Talk:British Empire/Archive 19

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

This edit request to British Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi i am writing to request a change on the British Empire page. I am asking if you could edit the page so it has a box where it tells us the years of existence; under the title of 'British Empire' above the map, at the top of the page. This is seen in other empires' pages. I am also requesting that this will look like this: '1603 - Present' as the British Empire has never actually officially ended and is historically incorrect to say it has ended as of the current date. Doing this would help educate people and give the correct form of history. Thank You! My reference is from the BBC --- http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zcnmtfr#zymdq6f The BBC quote to backup my reasoning and evidence of my proposal - "It may not be the colossal world power it once was but technically the Empire is still in existence. As of 2015, 14 territories, outside the British Isles, still remain under British rule. Many of the former territories of the Empire are now gathered under the loose association of the Commonwealth of Nations with the Queen as its current Head." Thank you! I hope I have helped on this topic!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit (talk • contribs) 08:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done There have been repeated requests for this edit and I suggest you go through the archives. It is generally accepted that the hand over of Hong Kong in 1997 marked the end of Empire. The 14 BOT that now exist are not colonies in the traditional sense. Three are uninhabited except for transient military or scientific personnel; the remaining eleven are self-governing to varying degrees and are reliant on the UK for foreign relations and defence. This is all explained in the article. WCM_email 09:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. DBigXrayᗙ 10:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I have looked at the other requests for this and I can give references to back up what I've proposed. No matter what is 'genrally accepted', fact is fact and thus must be implemented to relative articles, books, whenever and as often as possible, to get the correct version of history without it being smudged. This is why I requested this change. I hope you will decide differently on your previous decision hence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit (talk • contribs)

The word 'technical' in your solitary reference is key.-----Snowded ^TALK 11:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

One of your own articles backs up the 'solitary' reference -(scroll down to British Empire)- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_empires&gettingStartedReturn=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRebelBrit (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia can't be used as a citation. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. There are other citations that say the Empire has ended (in 1947, or 1948, or 'after the Second World War', or in 1997, etc.). We can't choose one date over others when there is no consensus on the right one. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

The above is essentially the issue, not only is there no official end date, there is also no real official start date, as it never actually existed as a constitutionally defined entity.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter Please note, I may be wrong but this sounds awfully like the long term disruptive editor HarveyCarter. WCM_email 10:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I think it needs to be made clearer that the British Empire was not an empire in the same sense as the Roman or other unitary empires - most notably, it was not a state. Here is a suggestion for a paragraph in the opening section.

"The term "British Empire" was widely used but was never formally defined. This was because the British Empire was never a state, or a constitutional or legal entity of any kind. In this it contrasts with other empires such as the Roman Empire or the Russian Empire, which were unitary states ruled by an emperor. The British Empire was an aggregation of territories which had a wide variety of relationships to the British Crown and/or United Kingdom. Some, such as the Princely States in India, were technically independent. Others, such as Egypt and Hong Kong, were technically possessions of other empires. Others, such as Papua, were administered on Britain's behalf by the settlement colonies. The Empire had no head of state,* no imperial government or legislature, no imperial legal code, no imperial armed forces and no imperial currency. Attempts to make the Empire a genuine federation or a free trade zone, or to create an imperial legislature, were successfully resisted by the self-governing colonies and the colonial governors. The British Parliament and Cabinet did not directly govern the Empire. Imperial rule was carried out governors who enjoyed considerable autonomy. In India, the Viceroy acted virtually as an independent sovereign - even imposing tariffs on British imports. The settlement colonies such as Canada and Australia soon acquired their own legislatures and internal self-government. The British Army and Royal Navy were deployed as needed to various parts of the Empire but were funded by British taxpayers and were always controlled by British ministers. Virtually the only Empire-wide institution was the court system, which in most parts of the Empire applied English common law alongside local law codes and allowed appeals to the Privy Council.

* The British monarch held the title Emperor of India from 1876 to 1948, but this was not a title applying to the Empire as a whole."

Constant Pedant (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states this? Otherwise it rather looks like WP:OR. WCM_email 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A source that states what, exactly? Most of my paragraph is statements of the negative, and few negative assertions have sources. Constant Pedant (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I admire your effort and you raise some points that would be interesting topics of discussion around the coffee table. What I see, though, is yet another well meaning attempt to pin a strict definition to something that cannot be strictly defined. Wikipedia is full of these black and white definitions and all they do is give rise to endless circular debates and edit wars. The British Empire is what reliable sources say it is, or was. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am saying that there was no strict definition of the Empire, indeed no definition at all. But it's clear that it was not a unitary empire like the Roman Empire, and that needs to be stated. Constant Pedant (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why it has to be mentioned, it pasts the duck test if it looks like an Empire it probably is. I dont think anybody had ever called the empire a state you also need to remember in English Common Law lots of stuff doesnt get written down but runs on precedence so they would never be any formal definitions or codes. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"it was not a unitary empire like the Roman Empire" What makes you think it was a unitary state? There were numerous Roman client rulers and subordinate states with their own legal systems, religions, and dynasties. There were "free cities" like Athens with partial autonomy and their own political systems. There were senatorial provinces where the governors were appointed by the Roman Senate, and imperial provinces where they were appointed by the emperors; (and they had various administrative and military differences because of their status). There were a varying number of foederati nations and military personnel, who were called on to assist the empire. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that is clear from the first sentence. It might be helpful though to have a section explaining how the empire functioned. MilborneOne is correct that this normally was determined by English common law. Essentially the empire was all the states that were under the jurisdiction of the the King or Queen of the UK. In practice the sovereign's powers were exercised by the UK government and parliament and colonial assemblies were given some powers. Outside the Empire were states that owed allegiance to the monarch as king or queen of states acquired through inheritance, such as Hanover, and dependent states, such as Afghanistan. The judicial committee of the Privy Council is not actually a court, but was established to advise the monarch on appeals made to her by her subjects, which was allowed by common law.

English statute law recognized the monarch as an emperor and Victoria was declared Empress of India, but there was no emperor of the British Empire.

TFD (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an article in itself. What you say may be true, but it varied over time so generalising would be inaccurate and I suspect it would be difficult to summarise in a section, let alone the introduction. And in any case, I think we should maintain principled resistance to the approach taken by some editors to try and pigeonhole everything under the sun. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The basic principles have not changed over time. They were identified in Calvin's Case 1608 and included in texts by Coke, Blackstone, Burge and Dicey . TFD (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not something I'm overly familiar with, but isn't that about subjects, not states? (And in any case this article covers a period before any such principles were agreed.) Not saying we shouldn't try to explain this somewhere, but I don't think it fits in the intro and we'd need to account for variations over time. Although proving a negative is difficult, I would think that at least some of the text proposed by User:Constant Pedant would be noted in sources. I'd have to reread his book, but I recall Ferguson musing over concepts like this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the previous empires were acquired through aggressive conquest of other states, the British Empire was unusual in that many of its territories were obtained through exploration and settlement, in many cases the colonists buying the land they wished to settle from the native occupants, or through inheriting other empire's territories via peace treaties after wars with the colonial rulers. In addition some parts were awarded British administration via the post-WWI League of Nations, e.g., the ex-Ottoman states in the Middle East. The British Empire also gradually introduced democracy as well as gradually increasing levels of independence to its colonies, which certainly no other Empire ever did, leading to the present-day Commonwealth of Nations. Hence the difficulty in defining the 'British Empire' as it depends on when and where you are considering.

The proper title for Victoria was "Queen-Empress" and for George V to George VI "King-Emperor" as they were Queen and King of the various states and dominions within the Empire, and Empress, or Emperor, of India, the latter due to the various Maharajahs of the Princely States who were the recognised rulers of these states.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually that was a shortened for of Empress of India, technically whilst Britain was not an Empire India was (its bizarre and silly but there we are).Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I should have written 'The proper short-form of the title'. Victoria and the subsequent Kings were usually referred-to as "the Queen-Empress" or "King-Emperor" when reported in newspapers etc.

There were actually good legal reason for this. The Maharajahs were recognised as legal rulers of already well-defined states, whereas no other ruler in the UK other than the crowned King or Queen had been recognised legally since possibly Cromwell. Generally local rules elsewhere were recognised when they had a reasonably modern (i.e., Medieval or later) well-defined state and at least some written history. Unfortunately this left out most of the tribal societies in places such as Africa, although some African Chiefs were recognised, usually when they remained peaceful, and did not start wars.

As regards the Empire, for much of the latter period of the Empire's existence Britain was a Parliamentary Democracy which meant that policies towards the empire varied over time, some governments favouring the-then status quo, others on the opposition side, favouring more self-government for the colonies. Hence nothing was set in stone as regards limiting the colonies and their future progress. Although there were a few in high places who thought some of the colonies 'would never be fit to govern themselves' this was not shared by everyone, and the more prevailing view was that the 'lesser developed people' should be responsibly led until they were ready to govern themselves, the usual criterion being when it was felt that they would be less likely to start wars amongst themselves, and others, as many had been doing previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

British Empire
15th century–1997
Top: Flag of the United Kingdom (before 1801) Bottom: Flag of the British Empire Royal coat of arms
All areas of the world that were ever part of the British Empire. Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red.
Status	Colonial empire
Capital	London
• Upper house	Hanover Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Windsor
History
• Established	15th century
• Handover of Hong Kong	1997
Area
1920	35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi)
Currency	Pound and various other currencies
ISO 3166 code	GB
Succeeded by British Overseas Territories Crown dependencies

How about this? Is that good or needs improvements? RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Well for a start there is no agreement on when the British empire began or started.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The monarchy is not the Upper house (and also you have left out a few royal houses).Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It was not just based in western Europe, it was global.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this infobox if you want to? I think everyone should be involved in the debate if this one should be included or not. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure much of the information is that exact, many colonies had parliaments (especially by 1920). It it just to vague to have the kind of certainty we need for an info box.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also the crown dependencies were never part of (or governed by) the British empire in any form, thus they co-exited with it, not succeed it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You can try to edit this though. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Or I can say it is too complex an issue for his to be useful, which is what I am saying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The League of Nations Mandate territories (Iraq, Palestine, Tanganyika etc) were not part of the British Empire. They were trust territories administered by Britain on behalf of the League. Also Hanover was not part of the British Empire. It was a sovereign state that happened to have the same monarch as the UK. One might just as well say that Britain was part of the Hanoverian Empire. I also think it's dubious to say that Kuwait, Oman and the Trucial States were part of the Empire. They were sovereign states in treaty alliance with the UK, although they were in practice protectorates. But then so were Afghanistan and Persia, yet they are not usually classed as part of the Empire. This of course underlines the difficulty in defining the Empire. There was legally very little difference between Persia, Kuwait, Hyderabad, Johore and Buganda, yet in practice they were very different, and the latter three are always classed as part of the Empire. And there was never a "flag of the British Empire." Constant Pedant (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been the subject of numerous debates. Check the talk page archives. The infobox deliberately only contains the flag and the map. Anything else is contentious, meaningless, or so broad that it is misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harvey Carter Editors on this page may wish to comment on this SPI filed today. WCM_email 12:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath The case was brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't know if you have read that section, in case you didn't, I will provide the link: British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath. This is so that you see that nothing is invented or unsourced, everything has been already written, it's all right there in the very article.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Now the user AlbionJack has just reverted a completely sourced edition of mine, I request the help of the users Snowded, Dmol and Hzh.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The user AlbionJack has just deleted a message that was left in his talk page by the user Hzh, who said that AlbionJack was censoring Wikipedia.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted back to before all this started. I take no position on the edit but you should comment on content not editors. WCM_email 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Diablo seems to have a personal vendetta, you will see that Hzh enjoys to patrol certain articles of a certain agenda, I removed content as I saw fit but upon reflection simply clarified it better on the article in question, Hzh is very quick to try and intimidate and his comment was simply incorrect and hence the removal from my talk page. Perhaps Diablo some critical thinking would help.

Also note that USSR was heavily involved in the pressure of Suez and their mere pressure was hugely influential in the American's decision to side with the UN. That should remain in the article as well as the mention of the Falklands. Thanks.

You will also be careful to break Wikipedias rules on stalking and brigading when going to other users pages in reference to myself. See WP:STALKAlbionJack (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to put sources in my text and I complied. I gave the sources (which wasn't hard at all, since they are already there in the article). That is the proof that I never invented anything, nor put opinionated textes. Everything I wrote has been written already by someone else. Are there really any reasons to continue deleting the mention of the Suez crisis in the intro?--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the article already explained what you were trying to cram in to the lede, it does not belong in the lede, you have literally just said that the sources were already in the article and yet are trying to cram them again into the lede, why? you admit yourself they are already there. Seems pretty conclusive.AlbionJack (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You know that in every article, the intro briefly mentions an issue, and then the body of the article explains in greater detail that issue, right? That is the case with the mention of the Suez crisis.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And in the body of the article it is well explained, hence why you were able to find your sources and exclaim "it was already there you just didn't look!" If you can do it, everyone can. It does not belong in the lede.AlbionJack (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your conclusion is ridiculous. By your premise, we should then delete everything in the intro because the rest of the article explains all of those topics in greater detail. And what's more: we would have to delete all the intros in all the articles, because "they don't belong in there".--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think you are understanding, the lede is fine how it is, it doesn't need the same exact information stated twice, all you are doing is cramming something in the lede that is already in the article and so well explained you have contradicted yourself multiple times. There is nothing to change and I am not sure this debate is even constructive.AlbionJack (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article doesn't need the same information twice then let's delete all the mentions in the intro about the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, the independence movements... because the body of the article already has "so well explained" (like you say) info about those topics. And why stop there, why not delete the whole intro? After all, Hzh is right in that you are a censor in Wikipedia and you want to delete relevant topics.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hzh is far from correct, I removed the word Muslim from one of his favourite articles due to no citation, and then opted to simply clarify if instead, not a censor at all you’ll find, not that this changed your lack of ability to critical think. The article has existed quite well even as a featured article without your needless addition, there is no need. But of course Diablo I don’t expect you to understand again what I said.AlbionJack (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the article has been a featured article for some time doesn't mean that it isn't subject to changes and additions. In fact, in this very page it says at the top "British Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Moreover, the fact that the Suez crisis was a crucial milestone in the decline of British power (and, on the other hand, in the rise of USA and USSR as the 2 sole superpowers in the post-WWII scenario) makes it relevant enough to have a mention in the intro along with the other historical milestones.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There already exists a significant portion of the decline of the Empire within the article, there is no need for it in the lede. The same standard apples to the Crimean war, a very large part of the empire's history and yet does not feature in the lede whatsoever, not even the word Russia or Crimean appears in the lede because it is unnecessary. The lede does not even mention Napoleon himself even though this victory directly led to the Imperial British century, because it has an entire section dedicated to it almost further in the article. If we are to do what you suggest and add everything again twice in the lede, then it defeats the very purpose of a short lede.AlbionJack (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The proposal would place undue emphasis on Suez relative to all the other ups and downs in the Empire's history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

All the factors you mentioned were a continuation of a trend where Britain was already the leading power. With Suez, instead, it became clear that Britain was no longer the leading power in the world scene and that it would have to take the back seat, with USA and USSR in charge of world affairs. Until Suez, it wasn't so clear that after WWII Britain had entered a steep decline, that's why it shocked the international community when it happened.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And until defeating Napoleon Britain was not the sole superpower in the world which led to the Imperial century, and yet this is not in the lede either. You are fighting a losing battle on this one.AlbionJack (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You have made a crucial mistake. You have said that the Napoleonic wars, though important to explain the British rise in the global scene, are never mentioned in the intro. In fact, they're indeed properly mentioned there, it says: "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century.[8] Unchallenged at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace")..." Besides, it would be a glaring omission if the intro indeed didn't mention such an important event.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I made no mistake, the mistake is in your reading comprehension, is English your first language? I said Napoleon himself is not mentioned anywhere in lede, the Napoleonic wars are mentioned by name but nothing of one of if not the greatest General Europe has ever seen. Such a momentous event should mention him by name no? by your logic he should be named stoically and explained why in the lede as well as repeating the exact same information within the article, and yet he is not. No mention of his personal defeat, the direct cause of the Imperial century, because there is no need. Just like there is no need for your addition, as others have also agreed with me. We are borderline beating a dead duck.AlbionJack (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Now you want to fix your mistakes by going into technicalities, but one should use common sense instead of getting lost in differences of forms that have the same meaning, and the truth is that the intro does say that Britain emerged as the leading power in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, or the defeat of Napoleon, which are one and the same. The fact is that Napoleon is referred tacitly by mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, after all the name of those wars refers to him and not Sun Tzu. So there's no need to mention the man himself after mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, it is redundant. Besides, is there any need to mention his deeds, or explain why he is important, in the intro of an article called "British Empire"? (how many of them would have to be mentioned, anyway?).--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL What? What mistakes? you are utterly impossible to have a rational conversation with, you say that the mention of the napoleonic wars even without the specific mention of Napoleon himself is completely sufficient and no need for more as "they have the same meaning", and yet... the lede states that "Britain was no longer the world's pre-eminent industrial or military power" and "the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead" so by your very own logic, there is no need to mention Suez specifically as it is featured later in the article and a mention of it "would be redundant". So your basically saying "rules for thee but not for me", your contradictions and glaring and have been non stop. Which frankly isn't worth my time debating.AlbionJack (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Those 2 phrases you mention refer to the context in the early 20th century when the first symptoms of the end of the British monopoly certainly started to be showing, yet Britain still wasn't completely phased out as a superpower. After Suez, though, the process was completed; it was exposed to the whole world that drastic changes in the balance of power had happened and that the USA and the USSR had become the only 2 superpowers.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know, it's a good job the rest of the article explains it in further detail then isn't it.AlbionJack (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I also noticed that you didn't know.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys think this bitching session is helpful, I notice you've ignored the outside comment from other editors. You either stop now and focus on content not each other, or I will be heading off to ANI and request your conduct is reviewed by admin. If you continue in the same vein I wouldn't be surprised if you were both topic banned. WCM_email 08:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Focusing on content is what I've been doing since the start.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

AlbionJack has been blocked as a sock. His edits may be removed for that. I would however suggest only a brief mention in the lede (and please don't overcite), and see if other editors object to that. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken into account your suggestions, now tell me what do you think about this:

"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's limitations to assert its dominance in the post-World War II scene, and that the United States and the Soviet Union had taken the leading roles in global affairs as the sole two superpowers.^[1][2][3]"

As you can see, it is brief and I reduced the citations.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Where is this intended to go? The lede should summarise the article and usually doesn't require citations at all. WCM_email 16:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well you say that intros usually don't require citations, yet they are almost mandatory (almost all articles in Wikipedia have citations in their intros). In fact I counted and this article has 20 citations in its intro.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADCITE for Wikipedia MOS - in short, cites in lede are generally unnecessary for uncontroversial topic, and the need for cites can be determined on a case-by-case basis for more complex cases (which I suspect British Empire is one). The four cites on the sentence on Hong Kong is excessive. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An article called "British Empire" is bound to be controversial and arise debates (like this), so it needs to have citations.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

IN the body of the article yes, but not the lede. This conversation is going nowhere - I see no support to change things at the moment and I suggest we close this off. And Diablo - please learn to indent conversations -----Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well when I first put my additions the first objection you had was that it was unsourced, now that you have the references you are saying that they aren't necessary?--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You made too many unsourced changes - please check before you make assertions. Otherwise my point stands there is no consensus here to change the lede. Time to close the conversation (and you are still not intending your comments) -----Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven said "It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK." on 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC); and Hzh said "I would however suggest only a brief mention in the lede (and please don't overcite)". That means there's support for my additions.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Brief, I.E. about a line.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's decline in the post-World War II scene with USA and USSR now as the only two superpowers."

Is it ok?--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks OK to me too. Hzh (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No. I still don't think you have consensus. I count three editors opposed and three for, not counting the sock. That said, if we're going down that route the wording above isn't right either. It was the crisis which exposed the issue. And the language about 'super powers' is not supported by the sources cited in the article (which should be reviewed), so we should not employ it in the introduction either. A less debatable formulation would be something like: "The Suez Crisis confirmed Britain's decline as a global power." (assuming you're proposing to place this between the sentences on India and Hong Kong). Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Wiki-Ed, in terms of WP:WEIGHT it seems to be attributing more importance to this event that say WW2 or Indian independence. The phrase superpower is a modern one and one never applied to the British Empire. If you want a smaller sentence per Wiki-Ed I may agree but the longer sentence above I find problematic for the reasons stated. WCM_email 17:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The use of "superpower" (reffering to Britain) is correct and as a term it isn't modern at all, it has been used for nearly 80 years. The article Superpower says: "The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. (...) A year later, in 1944, William T. R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book «The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace» (...) According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union". And about WP:WEIGHT, there's plenty of historians and authors that attribute great importance to the Suez crisis, with plenty of references to support it as you can see in the article, otherwhise the part in the Suez crisis section that says "The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage and its end as a superpower[200][201][202], demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.[203][204][205]" would have been eliminated long ago.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

80 years is modern, historically. As I said above, two of the three sources supporting the sentence on Suez that you've quoted do not link the British Empire with the term super power, so it is misleading to imply otherwise. Moreover, you're implying this is a consensus view among historians when clearly it is not. To support your case you've selectively quoted from another article focusing on the beliefs of authors writing during the Second World War - which were quickly proven to be outdated. While some later authors may have tried retrospectively to shoe horn countries into their concept of 'super power', it is clear from the definitions they've used that the British Empire does not fit. For example, it was never self-sufficient and always had at least some dependence on international intercourse/trade, even at its height, nor was it was able to compel all nations in every other part of the world to undertake actions they would not otherwise undertake. This has been debated before ad nauseam (see archive 16). You may wish to take note of the results of the RfC there. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

80 years is not modern at all, plenty of things have happened, entire borders changed, some countries ceased to exist, others have been born. And your definitions of what a superpower is or isn't are original research, while everything I affirm is supported by references.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per Wiki-Ed and WCM - this is an unnecessary storm in a tea cup -----Snowded ^TALK 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to debate you can refrain from doing it, Snowded. You have been repeatedly making comments that show your lack of interest in having a debate. We are following the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolutions. Let those who are indeed interested in having a debate continue doing it.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you comment on content not editors. [1] We have had numerous discussions on the use of Superpower to describe the British Empire. Consensus has always been not to use it, it is not a consensus view among historians to retrospectively apply it. @Nick-D: would you mind taking a look at the contributions of this editor, I'm detecting the signature of another editor you might recognise. WCM_email 08:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Still original research, not a single source by an author, historian or political analyst has been given. PS: I am I, stop confusing me with other people.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cobblers, this has been gone over repeatedly and people are tired of it. DR does not require editors to abandon common sense and have to go over the same ground again and again every time someone with a bee in their bonnet brings it up again. I've pointed you at the previous discussion, I suggest you look at it. To be clear I oppose the addition of your proposed sentence to the lede. People have suggested a compromise of a shorter sentence, if this isn't acceptable to you either then we stick with the current consensus view of the article. WCM_email 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are tired and say this is repetitive then why are you in this debate? This debate should be for the ones interested in discussing the topic. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution says: "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus (...) Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. (...) Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute."--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's not urgent then you'll find time to read through the talk page archives and understand why your argument is flawed. And just to reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the argument you're making is one that we've heard before. The source (singular - it is actually just one and a few repeat references) that you're using has been shown to be unreliable, so don't start talking about verifiability or original research. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for the sources for your original research.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No one is interesting and I'm starting to think you're a sock as well-----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

When things don't go your way you toss aside Wikipedia's principles of dialogue, consensus and good faith, and use force to eliminate dissent, right? I never tried to silence you, even if you gave lots of flawed and contradicting arguments (the unsourced-overcited contradiction one of the most glaring examples of bureaucracy gone mad), and by an illegal user (sock) nonetheless. That's because I believe in Wikipedia's policies and I've been contributing on the site for more than 10 years. Save your efforts, you won't find anything, because I'm not a sock, I'm a legit user.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There has already been an extensive dialogue on this topic and there is no contradiction about how that was resolved. Snowded and WCM are correctly arguing that we do not need to have it again. The onus is on you, as the proposer, to familiarise yourself with that discussion and come up with a new/different argument. You have failed to do so. Also, telling other users that their argument is based on original research when your own argument ignores other core principles (neutrality/weighted and reliability of sources) is somewhat arrogant.

And as a supposedly experienced editor you really ought to have learnt how to indent your contributions to talk pages by now. Not doing so makes it difficult for others to contribute... so one might think that it is actually you who is deliberately trying to discourage discussion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments essentially say that the whole Superpower article is wrong, every single of their references is moot and potentially it should be eliminated from Wikipedia. Curiously, there's no objections on that article's talk page about the uses of superpower, something that validates my position. Anyway, let's say you want to delete that article because you think it misuses the definition of "superpower", you would need to back up those arguments with references that argue against it. You haven't presented even a single one of them. And even if you presented one, per WP:NPOV all the differents points of view and approaches towards a topic would be included. So, in any case the use of "superpower" to refer to Britain is always valid and will always be included in Wikipedia.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

When you have something new to say bring it here - and please learn to indent your comments. Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to indulge solitary editors who won't check on previous discussions and persist with the same arguments against other experienced editors without any back up or support -----Snowded ^TALK 07:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of backup and support I presented in my affirmations, where are yours? The fact is the pot calls the kettle black, you've failed to provide a single one reference. Why don't you object to the article "superpower"? The fact is the article stands to this day, so your objections don't have any grounds. If Wikipedia isn't a place for indulgence of solitary editors, why do you lurk in the shadows, waiting to boycott contributions of other users, twisting Wikipedia's policies in a contradictory way like I showed with the unsourced-overcited argument? Why do you object to additions with topic-relevant, brief and sourced content? The fact is that two or three persons with a bee in their bonnet can't disrupt Wikipedia's normal course of flowing ideas, knowledge and contributions.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

See my previous comment -----Snowded ^TALK 20:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, there's an ironic thing about this. A couple of comments ago you Snowded said "this is an unnecessary storm in a tea cup". Well, you're the ones that are making a storm out of a tea cup. If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth, it would have been another of the millions of ordinary edits in Wikipedia, and we would have skipped all this argument. You are the ones that made this more complicated and dragged the thing to the Talk section but, alas, once you are in the Talk section you don't endure the Talk procedural and groan with comments like "No one is interesting". Which makes me wonder why do you lurk zealously in this article anyway. If you can't stand a discussion whenever there's a content-dispute why are you here in the first place.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a curious but noticeable fact that you don't seem to get these sort of disputes on any other talk pages other than British-related ones.

... still, I suppose it's nice to know people care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I have two questions: 1. Have Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan been a British protectorate? 2. Was Egypt independent of the United Kingdom from 1922 to 1952? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Are the LoN mandates part of the British Empire? (e.g., Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq.) --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom ..." I hope that this quote answers your question. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

But were the mandates not directly administered by the League of Nations? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

What if they were? They were still ruled by the UK. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

And the Saar Basin and Danzig? Were they directly administered by the League of Nations? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"The League of Nations Mandate territories (Iraq, Palestine, Tanganyika etc) were not part of the British Empire. They were trust territories administered by Britain on behalf of the League." Constant Pedant --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to have the same discussion previously. The mandate territories were administered by the UK on behalf of the League of Nations, they were never considered sovereign territory in the same way that the colonies were. The purpose of the mandate was always to transition to self-government. However, a number of authors citing protectorates include them as part of the British Empire, others don't. Personally I wouldn't include them but others disagree (very strongly). WCM_email 13:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Very, very, very, very, very strongly! I agree with you. Thank you, but you did not talk about the Saar Basin and Danzig. --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

A place can be part of a country's empire without that country having sovereignty over it -- the New Territories, most of Poland in 1943. This leads neatly into the definition of sovereignty and into the terms of the leases granted, which were not all the same. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, but you did not talk about the Saar Basin and Danzig. --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Our article Free City of Danzig says "Unlike Mandatory territories, which were entrusted to member countries, the Free City of Danzig (like the Territory of the Saar Basin) remained directly under the authority of the League of Nations. Representatives of various countries took on the role of High Commissioner". DuncanHill (talk) 08:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Was the Kingdom of Egypt independent from the United Kingdom? In the list of sovereign states in English, it is listed as a sovereign state. Already in the Dutch version, it is listed as a vassal state of the United Kingdom. --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 21:40, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The Dutch version says that the kingdom was effectively controlled by the UK but legally it was independent. Vassal state is not a legal definition. TFD (talk) 04:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Depends when you mean, for a while it was part (officially) of the ottoman Empire, but under British protection. Then it was independent (but under British protection). Which meant it was under British control. I am sure out article makes this clear.Slatersteven (talk) 08:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

And one more thing: Both the English and the Dutch versions show Nepal as British protectorate from 1816 to 1923, Afghanistan from 1879 to 1919 and Bhutan from 1910 to 1947. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davi Gamer 2017 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

My edit today was, not surprisingly, reverted. As an entity with no direct authority, power, government, κτλ, the empire could only have held sway over 400,000 people in a far from well defined feeling of collective unity, something that was not there. It was Britain that held sway over its empire, not the empire over the people within the empire. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

[[2]] "holding sway over approximately 25% of the globe's population and landmass.", [[3]] "By 1922, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people,".Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Another reason for removing the term is its slightly archaic nature that conveys self importance. I cannot improve on Charles01 when he said in a recent edit summary on the main page: "held sway" is a phrase from several generations back that carries an awful lot of baggage. Whether you think the British empire was (1) a good thing or (2) a bad thing or (3) both, maybe we should be going for a less heavily burdened (and less old-fashioned) phrase in the intro for a serious encyclopaedic contribution on a complicated topic. Or...? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 12:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Last time I checked 2011 was not several generations ago.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

If we can point to reliable, contemporary sources using this phrase then it's fine to use it here (NB I'm not sure about your second source Slatersteven... maybe drop that one?). The ambiguity is helpful whereas the alternative proposed by Charles01 "included more than" would likely attract 'citation needed' / 'dubious' tags. Wiki-Ed (talk)

Using it as an example of its use. We have [[4]], But maybe ruled or controlled might be better if we think "held Sway" is too archaic (as that is what it means). But "contained" seems on odd way of putting it, and in no way is synonymous with "held sway".Slatersteven (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

My main point, which has been sidelined, is that the BE was not an entity capable of holding sway over anything. I note in the BBC reference 2 above that the first sentence confirms my very point by saying: The power and influence of the British Empire once held its grip on the four corners of the globe. 'Controlled' is not quite right (contolled the Burmese jungle tribes or the Antarctic glaciers??) but I agree that 'contained' doesn't flow easily off the tongue either. I am fairly even on these two words, but without an alternative I lean slightly towards 'contained'. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

That is why held sway is better [[5]], it means they had authority over, without meaning direct control.Slatersteven (talk) 09:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that this section was removed - it was too long - but a bit knee jerk. I think we should encourage the editor to rework the material. This is an important episode in the history of the British Empire, frequently overlooked even though the Caribbean was considerably more economically important than the 13 colonies (at that time). It also shows that the 'rise' phase was not consistent - there were major set backs along the way. So, I think there's scope for a single, well sourced paragraph of approximately the same length as the preceding paragraph about the Dutch and Asia (or maybe a bit longer, but not as long as Global Conflicts with France, which were somewhat more notable!). Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I've read a few academic articles and books about the British Empire and I'm surprised to see that there is no general link to any postcolonial discourse, not even under "see also". Racial ideas for justifying the Empire and motives/ideology have been studied for quite some time now... also generally, the article reads rather one-sided (c.f. the legacy section). But maybe that's just me? In that case, don't mind me and move on... --Doskey412 (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

For discourse: there's a separate article on historiography, which is linked under... 'see also'. The owner/author of that article would, I'm sure, be delighted to know that he's missed something. This article is supposed to be a factual account of what happened, not historical debate. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

The above line from the intro seems wrong in part. Industrially, perhaps the USA had bypassed Britain by 1919, but militarily Britain actually still WAS the worlds preeminent military power. Germany, Austro-Hungary and the Ottomans had been disarmed, Russia was in chaos, the USA still had a tiny military in early 1917, and demobbed their many conscripts immediately after WW1 and went back to a small military for the next 20 years, and Britain was stronger than France, Italy and Japan. It was actually the mid to late 1930's and the massive rearming of Nazi Germany, followed by the USSR and USA in the 40's that ended Britain's position as no 1 militarily. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Debatable. Britain also cut back its military forces after the war, demobilising 90% of its wartime army by 1920 and scrapping many of the battleships which had made the RN so powerful after 1922. I don't know how that stacks up against other countries which were undergoing similar changes. If you have a few sources which support your assertion then we could perhaps adjust the wording. However, the emphasis in the line you're looking at is on the word 'pre-eminent', drawing a distinction with the latter half of the nineteenth century when Britain certainly did have considerably better power projection than the next nearest empire (although the army was never as numerous as continental nations so I guess it also depends how one chooses to define 'power'). That position is not as clear after the First World War and it is important to mention that change, if only to emphasise that comparative power and size of territory (which was at its largest extent in that period) were (a) not necessarily connected and (b) temporary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

If RS say it so do we, but maybe attribute it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with wiki-Ed. Was that not also the thinking of the UK government when signing the 1923 Washington Treaty, thereby accepting a 5-5-3 (with the USA and Japan) divide in naval power, a massive concession from its pre-war position? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe he is, but these people do not agree [[6]] [[7]], now I do find it suspicious they both use the exact same wording. None the less the fact I can find books that use the exact same phrase means it must be an idea that is out there.Slatersteven (talk) 09:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

'Suspicious'?! Yes. Both of those sources were published recently, that is, after Wikipedia first used that form of wording (changed from 'peerless' to 'pre-eminent' on 18 July 2015). Anyway, I agree that the idea was 'out there' - WP didn't invent it and no-one has challenged the concept in the last twelve years ('peerless' first appeared in 2008). So... and as I said above, the onus is on the IP to find sources which support his assertion. Not sure that would necessarily mean we'd need to change the wording entirely (given the weight of sources probably leans in favour of the current formula), but it might require a caveat. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I do think that Britain and it's empire were, in a military sense at least, in a stronger position in 1919 than in 1914 in comparison to it's rivals. Yes it is true that they scaled back (demobbed) after the war, but so too did France and Italy. The USA never was a military power before 1917 and in reality was not so much a true power in 1917-18 either, industrially yes, militarily no. And of course Germany, Austro-Hungary and Ottoman Turkey were destroyed as empires and largely disarmed. Russia was divided and at war with itself, Japan was ambotious, but not seen as a realistic rival after WW1 and during the 1920's. I will look into finding some valid references to back up my points. I certainly agree that Britain had been surpassed by the USA industrially by 1919, but militarily, many of Britains rivals were no more, and others were not as strong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Roger 8 Roger Yes, you are correct that the 1923 Washington Treaty effectively created a parity between the Navies of the UK and USA, however this was only with regard to Capital Ships, Destroyers and other types were not included, and from the info I can find on Wiki, Britain had more of these than the USA and built more during the 20's and 30's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.53.110 (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

The included map omits Tangier which according to Wikipedia itself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Tangier had been controlled by England from from 1661 to 1684 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.214.182 (talk) 23:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Not sure why the author left it off. There may be a reason, but on the basis that he included other ports cities which weren't held for very long, Tangier should probably be included, that is, if someone knows how to edit the map. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:39, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

English Tangier is suitably covered in English overseas possessions, and this article does not need to duplicate all of that. Tangier was never British. Moonraker (talk) 03:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan was NEVER a colony of British empire. The map that have been recently changed (vandalized) should be restored to previous map. It seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:c8ec:0:3839:7ff5:aacd:40e0 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has messed with the version on Commons. Now reverted. Less drama please, I nearly ignored you because of it. WCM_email 23:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

WCM just to note the stable version is the 25 Jan 19 version. The one you reverted to had a few errors/ommissions. I try to keep an eye on this but sometimes the vandals sneak in between my 'patrols'. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

This article was promoted in 2009, when standards were a lot easier than they are today.

1c. well-researched

it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

This article omits mentioning entire sections of the literature regarding the racial ideology of the empire. For example:

• Here's what Ashley Jackson, "professor of imperial and military history in the Defence Studies Department at King's College London and a visiting fellow at Kellogg College, University of Oxford" had to say about the British Empire in The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction, had to say
  • "'Must the British Empire really be depicted', Andrew Roberts asks (quoting Priyamvada Gopal), 'as a tale of "slavery, plunder, war, corruption, exploitation, indentured labour, impoverishment, massacres, genocide, and forced resettlement", or could some objectivity be re-injected into the debate?' Well, frankly, yes it must. After listing such a catalogue of ills (though not denying them), this call for 'objectivity' is puzzling. What are we to do? Throw cricket and the English language into the balance to cancel out the genocide and slavery, and call it a draw? Surely its appropriate to avoid endorsing past actions that we would utterly disapprove of today: we would not longer consider it acceptable to take over someone else's land or kill them — so why endorse what stemmed directly from such actions in the past?"
• And Tom Lawson, a History Professor at Northumbria University had to say
  • 'Britain is a post-genocidal state' source

• Let me quote The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire
  • 'Were the British more 'racist' than other Europeans? While all Europeans believed in a hierarchy of 'races', the British had an especially marked sense of racial hierarchy which was matched by rigid policies'

• And how do journalists describe the British Empire? Afua Hirsch wrote this opinion in the article "Black Britons Know Why Meghan Markle Wants Out" in the New York Times. source
  • "The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it..."

Of course, there are books on the British Empire that don't go into much detail about genocide or racism. However, the article neglects to mention that many sources do. --Quality posts here (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Three years have passed by. Over 1100 days. 26,000 hours. 1,576,800 minutes. Could you not have used that time more effectively to come up with a better argument? As before, you are cherry picking quotations from a small number of sources that aren't necessarily reliable. This isn't an opinion piece or a review of yesterday's event using today's values. Try again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Which of the sources are unreliable? If history professors from at least (I only did a quick search, not a full survey) three UK universitities use this language about the British Empire, shouldn't their view be at least mentioned? This is proof that this view of the British Empire is at least a significant minority among scholars. WP:UNDUE says "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)". And "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I've just named some prominent adherents.

Regarding journalistic sources, let's analyze some:

1. The Times has several articles from positive to negative about the British Empire. The most notable is the one about 60 UK history academics writing a letter condemning an academic who said "don't feel guilty about out colonial history". Clearly, there is an ongoing academic debate about the British Empire that this article doesn't mention.
2. The Guardian has overwhelmingly negative coverage of the British Empire, using language like "When will Britain face up to its crimes against humanity?" This article shows that the debate is not just academic, but also political.
3. The Telegraph has more mixed coverage. It mentions Corbyn saying "children will be taught about evils of British Empire ". Another article asks "Was the British Empire ‘morally mixed’?" More evidence of an political and academic debate.

The article now is not comprehensive, despite its length. It omits many aspects of the narrative. It doesn't cover academic debates that exist on the subject (including the History wars). There is no discussion about the British Empire from an ideological viewpoint and the academic debate about its crimes. There is no discussion of its political impact today.

The trouble is, I don't have time to write significant article text - only to point out where I think it misses the FA criteria. I would like to begin the FAR process to help improve or delist the article in the near future. However, I have not started it yet.

Last time I think you said you see this dispute eventually ending up at ArbCom. I am not so sure. Only one involved editor (HarveyCarter) has been disruptive. I know we are all emotionally invested in this topic, but I think we will be able to have a very civil discussion. Like you, I have strong opinions because I want to help improve the article - either by pointing out which criteria it misses and suggesting improvements in an FAR process, or if no-one is interested in making major changes, to delist it as an incentive for someone to work on it in the future.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Quoting a few people is not proof that a significant minority of scholars hold that view. You need to set that against many thousands of people who have written about the British Empire. And you also need to make a better argument that they are 'prominent' adherents rather than just another professor with an edgy opinion on something. Moreover, this article is a factual account of what happened; the points you want to include are people's opinions on what happened. If this belongs anywhere it belongs in the article on the Historiography of the British Empire. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think both of you are missing the point. NPOV means that the article must not be pro- or anti-British Empire. Belief that British Empire is guilty of genocide is a minority view among recent historians, same as presenting it as a benevolent entity with only minor flaws. However, I think that the article does need a brief section on historical debates and legacy (the current "legacy" section actually deals with aftermath) in order to be comprehensive. buidhe 20:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to see how that can work in action. "Some historians have argued that the British empire was a major force for good, whilst others content that its history of racism and allegation of genocide make it one of the most evil empires that have ever existed"? Or should we have it the other way around?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Buide's interpretation of NPOV seems to miss the point. User:QPH wants to insert material representing a minority point of view. It doesn't matter whether that POV is pro or anti because this article isn't about historians' opinions. There is a separate article for that. In compiling material, articles should 'fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources'. The article does that already. It does not need a separate section introducing value judgements for everyone to argue over "in order to be comprehensive". There might, however, be a case for renaming the 'legacy' section to 'aftermath', the former being a positive thing whereas the content of the section is actually neutral, listing positive and negative impacts. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct if I'm wrong, but another issue seems to be the sourcing layout. Surely the "further reading" section should not include sources that are cited throughout? I thought MOS dictated that there should be a "sources" section and then a "further reading" section, but right now the two seemed to be mixed together. Aza24 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, having just checked up on the different criteria for another article. The difference relates to the purpose of a cited source within the article. Put simply, source as a statement reference versus source for wider non-specific subject information. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@Nick-D: Possible return of a sock puppet of HarveyCarter? WCM_email 12:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You did this before.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And you weren't cleared, you disappeared. The only thing the SPI check did was confirm you weren't Alfie Gandon. @Nick-D: WCM_email 09:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that's true? Bbb23 is an experienced checkuser who has blocked many HarveyCarter socks. Your post was in the HarveyCarter SPI page. I doubt he just compared my IPs to Alfie Gandon's. Surely he would have also compared both of our IPs to known HarveyCarter IPs? That's what I thought he was implying when he said the two accounts are not related.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Joserchm: You are edit warring on the main page and making no attempt to communicate, please stop and keep the status quo until the dispute is resolved. @Wiki-Ed: please use this section to communicate your concerns. — Czello 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is, of course, for User:Joserchm to explain why they have deleted material[8], added POV commentary[9] and generally messed around with the layout and links of the article. (NB You're also close the 3RR limit yourself dealing with the above editor - but I guess you know that!) Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Researching this to answer a casual question from my kids, I was startled to read that some considered the independence of Hong Kong to mark the end of the Empire. As a Briton born in the early 1960s (and a stamp collector!) I always considered the Empire as a matter of past history that had long been replaced by the Commonwealth. There is no exact point of cessation, but the two key events are the independence of India in 1947, at which point the monarch relinquished the title of Emperor, and the establishment of the modern Commonwealth in 1949. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was The title of Emperor of India, which is why it was given up (in 1948) when we no longer ruled it. As an entity the "British empire" is harder to define. But plenty of RS use the loss of HK as the end point.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the empire was not a legal entity and had no emperor or constitution, there can be no agreement about when it ended. TFD (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just saw this. I generally agree. The conventional divisions of the empire in its heyday were: a) UK of GB&I b) the self-governing dominions (Canada, Australia, etc), c) the crown colonies (Ceylon, Trinidad, etc) and d) India. India was neither self-governing (although concessions were made) nor a crown colony. It was an empire in the sense of a loosely-knit political union consisting of areas over which the British had sovereignty (i.e. which they administered) and those whose suzerains they were (which they indirectly controlled with a wary eye). Generally, it lasted (in my head) from the early 1800s when the British led by Wellesley managed to annex north-central India (and signed treaties of subsidiary alliances with princely states) and 1947 when the subcontinent became decolonized. Its heyday (in my head) lasted from 1876 when Victoria was crowned Empress of India by Disraeli (somewhat cynically so, it was characterized by Gladstone) and the late 1930s when the Indian National Congress won all-around victories in the provincial elections, and the tide turned among the British public against holding on to India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You can view some of that history in the rupee coins from 1787 to 1947 I have uploaded on WP and scrolling to the right. You can also view them, with less verisimilitude, but more cadence in the changing regnal titles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated British Empire for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Quality posts here (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. As you may see, there is no mention to the deaths - directly or indirectly - caused by the British Empire in the article. I want to add this to the article in a new section, but I need help. Can anyone help me? I need good sources. Thank you. Aryzad (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If you read the article they are mentioned not sure we need to make any more emphasis due to WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of Wikipedia's articles about this. [1]. Definitely a new section is needed. Aryzad (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between no mention and not being mentioned with more emphasis. You stated by asking for them to be mentioned, wd do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right, there are some little mentions to some of these, but a new section is still needed. Aryzad (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's job, after all. Aryzad (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it? I didn't know of any such policy. Maybe you can proivide a link?-----Snowded ^TALK 22:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedias job is to provide information, we do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Snowded, it's an encyclopedia. I don't think any link is needed; Slatersteven, that's why I asked for "good sources". Look here: Nazi_Germany#Racial_policy_and_eugenics, same thing is needed for this article too. Aryzad (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Why, how are they similar?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad:, some good sources:^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]} -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Would be best to get academic sources ...no need for news crap on a topic of this nature that has many academic publications.--13:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And there is the problem straight away 12 million, 29 million Indians 35 million Indians due to famines. So no it is not the same a systematic extermination (for example). Ohh (and again) we do mention deaths, even famines.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Presumably for balance we should also have similar entries for every other state entitry throughout the ages, e.g., how many people did the Ottoman Empire 'kill', the Moghul Empire, the Roman Empire, etc.

BTW, the Indian subcontinent is prone to occasional famines, and they have had famines before, and since, the arrival, and departure, of the British. And the 1943 famine happened in the middle of a world war when alternative sources of rice were unavailable due to the Japanese occupations of Malaya and Burma. In addition, most of the shipping that would have been used to transport rice if it had been available elsewhere, was already allocated to military purposes. Mountbatten once informed of the seriousness of the famine in fact allocated 10% of this shipping to helping relieve that famine. As for the accusers, I suspect you will find they are the same sort of people who try and blame the British for the millions of deaths that occurred after the Partition of India, when in most cases, it was they themselves who wanted partition in the first place.

As for the 'biological warfare' accusations alleged by our friends in the antipodes, I should perhaps point out that until the work of Louis Pasteur and Edward Jenner no-one had any idea what Smallpox was, how it was spread, or how to prevent it, and no-one in their right mind was going to mess around near a known smallpox outbreak, much less try and spread it to indigenous populations. Smallpox was greatly feared and most people were frightened of getting it. Such warfare only became possible once a cure or prevention became available, otherwise one risked it affecting one's own population and even then is not something a sane man would even consider.

... and I should point out that if one is in a foreign country and the locals, or a proportion of the locals, suddenly turn around and start attempting to kill you, you are not going to just stand there and do nothing. In many of these countries there was little or no such thing as a modern day 'rule of law', and no such thing as a police force to protect you. In some cases, alleged 'British massacres' were the result of a preceding massacre of British nationals, sometimes including women and children, who were often mutilated before being horribly killed. This is what the Mau Mau were notorious for, BTW. Most of these victims were unarmed farmers and their families.

If any such accusations of a deliberate official policy towards 'native peoples' are true then documents relating to any such orders, communications, etc., would likely still be extant, as both the British Government, and British Army, have document archives that stretch back hundreds of years. Presumably if such callousness as alleged existed towards these peoples then there would be no need felt to destroy any documents that showed the UK in such a poor light. Thus any such accuser would need to examine any such documents in order to see if such orders were issued, or if such a policy/policies were true. Until then, any such accusations are best seen as no more than gossip and an attempt at black propaganda.

... one more thing. British still gives out generous foreign aid to various countries around the world, and the biggest recipient as of 2019 is ... India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It does honestly strike me as odd that there's no mention of the British Empire's human rights violations within the opening section. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There were also deaths prevented by British rule. Seadowns (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Aryzad: if you're still around. Look at the comments above; its a mish mash of uninformed opinions, kernels of truth, invective and misinformation. There is a good level of bureaucratic gatekeeping prevalent in Wikipedia [see denial of infobox requests]. Also, there is a {{WikiProject Colonialism}} maybe you could get something going with them?

Its exhausting you are working against a generation of active propaganda and suppression of the blatant truth. Barbara Tuchman said it best:

... Whatever the fiasco, aplomb is unbroken. Mistakes, failures, stupidities and other causes of disaster mysteriously vanish. Disasters are recorded with care and pride and become transmuted into things of beauty. Official histories record every move in monumental and infinite detail but the details serve to obscure.

Under British rule absolutely the closest to the minimum was done to provide food so from 1765–1947 60 million people died. British administrators were very concerned with the cost. After 1857 the British perfected the fiction of Indian Government, the Rupee was a currency after all, Indians were in the civil service and provincial governments. But exports from India were paid for in Pounds Sterling in London not in India. The British gained from these unpaid exports for 150 years. During WWI secret Home Charges of up to £100 million were charged and paid for by India that's £10.3 billion in 2020. Linlithgow committed India to WWII with no prior consultation with Indian politicians. He then went on to obstruct and oversee the death of 3 million people when food exports continued during a famine. Wavell came in and instituted food aid in an organized way.

Study what the British did to the Scots, Welsh, Irish, Americans (payment for French-Indian wars, press-gangs, Transportation and Navigation Acts) and you will see that the Indian case is all of those but much much worse because it lasted for 200 years. And they perfected their colonial practices over time. Good luck!

Germsteel (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The "Scots, Welsh, Irish" were legally British subjects and were entitled to/subjected to the same privileges/obligations, as were any other inhabitants of the UK or her dominions, the same applying to the immigrant citizens of the US until the revolution of 1776, indeed, the 'native' inhabitants of the 'Thirteen colonies' did not receive citizenship of their own United States until as late as 1923, a time when Indian subjects from the sub-continent had already been entitled to full British citizenship from 1876. Incidently, any person born in any of the Dominions, territories, etc, had the same citizenship as any English man or woman. BTW, "press-gangs, Transportation" were applied to any British citizens including mostly the English. And black people who came to Britain in the 1950s-1960's weren't made to 'sit at the back of the bus' by law either, unlike in some countries.

"Linlithgow committed India to WWII with no prior consultation with Indian politicians." - indeed, until India had had a general election for an Indian Government then Linlithgow was the only person who had the authority to do so. BTW, over 2,000,000 loyal Indians volunteered to join the Indian Army which if the British had been so unpopular one suspects would not have happened. The Princely states were under no legal obligation to declare war as Britain had done, but did so anyway.

Anyone making such outlandish and stupid allegations should at least make some effort to find out what life was generally like in the preceding centuries, as well as what was considered 'normal' at the time.

... BTW, Mahatma Gandhi went to university, the University of London. Guess who paid for him to go there. British men and women did. The also paid for Jawaharlal Nehru to go to Cambridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.42 (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why we capitalise 'Empire'? I notice this practice extends to other empires on WP as well. I recently read a section of Gibbon who referered to the 'Roman empire', which to me seems more correct. My guess is that this is a habit that has crept in over time for no particular reason other than trying to magnify the importance and grandeur of any given empire. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

a) Because that's what the sources do... b) ...because it's a proper noun. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a name, and we capitalise names in written English. We don't write "The United States of America" as "The united states of America" even though they are united states. We don't write "The Republic of Texas" as "The republic of Texas" even though it was a republic. And we don't write "The British Empire" as "The British empire" even though it was an empire. It's just how we write names (or proper nouns to use the technical term). No other reason. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

As noted above; it's a proper noun. The likely reason for Gibbon's erroneous capitalisation is that his book was written in the 18th century, before the rules of English usage were established.--Ykraps (talk) 16:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. A collective proper noun, or adjective preceding a noun? Can someone show me where and how the British empire is/was afunctional independent entity? Where's the constitution? Legislation? etc. I have also noted in infoboxes the desciption of the British Empire as a belligerant, when what is meant is Britain, with the empire forces joining in in a hotch-potch way (because each part of the empire was legally different). The comparison with the United States of America is incorrect because that obvious is a name. If RSS's capitalise Empire then so be it, but they should be a high quality and properly interpreted, and not the usual low grade stuff that often gets used. I am sorry, but all I see is mild attempts at jingoism. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that anyone would question the capitalisation. I haven't seen any attempts at jingoism, mild or otherwise, in this thread so far. That said, Britannica (an American publication) (see https ://www.britannica.com/search?query=British+Empire, which Wikipedia won't let me link to directly) routinely uses "British Empire"]. Like the UK the Empire did not have a single "constitution", nor (also like the UK) did it have a single legislature or set of laws, though the Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 did set certain rules for colonial laws. I think the best thing would be for you to have a good read of the articles in and its subcats, in conjunction with this article. DuncanHill (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I google scholar searched "British empire". Over the first three pages I got roughly 50-50 on capitalising 'empire' The lower case sources all seemed pretty contemporary. If we follow the current reasoning then all empires, anywhere and whenever, should be fully capitalised. It's jingoism because it is making a conscious effort to stress, unnecessarily, the importance of the empire. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well I would capitalise Roman Empire, French Empire (both of them), German Empire, etc, and you would be hard put to accuse me of being a Roman, French, or German jingo. Are you trying to get those articles renamed too, or is your objection solely to the British Empire? DuncanHill (talk) 10:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Not to mention, but I will, the Russian Empire, Swedish Empire, and the Ottoman Empire, plenty more at Category:Former empires in Europe. DuncanHill (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of those are constitutionally different, hence capitalisation would be appropriate because 'empire' forms part of the name of a formal entity. I think 'Das Deutsches Reich' would be an example. It did after all have an emperor, as did Rome. Where was the British empire's emperor? Oh yes, India. Not quite the whole empire though? I still wait to be convinced. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

So far this article seems to concentrate a lot on the linear history of the British Empire, while many articles on other empires (see Roman Empire and Ottoman Empire) have sections dealing with other topics (like a wikipedia article on a country) Would adding further sections be a good idea? Krs1208 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

In theory that would be nice, but in practice there are two problems:

For the first I think you've answered your own question to some extent (where you say "like a wikipedia article on a country"). For some examples - especially ancient cases - the 'empire' and 'civilisation' and 'country' might all be one and the same. In that case it's certainly possible to summarise government, law or culture in a few paragraphs. It's much more difficult to do that when an empire (particularly modern cases like the French, Spanish, Dutch, Portugese) spreads across a large area of the globe and evolves considerably - both at the core and in it territories - throughout its lifetime (approx ~500 years in this case). For each territory of the British Empire - including the UK itself - the government, law, culture, demographics (etc) constantly changed: generalising would be inaccurate; and being specific would require a whole article-worth of text... and we have articles on the history of each country to cover that.

The second issue relates to the Manual of Style and page length. Covering thematic aspects requires a lot of text. The recommended max page length is 10,000 words. The British Empire article is over 11,000 words already. The Roman Empire article is over 26,000 words. The guidance states that long articles should be split and spun off so arguably it is the Roman Empire that needs significant editing, not the British Empire article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I would say probably not, it would be difficult, almost impossible to do so at a summary level and for it to have any meaning.

For starters, take Government, there was not a homogenous means of governing the British Empire. The Spanish Empire for example has a rigid social structure and was centrally controlled. The British Empire was not and things changed over time. For example Canada started out as a series of colonies, that gradually transitioned to a self-governing Commonwealth. India started out as a series of nation states, each came under control of the British East India Company, was gradually amalgamated into a single entity and after the Indian mutiny came under direct a Viceroy and was managed via the Indian Civil Service. Others were protectorates and then there is the League of Nation mandates, which it is debatable whether they were part of the British Empire. Each colony was almost unique and was governed in a different manner. How are you supposed to summarise that.

Next law. Again every element of the British Empire had it's own laws and judiciary. About the only example I can think off, where the UK itself imposed law on it's Empire was the abolition of the slave trade.

Culture and demographics, the British Empire was so unbelievably diverse I can't even begin to comprehend how you would cover such a broad topic.

If you look at books on the British Empire, they don't try and tackle these, rather where it is tackled it is a specific topic that is capture eg Economics of the Raj.

And that's before we even tackle the fact that the article is oversized. WCM_email 17:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

An IP, user:94.54.255.43 has been making unexplained changes to the infobox that appear to contradict previous consensus. I began reverting but cross-edits occured resulting in a messy situation, hence opening this talk page section. Someone might want to sort out what has happened? IP, please talk here and stop your edits. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

As we discussed before, the British Empire was not a political unit, with beginning and ending dates, an emperor, capital, flag and anthem, but the term used to refer to the territories of the British sovereign. TFD (talk) 22:35, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

TFD has it right. Rjensen (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I've put a "citation needed" tag after this statement: in the "Patriation movement" section: "Although no longer able to pass any laws that would apply as Australian Commonwealth law,..." The reason for this is that the British Parliament did have that power after the passage of the Statute of Westminster 1931 and its adoption by Australia in the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Section 4 of the Statute of Westminster provided that the British Parliament could legislate for a "dominion", provided the dominion requested and consented to the British legislation. The notes to the official publication of the Statute of Westminster Act 1942 indicate that the Australian Parliament twice requested that the British Parliament legislate for Australia, which the British Parliament did in acts passed in 1955 and 1958. As well, section 12 of the Australia Act, repealed s. 4 and other sections of the Statute of Westminster, "insofar as they are part of the law of the Commonwealth..." All of that suggests that the British Parliament still could legislate for Australia at the Commonwealth level, unless I'm missing something? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Aren't you contradicting yourself? The UK did have the power to legislate for Australia. Whether or not that legislation was at the request of Australia is not relevant because that power did exist. In certion of 'unilaterally' or similar, might be all that is needed to clarify? Roger 8 Roger (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, where do you think I'm contradicting myself? I didn't write the statement that Britain could no longer legislate for Australia at the Commonwealth level; that was in the original version. My concern is that I don't think it's accurate, but I don't know a lot about Australian law, so I've explained what I think the problem is. Before changing it, I think it would be good to have feedback from someone with an Australian background. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this section should be shortened. We need only note that in the 1980s, the UK relinquished its power to legislate for Canada, Australia and New Zealand. This could be added after the text "Britain could no longer pass laws for them without their consent" in the Intra-war period section. I know it's out of sequence, but it's too much weight for what is really a footnote. The three countries were effectively independent with the close of WW1. TFD (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It was quite a bit more complicated than that, with the Balfour Declaration, the Statute of Westminster, constitutional amendments passed by Westminster for Canada in the thirties, forties, fifties and sixties, and uncertainty whether the British Parliament actually would pass the Canada Act 1982. It was the final closure of British constitutional links to the three countries, which is just as much part of the tailend of the Empire as the other countries. I don't think that's a mere footnote. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Serjeant Buzfuz, do you have access to the sources used in that section? Your edit and subsequent tweaks have pulled the text and the sources they used to be supported by apart. Further, do you have any sources which discuss a "Patriation movement" as a collective as is done in this new format? CMD (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by pulling the citations apart. I did not move the citations from the sentences they followed in the previous version. The Gerin-Lajoie reference and the Brown cite to p.594 are still at the end of the same two sentences as in the previous version, dealing solely with Canada, while the Brown cite to p. 689 still concludes the sentence dealing with New Zealand. Can you elaborate on how you think I changed their positions?

I don't have access to Brown, due to covid-restrictions on libraries, but I do have Gérin-Lajoie's full text on my desk, from which the cited article is drawn. As for a source dealing with a patriation movement, I think one of the best ones is a text by Peter Oliver, The Constitution of Independence, which is a scholarly review of the processes and debates which occurred in the three countries in the 1980s. Again, can't give a citation, because of covid-restrictions on libraries, but will see if I can get a copy somehow.

I'm not wedded to the heading "Patriation movement"; if you have a better sub-heading, please feel free to put it up. My point was that all three countries cut their last legal links to Britain within the space of 5 years (1982-1987). Given their constitutional development, that was quite different from the references to decolonisation where the passage was originally located, with the examples of Brunei and Hong Kong. I think the account of these three countries should be in a separate sub-section, but it is relevant to this article.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Sources do not cite single sentences, but blocks of text. At the moment there's now an entirely unsourced paragraph where there wasn't before. As for the section they were in, it is "End of Empire", and it sounds like these do represent an end of empire. This article is currently having prose issues at FAR, so generating new short paragraphs and subsections does not feel at improvement. CMD (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, in fact it is as simple as that. The Balfour Declaration only confirmed the existing reality and it was codified by the Statute of Westminster and the Adoption Acts. Note the wording: "we refer to the group of selfgoverning communities composed of Great Britain and the Dominions. Their position and mutual relation may be readily defined. They are autonomous Communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown, and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations." When was the last time Westminster legislated for the dominions over their objections? TFD (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

This edit request to British Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Antarctica Area as a seprarate one [ around 8.100.000 square km[ RussianSoul385 (talk) 12:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to make a change on the British Empire wikipedia page, as i personally believe the wording is inaccurate.

The current beginning of the British Empire page states "The British Empire was composed of". was implies that the empire doesnt exist anymore, which it does with the British Overseas Territories and the Crown Dependencies. i suggest to change it from "is an empire comprising of the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories. It was formerly composed of".

I believe this would be more accurate than what is currently up on that page, as the wording is incorrect (in my opinion)

Thanks for reading, Bullhuss5 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia where our job is to insert relevant detail that comes from reliable secondary sources. We do not insert our own personal opinion unless that opinion is backed by RSSs. Your change was your merely opinion and it was reverted, ie challenged. Your next step is to take it to this talk page, which you have now done, and argue your point. However, simply saying the British Empire still exists because I think it exists will get you nowhere! Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

that is a valid point, but i'd like to show a contradiction in the British Empires and the British Overseas Territories wikipedia pages. In the British Empire page, it uses past tense by saying that the empire "WAS comprised of" which implies it has ended, but it has not exactly ended. the "end of the empire" was a claimed statement by some people once Britain lost control of Hong Kong. However, the British Overseas Territories claims that the BOTs are "remnants of the british empire", making these two pages contradictory. hence, why i thought to edit the British Empire. Bullhuss5 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

"Remnants" indicates the body something is a remnant of no longer exists. CMD (talk) 05:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

it was used as an adjective which in that context means remaining. Bullhuss5 (talk) 03:39, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

In "Remnants of the British Empire" 'Remnants' is a noun. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. Bullhuss5 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)