or administered by the United Kingdom" does make some sense to me, but the "The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates..." does not, as it simply cites the areas, without defining the thing. I understand there was no proper legal definition of the entity, as in England, under your common law, you seek to avoid any clear legal defintions of anything. But you have to understand that simply calling the thing "empire" does not suffice, as there have historically been very different types of empires, as is clear from that article. What we now call the Roman Empire was THE Empire, that is a universal (in Greek Ecumenical) power that equaled the civilisation; the Russian Empire might appear rather similar to the Br. one to some in the West, I presume, but in fact it was rather different: it was a unitary state with the single government in St. Petrsburg and no dominant sovereign state as a ruling nucleus. I would suggest you put what you have written above in the lead -- this is better than just nothing.Phanar (talk) 17:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how our definition differs in spirit to those that can be found in reliable sources:

Collins: (formerly) the United Kingdom and the territories under its control

Farlex: The geographic and political units formerly under British control, including dominions, colonies, dependencies, trust territories, and protectorates.

Webster: a former empire consisting of Great Britain & the British dominions & dependencies

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to change it, and I don't see any purpose in this unless Phanar comes up with a proposal that can be evaluated. We are getting far too much opinion (like the misinformed statement on common law) or the idea that there is one true Empire (will it strike back one wonders). Until there is a proposal I suggest this conversation ceases --Snowded ^TALK 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The only meaningful bit of information i can deduce from your above statements (puerile jabs aside) is that you do not know what it was and no one else seems to know what it was; which serves to confirm my suspicion that in law it never existed. Which is a common thing in the UK: the UK prime-minister does not exist in statutory law either (even his official residence is in the name of the First Lord of the Treasury in which capacity he happily happens to double). But exactly this ought to be made clear in the article - everything else is remotely incidental.Phanar (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

At the moment you appear to be in a minority of one in wanting a change and are making no specific (and cited) proposals for change. A major problem here is that your concept of what constitutes existence (defined in statute law) is not one commonly held and is not supported by the citation evidence on the British Empire in any reputable history book. I think you need to do some work if you want other editors to take your point seriously. --Snowded ^TALK 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's not feed this troll any further. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive BI debate

I propose archiving the BI debate, because it's so huge, and because noone is adding to it any more. However, I don't want to seem like I'm brushing it under the carpet, because it's still relatively hot off the press. Are people happy if I do this now rather than waiting a couple more weeks/months? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the activity on the naming page I think the issue has moved there. If it is not resolved in the near future then we can reopen it here. So I agree to archiving

(PS, is it always like this when an article is featured, its been a nightmare today! --Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If its ok with those that disagreed about it remaining in the article then yes it should be archived, it takes up almost half of this talk page. Im sure we can all start a fresh if we have to get into the debate again. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK it's done. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I didn't get in quick enough (8 minutes!!), but there are issues specific to this page which were caught up in that debate - such as what mention should be made of the Crown Dependencies, and where. Personally, I would have been very hesitant about moving the debate because I take the view that each case should be considered on its merits, rather than trying to agree a catch-all approach - which is likely to be impossible IMHO, and which then leaves articles which need improving in an unsatisfactory state while a centralised debate is taking place. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My feeling was that we should give the centralised debate a chance and I made one proposal there for setting up a process that could handle things article by article. I don't see much chance of progress there though, so I think it will come back here shortly. I also think we should wait for the edit flurry post it featuring to die down a bit! --Snowded ^TALK 12:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Image Removed

Amongst all the vandals and idiots editing the page, there have been some good changes made. One change has been the removal of the unfinished signing of the Treaty of Paris painting, on the grounds that it was in the wrong section. Fair point. There is now only one image in the "First British Empire" section. Any suggestions for readding a new image that better suits the text in that section? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Another image should be added, no idea what. I dont like image issues on wikipedia, it always gets bogged down in legal matters lol. You find an amazing image and then it turns out ur not "allowed" to use it ;\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yup. Like the Newsweek image. The Empire Strikes Back. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Im still upset about that one :( BritishWatcher (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Good point. It's a shame we can't sort of "zoom out" to look at the layout. The biggest gaps appear to be between the map of the Thirteen Colonies and Clive. There's another sizeable gap between Rhodes and the post-Versailles map. My preference would be to find images of physical "things" rather than people or maps, of which we have quite a few. For example, the BE was a maritime empire but we have no pictures of the Royal Navy, so a fleet or two might not go amiss. There were also lots of battles involved in building/sustaining it, but the only image that hints at the violence involved is the (unusual) surrender at Yorktwon. I'll go and scout around the Commons to see if I can find some candidate images to fill in the gaps. Will post the links here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't a huge issue whether any of these are added or not, just a few ideas I've always had - I always thought that this picture of early Savannah, Georgia was a nice representation of an earlier British colony, kind of has a hacked-out-of-the-wilderness look to it, and no copyright issues. That one would fit in well between the North American map and Clive. Also, maybe an image about Gallipoli or something in the WWI section, if you're looking for something to go between Rhodes and Versailles. It would work well if you wanted something about battles with a BE tie, as the WWI section says quite a bit about the contribution of places that were involved with things like Gallipoli. Just a few ideas. AlexiusHoratius 19:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so how about:

Origins: Move Cabot's ship to the left
First British Empire: Insert Savannah picture on right
Americas, Africa and the slave trade: leave 13 colonies map on left
Global struggles with France: insert something from the Seven Years War like this on right
Leave all the images in Rise of the "Second British Empire" (1783–1815) as they are
Leave all the images in Britain's imperial century (1815–1914) as they are
First World War: insert something like this or this on left
Second World War: maybe insert something from a multi-national army like this

Thoughts? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the navy one a lot. But the Savannah one will look a bit washed out and bland when in thumbnail form. The idea of showing a colony is a good one, but how about something a bit more colourful, like e.g. [3]... also conveniently already mentioned in the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah you're right about the Savannah one. Do you think the Chennai one will be much better? I'm reluctant to test it on the page while it's being vandalised every other minute. Maybe we should leave this until tomorrow :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the Grand Fleet at Jutland picture. Dreadnoughts, great battleships etc were very symbolic with the British Empire at the time of the First World War with prints on card packets etc.Willski72 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah there was a really famous/symbolic one I was looking for on Commons with five R-class battleships sailing in line, but it doesn't seem to be there. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of photos on the Grand Fleet article showing multiple battleships, also I found this one, which says it's from the '20's on Commons. There's also this one. I didn't do a great deal of checking yet, so there may still be some out there. AlexiusHoratius 23:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

They do look very impressive! Especially the ones were the ships are in line.Willski72 (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

More on Africa

Sorry to post twice in a row, but I noticed the section on British imperialism in Africa is pretty limited. It only really discusses South Africa, Egypt, and Sudan, without mentioning the belt of colonies in between, not to mention other important colonies like Nigeria. Brutannica (talk) 21:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

And the battle of Rorkes Drift? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.21.124 (talk) 12:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

End of Empire?

It's not an empire at the size it is today when growing. However it is when declining. Is ' End of Empire' not jumping ahead? 'Further decline' is possibly more appropriate? Flosssock1 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. I agree with the reason stated by the editor who reversed your changes. The section describes the End, not a decline. --Snowded ^TALK 19:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor above might find this article on the British Empire more to his liking [4] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor above might find the article above more to his liking. RashersTierney (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Red Hat why has this article not got some of those excellent facts!Willski72 (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you'll be able to find it somewhere like here once they find some people to translate it for them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

But it has not yet ended... Flosssock1 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

What is left that can reasonably be called an Empire? Does Australia have an Empire because it controls Norfolk Island and Lord Howe Island and Tasmania?Willski72 (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

That is an exception (because those islands were not taken by Australia itself) British overseas territories are what is left of the British empire. They are not an empire, but they are what is left of it. So technicaly it still does exist, to an extent. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say, but it is not politically correct to have empires any more, so overseas territories are just... "overseas territories". Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I believe in what you say. But 'overseas territories' are, in some cases, what is left of what was once an empire. Thats what i'm getting at. And thank you again for being understanding and less.. aggressive, unlike most people on wiki. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The sun never sets

The article says: "At the peak of 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." Is this true that this was its only meaning? Is there not also a double meaning, implied or even directly stated as something like: "the British Empire will last forever" ? Though it will not, the concept that a nation might have eternal designs and ambitions is a notable one, if relevant. -Ste vertigo 19:20, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't heard that before and personally I don't think it is likely anyone would ever have thought such a thing even Churchill (the major figures would have been all too aware of the fates of the classical empires). The history of the phrase is covered in the article of the same name. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Many empires think they'll last forever but they are generally built up for the specific purpose of conquest. The builders of the British Empire were more practical, its main purpose was to make money through trade and to keep Britain ahead of its rivals. That was one of the reasons Britain never saw the need to spend massive amounts of money on a huge army and why the empire was only expanded haphhazardly.Willski72 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those points is correct. It did not have a defined "purpose" and it didn't spend money on a large army because it had a large navy instead. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

In truth, the sun never sets 'anywhere'. The Earth rotates on its axis. GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

GD goes for laugh; no get. GoodDay (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it had a large navy to defend Britain instead of an army but i mean it also never had a large army because it had no intention of trying to take over the world or grab as much land as feasibly possible with huge public expenditure (for example no attempt at a thousand year reich). I did not say that it had a DEFINED purpose as there was no specific government policy for expansion. When i said "the builders of the British Empire", i meant people like the shareholders of the British East India Company who were in it for profit and specific politicians concerned with the rise of other nations (during the race for Africa Britain made sure it could claim a large amount of territory). Therefore unlike other nations Britain's empire builders were more practical and had no grand visions for an eternal empire on which the sun never set (apart from perphaps Rhodes).Willski72 (talk) 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Point taken - I see what you mean. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers Wiki-Ed. (PS GoodDay seems upset that no-ones laughing at his joke, pephaps we should humour him.) Ha ha ha! Jolly good GoodDay you are perfectly correct, the sun is always there, it is the earth rotating around its axis that makes night and day, bravo! (Do you think that'll be enough?!)Willski72 (talk) 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Good!Willski72 (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Relating to this; "At the peak of power, it was often said that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" - the sun still does not actually set on the British Empire, it nearly does, but with its Indian ocean territory and the Pitcairn islands, the sun still doesn't set on it. Can something be done to change the wording here maybe? Thanks, Flosssock1 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would take up too much space to try and explain that sort of thing in the introduction and we do not consider the current UK overseas territories to be part of a British Empire today anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

But could that quote not be removed from the intro and explained somewhere else in the article? And yes I understand that, however although not an empire themselves, they are what is left of the British Empire, and the sun does not set on the territories. It would be great if that line could be moved to somewhere in the main body of the article and explained further. Flosssock1 (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The quote is mentioned not because of the "interesting fact" that the sun never set on the empire, rather because it was said. This trivia about the current BOTs adds nothing of value. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

That comment was of little value to the point of this section and it was partially opinion. I would prefer to talk to BritishWatcher on this matter, thanks Flosssock1 (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

lol, well i think its better in the intro than in more detail in its own section. The sentence speaks for itself and i really cant see how we can go into a huge amount of detail about it, it will add very little for the reader. Also the trouble is to mention about the BOTs meaning the sun still never sets on the British (whatever), could be considered Original research. As this is a featured article, we need to be careful what is and isnt added. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A comment of little value for a proposal of little value. Seems like a fair trade to me, Flossie. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

A small improvement Patty, and please, if it is going to be that, then at least spell it; Flossy. -- Anyway, yes I understand, however I don't mean for it to be in its own section. Maybe it could be kept in the intro (possibly edited slightly) and a sentence could be included about it in the section 'Legacy'? Flosssock1 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you don't want to hear from me and only BW, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way at Wikipedia so I will reply anyway. Please ask yourself what value this adds for someone trying to understand the British Empire. So what if the sun doesn't set on the BOTs? As I said before, this was a phrase people said about the BE - that is the reason it is mentioned, not because of the statistic in and of itself. The fact is that people do not say that the sun does not set on the BOTs, even if it happens to be true. Furthermore, there are many many events in the BE's history which have not been mentioned. Why on earth devote article space to this? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, BOTs are what is left of the BE, obviously its is politically incorrect for a country to have an 'empire' as such today, hence the multiple renaming of BOTs and ofcourse the size of BOTs reduce its comparison to an empire. Some people, when reading long articles can find it, at some points, to be 'droning on' or unbeneficial. An interesting fact, such as my proposal, can re-engage the reader and boost their mental will to read on. Obviously it will lengthen the article further (but not by much) however the psychological positives/benefits, relating to the welfare of the article, outweigh the few negatives. Meaning that my proposal could benefit both the article and the reader. Flosssock1 (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you find it a mentally invigorating factoid, otherwise you wouldn't be suggesting its inclusion. But encyclopaedias are meant to inform, not entertain. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:40, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

What I explained was not entertainment. It was a psychological aid for the reader and the article. Flosssock1 (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Support or not, my friend. It is a true fact, and along with what I have said above, people have a right to know that it is still true, all I ask for is no more than a line in the section 'Legacy'. It is an interesting fact, it will do what is stated above and it is related in multiple ways to the British Empire and its legacy. And I'm sure I could find support for it, if it was necessary. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Angevin Empire

Does this not count as the first British empire? Brutannica (talk) 20:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source referring to it as such, perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. Algebraist 20:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The territories in France ruled by English kings were a product of medieval feudalism, whereas the British Empire is a product of the Age of Discovery, when European nations were exploring the globe and establishing overseas colonies. It's important not to confuse the term "British Empire" with the general notion of "stuff that has ever been ruled or administered by a English/British monarch or government". Very early versions of this article, in 2004 or so, did that, and this reflects a basic misunderstanding of history as well as an obvious lack of reading around in the subject. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 20:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes the Angevin Empire didnt include Scotland and so could not be called British.Willski72 (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or Wales for that matter --Snowded ^TALK 21:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Well most of it anyway.... and large parts of Ireland.... so not much of Britain really!Willski72 (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the first time ive ever heard of a "Angevin Empire", id better get my history book out :| BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Henry II BW although Eleanor had a lot to do with it (only women ever married to the Kings of England and France), my daughter is named for her. --Snowded ^TALK 21:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, according to the first sentence of the main body of this article, "The foundation for the British Empire was laid at a time before the creation of Great Britain, when England and Scotland were separate kingdoms." And I understand that medieval imperialism and modern imperialism are different processes, but I could still see some historian arguing that the conquering impulse, at least, behind the Angevin and later British empires were related. Maybe one could argue that the experience of imperialism in France laid the groundwork for later forays and shaped the English national character? Sounds like something someone would write... Brutannica (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It's impossible to prove that noone has written that. And even if someone has written it, it doesn't make it a mainstream view. Pretty much all the texts you can find on the BE are in the references section and not one of them suggests the lands in France were part of any British Empire. Ultimately we're all a product of what our ancestors did. What next: the British Empire started when the Angles and Saxons invaded England? Or when the Indo-Europeans crossed to the British Isles? Or when the first humans left the Africa? Ridiculous examples, I know, but then I'm deliberately reducing to the absurd. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The Angevin Empire was not the first "British" or English empire any more than the Roman Empire was, England was not the conqueror but the conquered. Equendil Talk 22:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes those vikings were laughing all the way, England and most of France wasnt bad for a bunch of uncivilised barbarians.Willski72 (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Vikings were not "uncivilised", Normans had ceased to be "Vikings" in a meaningful way by the time of Hastings, besides the Angevin Empire was formed through the counts of Anjou. Getting off topic anyway. Equendil Talk 23:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The vikings were commonly known at the time as uncivilised barbarians due to their prominent characteristic of plundering and pillaging (especially monasteries). The House of Anjou would never have controlled England if it wasnt for the Normans invading it, and if it wasnt for the Vikings taking Normandy England would never have been invaded (it would still be Anglo-Saxon....). So the House of Anjou inherited England and part of France and invaded a lot of the rest, before a succession of useless kings and rebellious barons ruined it!Willski72 (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Everyone plundered and pillaged in those days. If the Vikings were considered uncivilised barbarians, it's because they were pagans, and the chroniclers were christian monks. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes others plundered and pillaged, but they did it with a bit of reverence for the almighty. I dont think it was so much the fact that they were pagans, but that this meant that they would plunder and pillage monasteries and churches not just the odd village and town. No one else really touched church land for fear of excommunication. But the point is that William the Conqueror/bastard was of viking descent not French, and it was he who conquered England. The House of Anjou merely inherited it (like they inherited 2/3 of France)--Willski72 (talk) 21:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

William the Bastard's mother was a commoner from Falaise and his paternal grandmother was a Breton princess, so he was only 1/4 "Viking", at best. And, of course, his native language was French, he lived his whole life before 1066 in France, and he had no notable connection with Denmark. Calling him a "Viking" is pretty ridiculous. john k (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

He only lived his life in France before 1066 because his family had conquered it. He was Norman, neither French nor Viking but a mixture. The Normans were not just in Normandy, France but in Sicily at one point too. These places they conquered, they lived in Sicily and perphaps married Sicilians and had children by them but they were still Normans. He was French through the female side and women were, unfortunately, of no importance in those days (unless they were a Queen by birth or an extremely powerful noblewoman). The Bretons did not speak French and they hated (and many still do hate) France.--Willski72 (talk) 13:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that Bretons were part of the Norman conquest? - [5] Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think its entirely accurate to say the Bretons "hated France". In history some of the most staunchly ultramonarchist military risings in favour of the French monarchy have come from Brittany.[6] It seems to me that, as the West of France in general is (or was) more devoutly Catholic, the secularist, atheist, Grand Orient ideologies coming out of Paris leading to the Revolution probably seemed odious to those people. The neo-primitivist, tribalism of more recent times is another matter. PS - Snowded, the Principality of Wales was a part of the Angevin Empire throughout all of its existence. First as a vassal state, then as a fief directly ruled by princes of the House of Plantagenet. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Bretons to France are an extreme version of the Cornish to England. And they have a much better excuse. The Revolution in France was oppossed all over France, in the North and South but mainly in the West. Apart from Paris the people didnt really care for Revolution. Also remember that France was created by the Franks, which were a tribe from Germany. The natural Bretons resented being controlled by foreigners. This was still deeply felt in 1066. 700 years later the novelty may have worn off.--Willski72 (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Map in the Inter-war period section

I have twice pointed out the inaccuracy on this map and each time it was deleted without comment or correction to map. Is someone trying to rewrite British history or totally uninterested in accuracy? I stated that all of Papua New Guinea is showm as a mandate. Papua was never a mandate. It was an Australian territory since 1904. When German New Guinea (the northern half) became a mandate it was joined to Papua and administered as Papua-New Guinea until independence. The area we are talking about (including large offshore islands) is very much bigger than "Great Britain" so not so insignificant. Read Wikipedia history of the country if you still want to persist with your arrogant dismissal of my comments. Tiddy (talk) 07:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you can change the map yourself. Secondly, your comments weren't deleted they were archived. If you can't be bothered to change the map yourself, or don't know how, being rude is not a good way to get people to do something. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Very true, very true.... both of you.Willski72 (talk) 15:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Improvements to the Exploration of the Pacific Topic

Another section should be added highlighting the contributions of George Vancouver's expedition to the Pacific Northwest which strengthened Britain's imperial claim of Puget Sound--named after his subordinate Peter Puget--and other territorial regions of modern day British Columbia, Washington and Oregon.

For those who are interested in researching the topic further, I recommend reading Vancouver's first hand account of his exploits in the Pacific Northwest entitled, "A Voyage of Discovery". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.40.243 (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Was it the British Empire taking shape

I have a niggling feeling that this sentence may not be quite correct: "The British Empire began to take shape during the early 17th century, with the English settlement of North America and the smaller islands of the Caribbean, and the establishment of a private company, the English East India Company, to trade with Asia." Would not using the term precursor or forerunner to the British Empire be a little more accurate? Did those English settlers look to the future and believe they were there to shape a British Empire. Those English settlers were indeed only a precursor of what would go on to become the British Empire. Anyone agree? Or am I the lone voice in the wilderness, which is quite possible. Jack forbes (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a group of editors who lurk around a certain group of articles who would very much like to disagree with you on this. Ironically I am going to have to take the same side, although for different reasons.

Not sure I understand the question. Are you saying that the term "British" shouldn't be used before the formation of the UK? --HighKing (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Historians treat the (listed) developments - between c1497 and c1997 - as part of the rise and fall of the British empire. I've never seen them use a named "precursor" entity to describe the overseas territories of England & Wales prior to the creation of the UK. The sentence as structured is gramatically and historically correct. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, so I would have to argue with all these historians who say it was the beginning of the British Empire, and persuade them to my way of thinking. After realising the error of their ways and publishing a new version of their books stating it was a precursor to the British Empire, I can then change the wording of the article. Why didn't you just say so! I'll be back in a mo. Jack forbes (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Seriously though. I have had a look to see if there were any citations to back up my proposed wording (or close to it) and could find none. So, whether I think it correct or not is neither here nor there. Ah well! Jack forbes (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned above, there are some who would have you believe that the "British Empire" was created and planned in great detail by one John Dee in the 1570s. Anything after that would be a realisation of that design. However, in reality it is, of course, anachronistic, as you suggest, for us (and historians) to say that English settlers in the 17th century would regard themselves as building a "British Empire" before there was a United Kingdom of Great Britain. The problem is (as you found) that historians don't offer an alternative and we cannot invent one. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Can you point to *any* text or comment where anyone remotely suggested that John Dee created and planned the "British Empire"? --HighKing (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Wiki-Ed is referring to the claim that John Dee created the phrase 'British Empire' (which is only half true). And he did create an early plan for a British Empire, in the sense that he advocated for England to establish settlements in North America, and he saw this plan as being 'Britysh' because it had been supposedly legitimized by the conquests of the Welsh prince Madoc. As for the larger argument, its quite true that there is an anachronistic element to saying that the settlers of Jamaica, much less Plymouth, saw themselves as agents of empire. But I do think you can defend calling them 'British,' since the settlers came from all four kingdoms, and since at least the crowns of Scotland and England were united by the time of James I. By the way, historians do talk about these things -- see Norman Davies in The Isles. Benjaminbreen (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to say "The British Empire began to take shape" about a period when it didn't technically exist under that name. The future shape of the Empire was being laid down in the period. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nova Scotia was before the Union

In the intro it only gives England credit for founding early colonies, but neglects the fact that Scotland, although failing in Panama, did set up a successful colony in North America in the form of Nova Scotia. Since this was later brought together with England's holdings to form part of the British Empire after the Union it should mention in the intro and seems dubious not to mention it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC):

I disagree with this (and have reverted it twice). The reason I disagree is that this is adding WP:UNDUE weight to the contribution of pre-Act of Union Scottish colonies to the British Empire, given that this is the very first sentence of the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. A quick (and I emphasise quick) persual of the Nova Scotia article would tend to support the basis of the edit and turned up some new things that I wasn't aware of. As I commented on Yorkshirian's talk page I'd suggest some research to find a supporting citation before suggesting an edit here. However, it need to demonstrate that the Scottish colonies made a significant contribution to avoid accusations of giving it undue weight. Slanje va. Justin talk 16:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it should be mentioned for novelty purposes. After all i dont think many people know that Scotland added anything to the newly formed British Empire (other than the old Panama disaster).--Willski72 (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning it in the article elsewhere, fine. But putting it in the very first sentence implying a 50/50 contribution is misleading. One also must ask, what of the Dutch (New Amsterdam), Swedish (New Sweden) and Spanish (Jamaica) contributions to the Empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. A mention somewhere in the article is reasonable. In the intro, definitely not, given the huge number of topics that are relevant to the British Empire and which should be mentioned in the intro. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Scotland and Nova Scotia should certainly be mentioned more clearly in the article; once that happens then discussion about adding it to the intro will be more productive. As it is, it seems a bit facetious to include them in the intro alongside English possessions, as at the time of the Act of Union Scotland had that one colony (important as it may be), while England had Ireland, most of the east coast of what is now Canada and the United States, trading posts in Africa, and many of the Atlantic and Caribbean islands.--Cúchullain ^t/c 18:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, mentioning it at the beginning gives it undue weight but it definately deserves to go in the article.--Willski72 (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Everyone seems to be crediting the premise that Nova Scotia was a bona fide pre-Union Scottish colony. This isn't really true. Scotland claimed the region, but never really had any effective control over it. At the time of the Act of Union Scotland had no colonies. As an effective Scottish colony, Nova Scotia existed between 1629 and 1631, when the area was returned to France. It only became a British colony properly in the Treaty of Utrecht - i.e. after the Union. john k (talk) 14:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should not be credited as a bona fide colony. It's true that the initial colonisation effort only lasted for eight years before losing the support of the Crown as a result of European treaty-haggling. But it was an effective project during the time. And it should be remembered that the original Scots settlers did not leave willingly when the Crown finally pulled the rug from under them. As for "effective control" of the region, I don't think that anyone had that until the French government forces were expelled during the 18th century. Certainly the area changed hands several times before ending up under British control. So the significance of the colonisation effort shouldn't be underestimated. After all the province is now known as Nova Scotia -- not Acadia -- and uses a modified Scottish flag, not an Acadian one. Both date from the Scottish 17th century colonisation efforts not the British 18th century military conquest. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Colonial Empire

Would it be better to change the sections currently named ' First British Empire ' and ' Second Britsh Empire ' as ' First Colonial Empire ' and ' Second Colonial Empire '. Most people would consider the British Empire to have been one continous empire, while the empire is clearly developed in stages to label it as mutliple empires seems incorrect. The Empire of the French is named the French Colonial Empire so this would not be a suprising format to use. The Quill (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not what historians call it though. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Other than on Wikipedia I actually can't find any evidence that the majority historians use first and second empire, admittedly some do but not all. Maybe they shouldn't be renamed first colonial and second colonial but possible just the dates or era? The Quill (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the use of the term particularly for a variety of reasons, but it is used (to some extent) whereas "colonial empire" is not and there are no other convenient labels for the dates/era the sections describe. That said, I worry slightly that Wikipedia exposes the terms to more coverage than would happen otherwise. There might be a (weighting) case for renaming the sections somehow. No doubt the author will be along shortly to comment... Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I found these terms being used quite commonly in my books. I can list some refs if people would like. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I must agree, there is definite common usage in books pertaining to Empire as a whole. It would seem we can all agree that the article is fine as is, and despite my own distaste for the terms (they imply something that never actually happened) they're the only logical choice in this circumstance. --MichiganCharms (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

British Empire, is actually the unofficial but popular and convenient term for the aggregation of territory under the British crown. I’ve been trying to look up the terms in my books, the old ones bringing up the most interesting as they were written at the time of a “British Empire”. For example it states that the symbol of unity throughout the empire is the authority of the crown.--BSTemple (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The French colonial empire is specifically called the "colonial" one because its previous empire/s were mainly in Europe whereas the latter one was not. This clarifies the difference (France was taking Vietnam instead of Holland!) Britain doesnt really need this clarification because unlike France it did not earlier have an Empire in Europe. While i see that using colonial may have its uses it is probably simpler and more understandable throughout the article for it to be left as it is.--Willski72 (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom

If it is 'more clear' to post the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as 'United Kingdom' as opposed to 'UK' then why isn't it like that in every other article? Flosssock1 (talk) 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

"UK" is used about a dozen times in the article itself, so it helps to mention (UK) in the intro but i certainly would not just want UK in the intro, its messy. During this articles Featured article nomination, a question was asked about use of UK, the only response was that using United Kingdom (UK) once in the intro then UK throughout the article was ok. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

That is the usual standard in books etc. It is deemed that if you use the full wording once you can then use an abbreviation and most people (who did not before know) will recognise what that abbreviation is. For example in most books on war Commanding Officer will be shortened to CO after first usage.--Willski72 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, thankyou. It's just a shame it couldn't be used in this way in so many other articles, the UK's name is abbreviated so much, a lot of people don't even know its full name. Never mind, problem resolved. Flosssock1 (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Rhodesia

Rhodesia declared independence in 1965, yet it says on the map of Africa that by the end of the 60s it was not independent. By the end of the 60s, it was independent, but it later reverted to British rule, so it is inaccurate. --Conor Fallon (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically Rhodesia was in revolt against the Crown from 1965 onwards. A small but powerful section of the local population may well have declared independence under Ian Smith but that independence was not recognised by the UK nor by the vast majority of other countries. As far as they were concerned Rhodesia was still part of the Empire. It just so happened that Britain chose not to go in and re-assert its legal authority by military means. Economic methods were used instead. Wikipedia is merely going with the majority view when it states that Rhodesia was not independent at the end of the 1960s. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Flossock and Sun not setting

Flosssock: there was not "silence in discussion" about your proposal. It was discussed and it met with no support. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Ive not been following the debate if its been continuing, but my position remains the same. I see no reason for any further statements about the Sun never sets phrase in the intro or in the article itself. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The sun never did set anywhere on Earth. The planet revolves around the Sun (ha ha ha). GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Did"?!.. I hope it still doesn't.. Flosssock1 (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't, thankfully. GoodDay (talk)

Flosssock: I am starting to see a pattern in your edits. You repeatedly make the same edit, or variant thereof, despite there being no support for that change. It has happened here and it has happened at other articles. Noone here has said they think we should discuss the setting of the sun in relation to the BOTs and three people have now reverted your attempt to get it in the article. Please take the hint. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comment in the relevant section. - And well, primarily I think that people should be alowed to know this fact and I believe that being an encyclopedia this is the correct place for it to be posted. And ofcourse this would be the article in which to post it. So please, tell me, what do you have against this fact? Flosssock1 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

As I already posted above: it is trivia (of the "did you know?" variety you might find on the back of a cereal box for 8 year old kids). The reason it is mentioned in the intro is because it was a saying about the empire, not because of the "fact" in and of itself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand. However, as the saying is stated in the article I believe that for the sake of a few words it could be explained in the article, by that I mean also the fact within it. Flosssock1 (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I'm not sure if you do understand as you're just making the same point again. To be blunt: (1) it adds no real information whatsoever - there are already two maps showing the location of the BOTs so if the reader is after trivia about the spread of the BOTs around the globe they can determine it there; (2) whether this factoid is true or not about the BOTs is utterly inconsequential to the BOTs, the UK, the world, history, humanity and most importantly in this case the British Empire - there is nothing that would be different now in 2009 if the sun did or did not always shine on the BOTs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Can it reasonably still be said that the sun never sets? There will be huge gaps of darkness as the sun spends hours getting from one island too another. There is not enough territory for it to be continous anymore and it probably wasnt factually perfect then.--Willski72 (talk) 10:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it can still be said. Use Google Earth and the sun-slider thing if in doubt. The largest gap is between Pitcairn and the Diego Garcia, but one of them is always is in sunlight. However, it is irrelevant to this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow i feel slightly prouder now! But yes it is irrelevent to this article. Go to United Kingdom and see if they will add it on there.--Willski72 (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Look guys. I see where you are coming from however people said that the sun never set on the BE; because it was a saying; and because it was a fact. I thought that since BOTs are what are left of the BE, the fact that the sun still does not set on them is still true and that my proposal is so small, it could be included. Flosssock1 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

So we are all clear, it has been discussed (a second time) and noone agreed with you. So please don't take lack of further comments as "silence" and tacit approval to make your edit as you did before. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Envious of Portugal and Spain

Just to let you all know I've made a small edit removing the statement that said England, the Netherlands and France were envious of Portugal and Spain as I think this is a little bit biased. I believe that these countries began colonising less to do with a sense of national pride, and more to do with the realities of trade and market control. Please feel free to disagree. Maszanchi (talk) 12:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what it meant. The implication of the wording (i.e. "envious of the great wealth") is that English colonial enterprises were driven by a desire to trade and compete for market control. Nationalism is (quite rightly) not mentioned. I've reverted and added a source. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this should stay in. I'd even argue that there was an aspect of national jealousy (though of course not nationalism) that comes across in the sources. East India Company letters for instance are filled with loathing references to the "Portingals" that are rather plainly motivated by envy of their superior position in the Indian Ocean, not just economically but also in terms of their political engagement with local rulers and their domestic support. Benjaminbreen (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert War

I've reverted the text back to before the revert war, please discuss changes and agree a consensus in the talk page before inserting the text again. See WP:BRD. Justin talk 07:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with WP:BRD here, but to be fair to the editor he has not put anything in which is not correct. I thought a lot of it was excessive, but left the ENglish and Scottish colonies coming together point. I think it is harsh to call that OR when (i) it is correct and (ii) its sourced. Better to find a better way to express the point which is important. --Snowded ^TALK 10:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've no particular beef either way, hence the WP:BRD comment and talk page message. I must say I tend to agree with you (there's a first). Justin talk 11:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no law against someone claiming that an English Empire merged with a Scottish Empire to form a British Empire in 1707. Or a variant thereof. Given how "logical" such a statement is, it's not surprising refs can be found making such a claim. However, from my reading this isn't the majority view of historians. The British Empire began before Britain officially formed. Furthermore, it is very misleading to give the impression that the colonies were merged into one empire in the same way that the crowns and countries were merged into one kingdom. The Scots really had no overseas empire to speak of and anyway there was no entity called the BE back then for colonies to merge into. So I propose if we want to mention Nova Scotia more we do it in the body of the article and not give undue prominence to it or the Scottish colonies in the lead. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 12:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I think saying that Novia Scotia was first settled by the Scots before the act of union in the text would be the right emphasis. --Snowded ^TALK 15:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Works for me, as long as it's not in the lead. The sensible place seems to me to be the para on Scotland's Darien antics. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Gets my vote, it seems appropriate coverage for this article. Justin talk 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Bias Legacy

The empire has a terrible legacy which isnt mentioned. Neither is its unjust killings of thousands. ive got to raise questions about this articles neutrality. its far to positive. not a mention of ireland and the racist acts they commited —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.31.154 (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I assume from this comment that you didn't read the "Legacy" section, or didn't understand either the content or the title. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think somebody is having a thoughtlessly liberal/PC moment. Read the "Legacy" section.Thunderbuster (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

"British Empire" as a name

Would it be worthwhile, do you think, to mention that there was no legally defined political entity called "The British Empire"? As the opening sentence says, the empire "comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom," but it was never the case that there was some overarching legal definition or constitution for all of those entities as a whole, if I understand things correctly. Thoughts? --Jfruh (talk) 03:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I vote no, for three reasons. First, this opening sentence links to all the types of colonial administration, clearly implying it was a collection rather than a single entity. Second, the definition of something is not what it is not, if you see what I mean. There are an infinite number of things one can say about something which are false. Third, I've never seen anyone else feel the need to say this, in a dictionary or encyclo, so why should we? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Argentina part of the British Empire

Are you kidding me? I cannot believe I read this, I mean it's wikipedia but still there are some standards even here. Besides investing in the railroads and holding a bunch of argentine bonds, that is hardly grounds for such a blanket statement. Britain attempted to invade Argentina right after South Africa and it failed, miserably, not once but twice. How about at least acknowledging this if you want to use the spacious argument of economic investment (which Britain gladly undertook and it benefited Britain greatly), as imperial domination? I'm really quite tired of seeing history rewritten to glorify other countries and belittle Argentina, by ommitting historical facts. It's about time this changes at the very least here in wikipedia. Either you take out that spacious economic claim as tantamount to extension of Empire, or you include the fact Britain tried to conquer Buenos Aires and was unsuccesful. But can't have it both ways. The dugout (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding what the article says. "Alongside the formal control it exerted over its own colonies, Britain's dominant position in world trade meant that it effectively controlled the economies of many nominally independent countries, such as China, Argentina and Siam, which has been characterised by some historians as "informal empire".[69][70]" The article doesn't say Argentina was a formal part of the empire, but that some historians have described it as effectively a de facto part. The article does not make a judgement on the validity of the position, it just reports it in a neutral point of view. If you disagree with this source statement, you'll need to provide your own sources. Nev1 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Dugout should come out of his dugout and do some reading on what historians describe as "informal empire". The two references supplied for this statement are a good enough a starting point as any. But if that's not enough, here are some more [7]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:57, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Revert

Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, why the revert? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 11:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because (1) you changed "UK" to "British government" which is anachronistic (2) Your edits cluttered up the intro defining twice spelling out the long form for "Britain", which is unnecessary detail for an intro on the BE, and (3) you removed mention of Hong Kong which is conventionally seen as the end of the empire. So why these edits (to text that has been there for a couple of years, I might add)? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyperpower

In the introduction should "foremost global power" be changed to the more concise hyperpower . It is far more concise, is aggreed upon that it is a hyperpower on the hyperpower article, and is backed up by these sources.

http://www.fwbusinesspress.com/display.php?id=10159 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/0/5/6/p250567_index.html http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/59919/eliot-a-cohen/history-and-the-hyperpower</ref>

I only suggest this as someone reverted my edit in which I made these changes and included citations.

Seriouslythelastnameleft (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of citing references. We can easily find (more) references for "great power" and "superpower" to describe the British Empire. And it's not a question of what the (very brief) hyperpower article says, because Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. "Hyperpower" is a not even two-decade old term that some argue can be applied retrospectively to the British Empire, and the same goes for "superpower", although that has a longer history, coined after WW2. "Great power" was actually used in the 19th Century, and is still used today. The current wording is the best because the text that the reader sees, "foremost world power", is a self-contained description, and the pipelink goes to the most frequently used of the three terms, and the one with the longest pedigree, "great power". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Australian and New Zealand Claimed Antarctica on Map

There is a discussion at the headline map talk page on whether we should show the Aus and NZ portions of Antarctica.

Personally, I think these are "claims" that are best left out, for the same reason that Spain and Portugal's division of the world does not equate to the Spanish and Portuguese Empire. However, that's OR, so my position on the map talk page has been that unless references are put forward explicitly stating that they were part of the BE, then the map shouldn't show it. A couple of refs have since been put forward, though they aren't really what I would call quality ones.

This might also raise the question of why the British Antarctic Territory is shown on the map. I added that after someone pointed out Antarctica was missing, and did so on the basis that the map shows the current British Overseas Territories, of which the BAT is one.

I invited the editor I'm discussing with to join in the debate here - hopefully others can voice their opinions. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 02:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be useful to consider that under the Antarctic Treaty, no national claim to Antarctic territory is recognised under international law. A few nations do recognise the Australian and New Zealand claims.I see nothing amiss in marking the portion of Antarctica in question as 'claimed by Great Britain' (it was claimed by Britain before 1933). Most atlases mark Antartica by the claims made to it, or not at all.--Gazzster (talk) 06:44, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Does "claimed by Great Britain" equate to the British Empire though? The Oxford Hist of the BE [8] discusses the events of the 1920s and 30s and finishes with the statement that "none of the claims were recognized internationally". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point.--Gazzster (talk) 21:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Below are the references which refer to the Ross Dependency (NZ Antarctica) and the current Australian Antarctic Territory mentioned above. However, since Australia and NZ were both considered part of the British Empire (even though they were already independent dominions) at least prior to 1931's Statute of Westminster, all Australian/New Zealand territory should also be shown.

As a matter of consistency, territories which were colonies of independent dominions (such as South West Africa - ruled by the Union of South Africa) are shown, Australian and New Zealand Antarctica would also fall into this category so should also be shown. The Ross Dependency was claimed in 1923 for New Zealand (so would be in the same category as South West Africa, part of the British Empire insofar as the controlling dominion is a part). However, regarding the Australian Antarctic Territory, the two sources below refer to a claim for the British Empire before their handover to Australia, so they have a stronger claim to be shown on the map.

All claims to Antarctica are disputed, but then so were many claims to territory outside of the continent. As no other nation claimed the territory in question, simply not recognizing the claims shouldn't be enough to prevent it being shown. I appreciate that Antarctica is a slightly different kettle of fish from other territories, but I propose that if Antarctica is shown at all, it should show the former claims as well as the current claim. The alternative (as briefly discussed above) would be not to show Antarctica at all.

Since this map is "The territories that were at one time or another part of the British Empire", I believe it makes sense to show them just as Australia and New Zealand are themselves shown.

Reference regarding Ross Dependency:

The Order in Council Under the British Settlements Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict c 54), Providing for the Government of the Ross Dependency states that the Ross Dependency as of 1923 is "part of His Majesty’s Dominions in the Antarctic Seas, which comprises all the islands and territories between the 160th degree of East Longitude and the 150th degree of West Longitude which are situated south of the 60th degree of South Latitude". Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 states that British Empire is a "name now loosely given to the whole aggregate of territory, the inhabitants of which, under various forms of government, ultimately look to the British crown as the supreme head". Therefore part of His Majesty’s Dominions in the Antarctic Seas means part of the British Empire.

Reference regarding Australian Antarctica:

[9] states that the 1907-1909 expedition took "possession of Victoria Land for the British Empire"

[10] states "Sir Douglas Mawson ... landed at Proclamation Island on the same day, where he proclaimed Enderby Land for the British Crown"

I have yet to find a reference regarding Wilkes Land, which is the only remaining part of the current Australian territory.

Mjb1981 (talk) 11:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there's no dispute about the Imperial claims. And my government, the Australian government, maintains that it exercises real sovereignty over the Antarctic Territory. It even appints an Administrator to keep the penguins in order. But what we are wondering, I think, is whether a claim, unrecognised in international law, can amount to an extension of empire? Especially as the marks of empire, that is, colonisation, military occupation, use of resources, is not present? Sure, scientists are there. But scientists are hardly empire builders.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh... penguins. I took a look at the maps in the OHBE Vol 4 [11]. Only in the "remnants of the British Empire" map does it show Antarctica (the BAT), as we do here. The 1930 map does not show any of Antarctica. The Penguin Historical Atlas of the BE [12] doesn't mention Antarctica anywhere or show it on any map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 21:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Antarctic territories were not commonly heard of because of their relatively low importance. I could not name sources right now, but I have read that current Australian and NZ claims were British claims prior to independence. Flosssock1 (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

How the UK got Australia

The article does not give much explanation on how the British began to settle in Australia; most of the details in Australia seem to come at a point in history when the British were already well-settled there. The transportation of convicts to Australia and the genocide of the Aboriginals that followed is one of the darkest chapters in the history of the British Empire; even Niall Ferguson has said so. I think there should be some details on it. The only book on the subject I own is the Niall Ferguson "Empire", so I appeal for others with more information to come forward. Epa101 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not the last word in historical research, but David Hill's 2008 book 1788: The Brutal Truth of the First Fleet is highly readable and very informative indeed about what lead up to the settlement, and what happened when they got here. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a little more treatment of the settlement of Australia, considering that it was one of the foremost colonies of the Empire. It was an important strategic base in the Pacific, an important source of wool, grain and gold, the destination of convict transportation from the UK for around 80 years, and it supplied many of the Empire's best troops for its wars. Further, it was one of the founding dominions.--Gazzster (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The UK

in what way is the Empire still felt in Britain and in the international field? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.252.88.196 (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a complex question, which is difficult to answer briefly. Have you read the article (especially the Legacy section)? Gabbe (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Cameroon

Cameroon is not on the map. Flosssock1 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

That's no reason to delete it entirely. As I've asked you on your talk page, please stop being disruptive. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 04:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was forced to take that decision after I was ignored on two talk pages. Cameroon, or at least southern Cameroon I believe, WAS part of the British Empire. As I'm sure you know, it is not highlighted on your map. Flosssock1 (talk) 12:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Forced? Who forced you? Learn how to edit images yourself or wait for someone else to do it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 17:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I was forced because there was an incorrect map on the page and noone wanted to do anything about it. I know how to edit images thankyou, but I'm sure if I added my own version then you would have something to say about it. Flosssock1 (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

And thankyou for editing it. Flosssock1 (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

More main pages?

I don't want to start adding myself, because looking at this page, the editors have done a really superb job, and I couldn't possibly interfere. But could there be links to more "main" pages or "seealso"s underneath most, if not all the sections? That only starts with Company rule in India. Surely there are articles about the new world, anglo-dutch rivalry/wars for instance? One very good reason for this - aside from style - is that it allows further information, and additions to be channelled into specific articles (and if someone's moaning about "why won't you allow two new paragraphs on my little pet topic, which is REALLY important" you can simply redirect them to the main article). Wik idea 14:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what others think - it's been a bit tumbleweed round here lately, but personally, I've never been a fan of these 'main article' links because the lists tend to get clogged up with people linking to their favourite little pet topic. (Who decides what the "main" article is for a section, when the paragraphs cover so much time and geography?) My view is that if it's important enough to be linked to in a 'main article' link, there should be mention of it in the text, and if there is not then the article is missing something. The Anglo-Dutch wars are discussed and linked to, for example. What do you think is missing? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 15:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree that the majority of section headings are too broad for specific links. However, I did spot two which were quite straightforward and probably should have links. I've added a main article link for the Napoleonic Wars. There is possibly a case for Abolitionism in the section that follows, although that article may be too broad to link to from the section in this article. Following the change I've made 7 of 20 tertiary level headings have main article links which I think is probably enough in this context. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Antarctica

We have a map-obsessed (in the sense that he only looks at the map and not the article) editor coming here to change the map [13] in a slightly disruptive/vendictive fashion (see his post here [14]). I would like to point out to him that (a) it's verifiable that the British Antarctic Territory is a British Overseas Territory and (b) the fact that not all nations recognise claims to Antarctica and the fact that Britain's claims overlap with Chile and Argentina are specifically discussed in the Legacy section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 10:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, the "rule" over Antartica is not effective, it is only a claim, which is not even recognised. It is verifiable that Antartica is a British territory under British POV sources. In the other case you mention about me, at least we had a widely recognised claim, and a native people who sweared loyalty. In this case, the claim is not recognised, the rule is not effective. Anyone can go to Antartica without showing a passport to British authorities. Period. Fireinthegol (talk) 13:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you leave things as they are and wait for others to comment. You've made your point, per WP:BRD, let's now have a discussion with the other editors here. I've made my views clear: the article clearly and neutrally discusses the claims, and the map states that the BOTs are underlined in red. The BAT is a BOT - the list of BOTs is defined by a UK Act of Parliament. The question of recognition is separate to the question of whether the BAT is a BOT. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 13:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The fact that British editors come to say that this Wikipedia is not British biased is irrelevant. I will not change the article when I hear a suitable argument telling me the why Antartica (not recognised British claim in which Britain never had effective sovereignty) and Patagonia (widely recognised Spanish claim in which natives sweared loyatly to the king) have double standards in the British Wikipedia. Fireinthegol (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am on the fence regarding whether to consider the territory of Antartica was a formal remit of the Empire; but I think part of the problem here, Fireinthegol, is that you simply made a signficant contextual change without engaging in specific debate on the issue or establishing consensus. Surely, when it is quite plain that a change to an article will likely be contested (by someone) you need to broach the subject first - it is one of the central editing principles at WP. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 14:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

That is because we have just had a long debate on the Spanish empire talk page and the discussion finished stating that only the directly controlled undisputed areas are to be included on the empire maps. There should be no difference regarding issues of different countries, so it is a general debate, not exclusively a British empire debate. Fireinthegol (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems you came to this article to make a WP:POINT -ie you didn't get your way at Spanish Empire so you're going to apply the same logic on that talk page here. That is verging on being disruptive. Anyway, note the Australian and NZ claims are not shown, even though they date from the days of the BE. Why? Because the map specifically underlines the BOTs and the BAT is a BOT. Period. Again, if other countries don't recognise it as "British" is another matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, if a country (British government) claims some territory of their own, that does not mean that the territory is administred by them. The status of Antartica is similar to that of the Moon, it belongs to humankind as a whole, not to a particular country. It is you who disrupted the discussion on the Spanish empire talk page only to judge me. You seem to enjoy labelling people. I am sure that that is not a very good thing to do regarding Wikipedia policies about respecting. Fireinthegol (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Since this is a historical article, most of which covers the 350 year period before 1961, it seems entirely appropriate to include the BAT as part of the illustration of remaining territories claimed by the UK during the period it had an Empire. The fact that the claim is not universally recognised now (it is by most of the other claimants) is not really relevant in this context. If this was an article about modern day Antartic sovereignty then the map would be wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since it is, as you say, an historical article, there must be sources that state that the claim was once recognised, even if now it's not recognised. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the map is not illustrating historic claims, but illustrating current claims (as in current British Overseas Territories). As a compromise, can I suggest that disputed areas or areas not universally recognized are simply given a different colour and noted. --HighKing (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

HK is right: as the author of the map, I added the BAT on the basis that it is a BOT (because originally I didn't show it despite listing the other BOTs and someone complained - you can't win). If it was historical then we'd need to add the Aus and NZ claims. I don't like singling out the BAT in another colour because it implies a special status/category when no such difference exists if you read the BOT 2002 Act. What's wrong with the sentence I added to the caption, as a compromise? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry getting conflating the two maps in my head. However, I'm not sure that it is really necessary to change the colour of disputed territories - it would mean we would have to change and accept alterations for the Falklands and Gibraltar and presumably anywhere else where the government of the nearest neighbouring 2nd or 3rd world country has domestic problems. Certainly the authors of the Spanish wikipedia have no problem with using maps showing claims[15] in the body of articles on the respective topic. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

What a good thing to say! very respectfull that thing of the 3rd world countries, congratulations. In case you are so ignorant you don't know, Falklands belonged to Spain and Argentina long time so it has also Spanish names. Maybe you see that as depicting it as part of Argentina. There are ignorant people everywhere. Fireinthegol (talk) 00:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Dont feed

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, so there is not difference in the rulling between, for example, London and Antartica? Well, when I go to London, I have to answer to some questions of a British policeman in English and show an ID card. I don't think I'll had to do the same to go to Antartica. It is even funny, because Spain has a base in south Shetland Islands, where British supposedly have sovereignty. I could go there and be in Spanish soil while being in the British empire. lol Fireinthegol (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop WP:TROLLing please. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

ps you've just revealed, by forgetting to log in and revealing your IP address, that you are none other than permanently blocked Cosialscastells. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

what????? are you accusing me of being blocked and editing??? well you will have to prove that with evidence. Accusing me of that without evidence is quite against common sense, you just did it because you were going to lose the discussion because you have no argument, but go ahead, if you think you have something to do. Here you have my IP, go ahead. 79.150.191.60 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You can go to defend yourself if you want, [16] Fireinthegol (talk) 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, now that your accusations have been rulled out, can you provide a source that state that Antartica once belonged to the British empire? not in the sense of being an unhabited zone where any other country could go and stablish a base. Otherwise, the depiction is unreferenced and should be removed. Fireinthegol (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

The above user has been blocked. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 22:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Fancy that. I'd put my bets on Eurohistoryteacher. Darn it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

He was actually the one who complained about Antarctica not being visible! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Fireinthegol has been unblocked and the Red Hat of Pat Ferrick admitted being, perhaps, overzealous about accusations of sockpuppetry. Leaving aside the alleged sockpuppetry (which I just learned about and found hard to believe), I think there is a point to be made about the difference between the British and Spanish empire maps. ..I tried to write more, but it is late and I must sleep. Pfly (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Question: Should there be created a "infobox" for this article?

Should there be create a "infobox" for this article? I myself deem The British Empire as a vast and patched formation of various parts of the world, and that it would be hard to legally define them as a single entity, but I think that proper infoboxes contains and reveals information needed to be found quickly and easily, as well as improving the layout of the article and defining the status as Empire more widely. I do think creating a proper infobox to this article will be hard, but can be managed by the right hand. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.158.186 (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I vote no, because these infoboxes are magnets for the kind of editors who never bother to read or help with the text of the article and home in on these things like flies round the brown stinky stuff. It just leads to stupid arguments like what flag to use, whether there was a national anthem, what the start and end dates were, what the style of government was, what successor states were etc etc. It was discussed and decided against before [17] and we had trouble enough deciding on the flag for the "simple" infobox currently in use. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

"Weakened the Empire as more and more people became loyal to their respective countries instead of Britain"

This edit is problematic [18]. The cited reference does not make exactly that claim. It says "The main effect on the BE was to encourage national feelings that were expressed, entirely sincerely, in terms of great attachment to Britain and yet turned out to have the effect of helping to dissolve the empire. Soldiers went out to fight because Britain was at war, but they found that they fought as Canadians or as Australians...(Anzac Bay) did mark a moment at which the two Dominions (NZ and Aus) found themselves acting as nations in a way they had not done before and Anzac Day became a national holiday. Vimy Ridge in 1917 came to have much the same meaning for a generation of Canadians". Writing that this "weakened the Empire because more and more people became loyal to their respective countries instead of Britain" is a misleading transcription of that source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree though that this merits mention in the lead. How about "The conflict placed enormous financial strain on Britain and stoked the desire for nationhood in the Dominions. ~~and a~~Although the Empire achieved its largest territorial extent immediately after the war, it was no longer a peerless industrial or military power."? Or something like that - it's too late to think of good wording, should really be asleep now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It seems you have more of a problem with the "weakening of the Empire" part than anything else. That was my attempt to help fit in the sentence about nationalism to the section, because I believe that simply putting a sentence about Canada and Australia in the section would have had ended in it being reverted for irrelevancy. There are several citations that mention (or say something similar) that Canadian nationalism, for instance, was created during World War 1. This link says that "Canadian nationalism was born atop the Vimy Ridge". The part of the sentence that involves the weakening of the Empire was POV, but the rest about the birth of nationalism in the dominions is obviously true, and I believe that it should be in the intro paragraph, as this is an article about the British Empire, not just of Britian itself. The birth of nationalism in places like Canada and Australia is an important part of WWI and the British Empire. I am glad that you agree it should be mentioned, but I don't think the "desire for nationhood" fully covers its importance. To me, that sounds like the dominions wanted independance. --Plasma Twa 2 03:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This was just the beginning though, of a process that lasted two/three decades, which happened with differing levels of eagerness in the Dominions. That needs to be properly summarised if we are to do it justice. Also, I had an equal problem with your "loyalty to the respective countries instead of Britain". That makes it sound like "you're either with us or against us". There was, after all, massive support from the Dominions for Britain during WW2. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 03:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The "founding settlers" of Canada were not British

"Millions left the British Isles, with the founding settler populations of the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand coming mainly from Britain and Ireland."

Thoroughly incorrect. The French were in Quebec long before the English arrived.

Wannabe rockstar (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

"Long before"? The French settled in Quebec in 1608, two years before the first permanent English settlers arrived in Newfoundland. In any case the excerpt you've quoted says that colonists from the British Isles formed the majority of the founder settlers; it does not say that they were the first (which would be the Vikings if you're talking about Europeans). Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Seemingly incorrect statistic

"The English language is the primary language of over 300 million people" Seems a bit faux to me given the USA alone has a population in excess of 300 million, Britain ~55, Canada ~30, Australia ~20 and still others with large populations.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

An underestimate, perhaps, but not incorrect, given the presence of the word "over". While the primary language of many in these countries is not English (e.g. Spanish in the USA), I'm sure noone would disagree if you find an up to date reference and update the article accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, is it considered rough / incorrect to use a collation of sources? Eg. adding up the numbers in a few census's. Or would that breach the original research rules?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There might be Wikipedia policy on this somewhere, but you might have to do some digging to find it (or a precedent). As far as I know what you suggest would be synthesising. For example, the article on the English language has tables showing primary language speakers. Each row (i.e. a country) is referenced by census-type data, but adding the figures in a column would be original research (and rightly so because some of the data in that table is demonstrably incompatible with other data for comparative purposes). What you'd need here is a single source which has done the arithmetic itself and can be cited in the normal way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed. These estimates are all over the place anyway - as can be seen in the reference I linked to yesterday (you can see the relevant page on Amazon.com's "look inside" feature). The author who collated them said as much, and ended up giving his own sort of average across all of them at the foot of the table. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 23:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps putting "primary language of well over 300 million" for now would help solve the situation. It would take 300 million as the absolute possible minimum it could be while accepting that it is probably quite a bit higher.--Willski72 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

UK Not

The great majority of RS prefer the term "Great Britain" or "Britain" for historical topics instead of variations on UK, as a quick look at the bibliography and footnotes will demonstrate. There was of course never a country named "United Kingdom". Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Britain" would be OK, but not "Great Britain". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...or perhaps "The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories under British rule or administration...." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadly agree with both, except Rjensen's assertion that there was never a country named "United Kingdom". Mooretwin (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? The article should reflect the preponderance of terms used in the literature. Justin talk 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

the main histories prefer "Great Britain" and "Britain" by a wide margin--I would guess something like 80-90% prefer it rather than variations on UK/United Kingdom. For example in vol 4 of the The Oxford History of the British Empire (1999) with chapters by 30 leading scholars, and which is online at Questia.com, you can do a word search. I counted approximately 50 pages that used "United Kingdom" or "UK" and 360 pages that used "Great Britain" or "Britain", or 88% preference among current scholars. Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We had a rather lengthy discussion on this back in 2008. [19] I think I still hold the view that "Britain" is best, but given that whether we say UK or Britain offers zero benefit to the reader- it doesn't help them understand the BE any differently - I'd suggest we don't give this more air than it deserves. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of helping our readers, it is a disservice to give them non-standard terminology. After all, we might as well follow the reliable sources, as required by Wiki rules. (yes yes, I've heard that "Britannia waives the rules" but should not do so here.) Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct adjective is "British" certainly, but given that terminology relating to "Britain" causes much gnashing of teeth in certain quarters on Wikipedia it's important we take more care with the name of the country than some of the sources we're citing for individual statements. I don't think many would argue that the correct name of the parent state was the United Kingdom during the period the Empire was at its height (i.e. the 19th century), and it's certainly the correct name now, which might help totally uninformed readers to make the connection. While we should use sources to support the writing of articles, we are not writing for the same audience and should not be driven by their vernacular usageof certain words. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

the correct name of the country was never "United Kingdom"--that's merely a shortening of the full name ("United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland"), and "Great Britain" is also a shortening. This article is required by Wikipedia rules to follow the reliable sources, which at the 80+% level use Britain/GB in historical work. Sorry, but reliance on unnamed, unsourced silent people with gnashed teeth violates Wiki policy regarding reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is required to use reliable sources; it doesn't have to be written the way they are (and that's probably for the best). The problem with "Great Britain" is that it is inexact - it was a shortening of the official name (though not used so frequently any more), but it is still the name of an island. To avoid confusion between geographic and political entities it is better to make this distinction in the intro. Reliable sources might not need to do this, but they are not structured like Wikipedia articles and don't need to align to a wide range of other topics where terminology is disputed (try looking through the 30 archives for the "British Isles" discussion page to get an idea where I'm coming from). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer UK, I think I said so back in 2008, however there is more than one way to do this. We could simply explain that the name of the state responsible for the British Empire changed at least three times but that we refer to UK consistently for the purposes of the article. As it keeps coming up, simply dismissing it is not a solution IMHO. We either follow the sources putting personal preference to one side or we explain it better to our readers. Justin talk 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Britain is the obvious label - it matches the references and its not confusing. UK means different things in different periods and the modern use does not match that of the dominant period of Empire, it also comes into use after the Empire has initiated. --Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I support either the 'British' idea, which would relate to both periods of time. Or the current 'United Kingdom' wording, as that is the countries' current name (or part of it), it was the countries' name during the hight of empire and through most of it to date and 'United' was used prior to 1801 (although not often). I personally prefer the latter. MrTranscript (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Edit

I reverted this [20] for the second time. My major problem with this edit is that this is a section on the legacy of the British Empire - ie the state of the world now, not the history of the English language - it suffices to say that a legacy of the BE is the spread of the English language. On a side note, I fail to see where the source makes the claim that the edit does (so this strikes me as synthesis). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick^t 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur its not significant --Snowded ^TALK 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The empire still exists.

I'd like to make my point that the empire has not ended. We still control the overseas territories, which make up a very small empire. I plead you not to keep reverting my entirely correct changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.162.226 (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not an Empire any more, there are no 3rd party references that describe it as such. Stop edit waring please --Snowded ^TALK 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

79.98.162.226: Do you have reliable sources (in the WP:RELY sense) explicitly supporting your stance? If so, can you share them with us? Gabbe (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The last major colony was Hong Kong and that was lost in 1997. As Snowded says, no one describes it as such now. The dependant territories left are not really an empire!--BSTemple (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You all say no-one describes it as an empire, the last major colony was given independance; but we do still have colonies, and thus an empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.162.226 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Find a reference, learn to indent your edits. I'd also read up on wikipedia in general, you talk page is littered with warnings which generally means a block is not far away--Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy." The United Kingdom is ruled by a hereditary monarch and is a union of the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, the country of Wales and the country of Northern Ireland. British overseas territories incorporate other ethnic groups. Thus it is accurate to say that it has never ceased to be an empire. I do not see why something this self-evident requires a source, for the same reason that you do not require a source to claim that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state.94.173.12.152 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Find a current reference that calls it an empire and you might be taken seriously --Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, And I use that as a reference - found one, done. Don't be so disagreeable, snowed, and face the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree as well. Now you have your 'general consensus, and can accept, please, that the British Empire still exists. (And hopefully always will.) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(Patiently) You need to find a reference that says the British Empire still exists. Taking a Wikipedia set of phrases and throwing them together is Original Research. There is no evidence that the British Empire exists, there is no consensus. If asking for normal WIkipedia use of citations is being disagreeable then so be it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is the colonies. Colonies make up an empire. How hard is that to understand? If the quotations we have put in are incorrect, then why haven't the pages that have those quotations had them edited out? Explain that. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

With no reliable sources (other wikipedia articles are not acceptable) the edit added to the article by 81.154.5.71 and Willdasmiffking and is clearly original research. I don't think will be many sources which would still describe the overseas territories as an "empire". Barret (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry. My point (AS CLEAR AS CAN BE:)

Colonies = Empire. No sources needed, its bloody obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some formatting - please use colons to indent your comments. Personally I think its obvious that a couple of islands does not an empire make and most of the literature backs me up - the UK is not talked about as an Empire anymore. If you can find a citation then fine, but otherwise you are carrying out original research. --Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

a.) No-one cares about your personal opinion b.) No one does talk about it, and even if they do and not call it an empire, IT HAS COLONIES AND THUS AN EMPIRE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely agreed. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Then kindly source it, otherwise I will fully protect this article until a source is provided. Your own ideas are inappropriate here. Rodhull andemu 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is more to an 'empire' than a collection of dependencies. The 'Empire' was a concept, a mind-set, just as much as a real political and geographical entity. Russia has dependencies. But we no longer speak of the 'Russian empire', except in purely symbolic terms. We did speak of the 'Soviet empire' though, because Western attitudes enhanced Russia in that manner. Denmark has dependencies. So does France. So does Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and any number of nations. But that does not make them empires. The 'British Empire'belongs to a time when it was believed it was Europe's mission to civilise the world. There was also a french empire, an Italian empire, a Dutch empire, a Belgian empire, a German overseas empire.That age has passed (though I have my doubts sometimes).There are of course, some Brits who haven't realised the Empire is gone; they think it's been misplaced somewhere and General Gordon will rise from the dead and lead the Redcoats to glory.--Gazzster (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

True points here, although not what it was or even what someone would suggest an Empire to be, colonies do make up an empire, and that seems to be what we have here, a British Empire. MrTranscript (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Decolonialisation in the intro

Regarding this edit: [21]

I believe that this sentence should be removed, it not only implies that the handover of Hong Kong was an official end of Empire, but also that there are no more territories that could gain independence (or be decolonialised, as the sentence puts it). The intro is long as it is, I don't feel that this sentence adds any value. MrTranscript (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything official: - there was no official empire, no official start, no official end. However, historians, including a number of those cited frequently in this article, use the handover as Hong Kong as a convenient end to their narrative. We've done the same thing here.

As for other territories that could become independent, yes, in theory, but the next largest BOT is 100 times smaller (in terms of population), so in the grand scheme of things it's unlikely to have the same historical significance. Of course if it happened and if reliable sources decided it was significant then we would need to change the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)