Talk:British Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

British Empire has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

British Empire has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

British Empire is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale.

Talk:British Empire/archive 1

I've finally revamped this article. The structure is much improved (but still bad, indicative of its terrible state before); I hope that everyone finds it more readable too. 172

Contents 1 NOT 23,000,000 sq. km. 2 Confusion 3 The Map 4 Empire vs Imperialism 5 The Map Again 6 "Review" 7 What are we, chopped liver?! :) 8 The Map Yet Again 9 Size of empire? 10 The Map One More Time 11 Americas 12 Superiority of the British Empire 13 Pre 1600 bits 14 System of Government 15 FAC? 16 Superpower 17 Accuracy of the Maps 18 Expansion on former British territories 19 "First" global power ? 20 40% of the world's habitable land 21 Little Knowledge is dangerous 22 Delirious chauvinism 23 Why the British Empire IS A Superpower 24 Axis occupied territories 25 Empire Size 26 Superpowers 27 Australia not declaring war and the Statute of Westminster 28 Why no mention of white supremacy as an official policy 29 British Empire Map 30 Recent edits by anon IP 31 Global Empire 32 India? 33 Late Victorian Holocausts? 34 Deal with India? 35 Personal Unions: Kingdom of England 36 Sepoy Mutiny 37 Zenith 1919 or 1921? 38 Ireland - let us in, ye hoors! 39 a third to a quarter 40 37 million sq km 41 Defeats dealt by Spanish navy? 42 Map showing France as an English "possession" and axis territories as British 43 outside our purview 44 Reorganisation 45 Rockall 46 Rockall & Phoenix Islands Scheme - Request For Comment 47 Hong Kong 48 I've been bold 49 Source supporting the claim that the Falklands War reversed a downward trend in Britain's status as a world power 50 Defence of Australia 51 Pro-Mongol/Anti-British POV 52 Ireland 53 New Empire? 54 Map Changed 55 The end of the British Empire? 56 The US "joining" in a "scramble for territory" 57 Albion 58 British enforced the Monroe Doctrine? 59 US forced end of empire...what?! 60 The British Pacific - section needed 61 "The Empire Today" - explanation for removal 62 Size is a disputed thing 63 Terrorist Source? 64 Etymology removed 65 First and second empires? 66 The Map (3) 67 Rights in the Empire 68 Request 69 Articles for Deletion 70 The British empire is overrated 71 Ireland was "England's first overseas colony" 72 POV, neutrality disputed 73 Unity of India Prior to the Empire

[edit] NOT 23,000,000 sq. km.

When converting from miles to kilometres, you have to use a formula for square miles to square kilometres, which is different than just miles to kilometres. Whoever doesn't know this, and keeps changing the size from 37 million square km to 23 milliom sq. km., please stop. -- (said someone who didn't sign)

Let's make this explicit

1 sq mile = 2.59 sq km

Maximum Imperial Area = 14,157,000 sq miles

Therefore Maximum Imperial Area = 14,157,000 * 2.59 sq km = 36,667,000 sq km

The area of the empire is either 8,880,000 sq mi/23,000,000 sq km or it is 14,157,000 sq mi/36,667,000 sq km, depending on the date that you pick, but it cannot be 8,880,000 sq mi/37,000,000 sq km unless you are using a different definition of sq mi/sq km from the rest of us. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

I think that some of the early material confuses English with British e.g. William the Conqueror had British allies who helped him defeat their traditional ennemies the English. These Britons had been living in Brittany (= Little Britain}. The political evolution of the English monarchy includes when it was part of the Angevin Empire which included parts of modern France, but not Scotland. This needs more work to tease out the distinctions. Harry Potter

William also had English allies, the most noticable of whom was Tostig, the estranged brother of King Harold, who viewed the Normans as helpful to his desire to revenge Harold.

[edit] The Map

I like the map. Thanks for adding it. Unfortunately I have a couple of minor quibbles over it.

Firstly the caption. It says "Territory controlled by the British Empire at its height" (which was during the 1930s)

Actually, no, though this is misleading. The greatest formal extent was in the 1940s after peripheral areas like Sarawak and the Danish possessions in India were taken over. Certainly, this was merely a formal preliminary and tidying up exercise before the retreat from empire, but just like the way a eunuch's bones grow more than those of an entire man - and for similar reasons - the greates extent of the British Empire as measured on the map was after its ringbarking by the new world order: in the 1940s. PML.

but the map seems to show "every territory under Imperial control at any time". The Empire didn't control the eastern seaboard of North America when it was at its height for instance, although the map seems to show that it does.

Secondly, I'm not sure about some of the territories. Can you confirm at what time Libya was part of the empire ? I always thought that it was under Italian control until the Second World War and under UN control until regaining independence.

However I repeat that the map is a good idea. Perhaps we need more than one, in order to show the evolution of the Empire through the years -- Derek Ross

I agree. This map was just the biggest one I could find. Does anyone have a better one? user:J.J.

This map is in error: Cyprus and Sri Lanka are shown as white instead of red. I think the borders of British control over Papua New Guinea may've been slightly different from what is portrayed too Crusadeonilliteracy

Also, it shows the whole of Somalia as red when only what is now Somaliland was British. And the southern Thai peninsula was never controlled by the British. I think it should show the British Empire at its height, and not every single territory ever controlled by the English/British, otherwise we should include much of France, and Hanover as well. Let's also try to get an image that shows the Falklands and Antarctica. Did the maps of the British Empire actually show it in red, or pink? Andrew Yong 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

History of the British Empire

Reddish pink. Hence the term "the pink bits" Crusadeonilliteracy

[edit] Empire vs Imperialism

We're dealing with separate, but related phenomena. We're going to have to define the complex relationship. I have to go now, so I don't have time to defend my changes, but I will later today. 172 16:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article is about an Empire, not about the philosophy or (disputed) economic motors of imperialism. I'm tired of having obsolete material from other articles pasted in 5KB chunks where it has no place (this article is already 33K, and has the makings of a very good 30K), and where the task of rewriting them is only multiplied needlessly (how many articles does the same content need to be in?). The article links to the existing New Imperialism and related articles. Readers seeking such insights can go there. Graculus 17:42, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Tired or not, we're going to have to link imperialism and empire if we're going to illuminate what factors contributed to the expansion of the empire. The two sections that you're removing, which at least aren't copied verbatim from New Imperialism, are an imperfect start. We're working on a very contentious subject, and we're going to have to deal with many assessments that are disputed and subject to multiple interpretations. We both fully understand the controversy surrounding the content that you keep removing, but it can be integrated into the article in a neutral manner, after a little rewriting, without slanting the article toward a particular interpretation. 172 19:27, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It is linked, so why repeat it here? This isn't a POV issue, it's a simple matter of empirical fact: give me a single piece of evidence (not second-hand surmise) that the material you want inserted is in any way relevant to this article and I'll back you to the hilt. Graculus 20:03, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'll rewrite it accordingly, as you're requesting. But I won't be able to get to it until twelve hours from now. BTW, if you chose to remove it again, keep in mind that there were other changes aside from reinserting the disputed two sections. 172 20:21, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've already rewritten it, thanks, and I requested nothing of the sort. I see no worthwhile revisions and have reverted accordingly, which is something I do not like to do. We've collaborated fruitfully in turning New Imperialism into a fit article, 172, and as I've said elsewhere I don't want us to fall out over this. My above challenge stands: one piece of actual evidence - is that too much to ask? Don't make this out to be an ideological disagreement, because there isn't one: I'd hoped you'd have worked that out by now, and I'd rather we were working together where there was real business to attend to. Graculus 21:47, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You can't avoid a certain amount of redundancy, because the link in running text doesn't necessarily explain its own significance. You need to set at least enough context so that readers can know whether they need to read New Imperialism or can just say "yeah sure, economic engine of empire, I heard of it" and continue on. But the trick is to set it up for a broad range of readers without digressing into excruciating detail. Not a matter of evidence or proof, it's just a matter of good expository style. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of self-published textbooks, we should also go for succinctness above all else, and then list all the books that readers should go to for the completely in-depth story (a list missing from this article btw, hint hint) Stan 22:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Repeating the same text in every empire-related article isn't doing anything for a broad range of readers except turning them off. It's covered elsewhere. This article is full. And I'm not a bibliography service. Graculus 00:49, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to rewrite the two sections, with the evidence that you're requesting, when I have time, so that there isn't excessive overlap with New Imperialism. Right now, I'll leave the disputed content out of the article. 172 08:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I didn't say "repeat the same text", I said "set context". As someone who has so many strong opinions about how encyclopedia articles should be written, I'm surprised to see that you seem unwilling to Wikipedia:Cite your sources; that's just basic scholarship. The lack of references seriously impairs the credibility of this and the related articles. How do I know you're not just making all this stuff up? Stan 13:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. And please remember one and ten: "keep it short". Good material will have to come out of this article as it is, which is a shame. Graculus 09:19, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

---

May I have some more time for the write of those two sections? My activity on Wiki is going to have to be reduced over the next week due to other obligations. So it might take a day or two. 172

[edit] The Map Again

That map: Why is the Upper Midwest of the United States in red? When were Minnesota and the Dakotas ever part of the British Empire? And why isn't Sri Lanka red? RickK 03:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Excellent work on the map....but it still needs work: the following nations got their independence from the British: Afghanistan, Bahrain, Belize, Cyprus, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Jamaica, Jordan, Kuwait, Malawi, Qatar, Swaziland, United Arab Emirates, Yemen.

Also, Bermuda and the Falkland Islands are still under British control. Kingturtle 04:12, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

US upper Midwest was claimed in the late 18th/early 19th centuries, although it wasn't exactly closely governed at the time. A single map to represent over three centuries of change is kind of misleading; it would be better to have several, for instance at 1763, 1815, and 1900. Stan 17:24, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] "Review"

The whole page needs to be more descriptive and less historic. I have moved the History section to the duplicate History of the British Empire page, and reduced the history content on this page to a summary. It is still a bit patchy, and needs to be recomposed as a summary.

Andrew Yong 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] What are we, chopped liver?! :)

Am I crazy or do British colonization of the Americas and 13 colonies deserve a mention? I mean, like, Virginia, was a British colony at one point, right?

Am I not getting some nuance of "At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territory..."?

Let us back in the Empire! :) jengod 00:58, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

I just came in here to post the same thing. One problem is that "At its height" is sort of an ambigious phrase. Does it mean at its height of power (presumably sometime in the late 19th century/early 20th), or is it just a way of saying "All the countries that have ever been part of the British Empire are..." I think it should be the latter, and I think the USA needs to be included on the list! In fact, if there are no objections here, I'm going to add the USA. Moncrief 05:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You could add specific colonies to the article under "First British Empire". "At its height" is clearly meant to mean at the height of its power, during what the article calls the 2nd British Empire. I gather an illustration once made this clearer. A "List of areas once under dominion of the British Crown" would be a different list. But the U.S.A. wouldn't be on either list, as it was not formed until after the colonies involved were no longer "in" the British Empire. -- Nunh-huh 05:34, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ah, good point. I still think it would be useful, though, to have a list of all areas that were ever part of the British Empire at any time, not just at the Empire's "height." Moncrief 05:49, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but a map of it is far more impressive. I wonder why it

was removed? - Nunh-huh 06:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agree. What shall we call it. List of British territories, colonies and possessions? jengod 06:09, Feb 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The Map Yet Again

I see that the map's been removed. That's a pity. -- Derek Ross 06:01, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If we find one, of course, the Empire has to be shown in pink, right? RickK 06:02, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yup, that's The Rules(tm)

James F. (talk) 11:25, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the second link http://www.btinternet.com/~britishempire/empire/empire.htm does not work.

• Thanks for the heads up. I removed it. Kingturtle 02:15, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Size of empire?

In the entry you stated the Mongol Empire was the largest empire ever. This is correct to some extent, it was the largest ever in the lifespan of one ruler and possibly in terms of population. The website below has figures on the sizes of the worlds empires:

http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

The British Empire is widely considered as the largest empire in terms of land as maps and the figures from the site above prove. If you mean in terms of population the Mongol empire was the largest empire I think this should need clarify on the pages.

Cheers -Andrew

In terms of population is questionable. If it means total numbers present day China with over a billion takes it. If it means as a proportion of world population then that would still need proving. The British Empire was 1/4 of the world's population. If you include the Americas I doubt if Gengiz Khan did better. In area & widespreadedness it certainly is. Neil Craig 10/11/4

• The mongol empire was the largest contiguous empire ever. Super Saiyan Plough 09:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article, under the picture of John Cabot in Newfoundland, says that "Newfoundland was England's first overseas colony". Well, I was just down at Sandymount strand this evening and I can confirm without hesitation that there is an awful lot of sea between Ireland and England and, for that matter, Britain. As the great old song says 'The sea oh the sea long may it reign between England and me; it's a sure guarantee that some day we'll be free- oh thank God we're surrounded by water!" ;-)

[edit] The Map One More Time

A new map has been uploaded, but I'm afraid I have some problems with it. Firstly it is a .jpg. It should be a .png. Secondly it's too small. A larger map would be handier (thumbnailed for this page). Thirdly it's not clear what date this map is for. It shows Iraq as part of the British Empire so I presume it is sometime between 1919 and 1941, however the geo-political boundaries look modern. Fourthly the image page has no information about its source or copyright status. Lastly - IT'S GREEN. Everyone knows the the British Empire should be shown in pink. Mintguy (T) 20:45, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't include Nova Scotia or New Brunswick either. -- Derek Ross | Talk

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/pinkbits1897.htm is rather nice, if not exactly at its height; perhaps we could use it? (I imagine it's PD, given that it's from 1897...)

James F. (talk)

I'm creating a map right now. It might not work, or I might get bored with it though. Mintguy (T)

1897 - Excellent! That'll do nicely. -- Derek Ross | Talk

I got bored with it. Mintguy (T)

Does anyone know the cartographer / volume this map is drawn from?

should there be a map that shows every where the british had control at one point, incoulding America?

[edit] Americas

Rather than a list under ""At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territories" would it not be more useful to list all of the territories that were at one time in their history (with dates etc..) part of the British Empire? Thus including the North American colonies etc.. Mintguy (T)

That's not a bad idea, Mintguy. It might well get around the current problem (unless the user concerned can't accept that the rebel colonists won the war of independence). -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:55, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Denying The Truth?

There seems to be a ruthless individual who deletes any attempt at setting the record straight over the 13 colonies in North America, his deletions never show up in the deletion log, talk about looking through rose-coloured glasses.

TwoBells {T}

That's just the way it goes. Some people are more interested in jingoism than accuracy. We just have to keep on fixing it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:05, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)

Whether the edit war is sensible or not and which side's position is better is not an issue I want to go into, but it strikes me that the problem lies in the first bit of the 'Extent' section which starts 'At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territories -' without giving a year for 'its height'. This leaves two options - (1) inserting a date; (2) listing all territories which were once under British control. Clearly, if we go for option (2), the thirteen colonies would need to be listed (along with a lot of other territories like Menorca, Heligoland and the Ionian Islands); if we go for option (1) we have the argument as to what date we pick, but after that we can go for a factual answer (and any sensible choice of date would be after the thirteen colonies were lost). Who supports which option? Jongarrettuk 21:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Option 2 is basically what Mintguy suggested above. It's a good idea. It would be more work than option 1 but it would also be more informative. It makes sense to do option 1 short-term and option 2 long-term. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:45, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

[edit] Superiority of the British Empire

A recent anonymous editor removed the following text claiming it to be subjective (ie POV in Wikipedia jargon).

"Some argue that those countries which were colonised by Britain were spared the incompetence and brutality of some other European empires, such as the Dutch, French, Belgian and Portuguese empires"

This seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what the statement is saying. Of course it is objectively verifiable, since it says that there are people who believe the superiority claim to be true and this can be checked by looking for the names of these people. It does not say that the superiority belief itself is true (and was almost certainly worded this way to avoid saying so). However I don't think that the statement should be returned to the article unless we replace "some people" by some named references. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:53, 2004 Oct 1 (UTC)

That sounds very sensible. Furthermore I would suggest that the "some people" replacement would carry much more weight if it was a historian or politician from one of the former colonies. However, it may well be that there are no examples of such a quotation; if this is the case then the assertion may well be just a popular misconception in this country, and should probably not be made at all. Mintguy (T) 21:51, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about Lord Alfred Milner, Commissioner for South Africa, 1897 - 1905, a self-declared "English race patriot"? He espoused those types of views... Dafyddyoung 11:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That would be a bit like getting a McDonalds spokesman to say that hamburgers are good for you. Not too surprising and not too credible as a result. We would need someone a little less closely tied to the system -- no, make that a lot less closely tied to the system before the statement could be used in the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)

I come to this not as a historian but as someone who studied imperialism/decolonisation in politics. I think we should remember that we are not trying to justify the statement: our job is not to give the statement 'weight', but to present it to the reader as a viewpoint that is or could be held by some people (I for one hold this view at least as far as Africa is concerned), and ideally give him enough objective information to decide whether or not to accept it. The argument is basically based on two premises: 1. for e.g. most Africans in the late 19th/early 20th century the alternative to being colonised by Britain was not having an independent nation state, but being colonised by another European power; and 2. the British in Africa were not as brutal/incompetent as say the Belgians in Congo or the Portuguese in Angola. I definitely came across both statements when I was studying politics, and they might be easier to obtain examples separately. The counterargument that should be included to provide balance would be that of course this is only mitigation, and it does not excuse the British for what brutality or incompetence they caused or allowed to happen in the areas that they controlled. Alternatively, in an ideal (some might say fantasy) world the British would have established free states under their protection. I think as long as we make the arguments judiciously I can't think of anyone objecting. Andrew Yong 20:42, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, Andrew. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:50, 2005 Feb 4 (UTC)

[edit] Pre 1600 bits

I have some problems with anything pre-James I/VI in this article. Discussion of an English empire would surely be better elsewhere, that could include the Angle and Saxon settlement of Britain or Henry II's invasion of Ireland. The article does not explain how this background material is relevant to what resulted in the British Empire. I cannot see how the sort of economic and political manoeuvring described in section 1 had any bearing on the eventual form of the British empire unless it can be demonstrated that these acts were any different from those undertaken elsewhere in Europe at the time. Lumping a thousand years of history into one page smacks of an effort to exploit that supposedly convenient breakoff date of 1066, yet English society changed immensely between William I and Elizabeth I.

And another thing (!) How do a few shrewd royal marriages between the continental and English monarchies in the middle ages constitute 'English colonialism' anyway?. adamsan 22:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree - apart from the fact that it wasn't Britain before then (or even prior to 1707 when Scotland & England became 1 state rather than 2 with 1 head) the mercantile empire under discussion is different in kind from the dynastic Angevan Empire & its offshoots. Neil Craig

I think it's fairer to say that the Empire started in the reign of Elizabeth I (with the founding of Roanoke and the East India Company, and the coining of the term itself by John Dee). The French holdings of earlier English monarchs only need to be mentioned in order to make it clear that they are not considered to be part of the British Empire. Similarly the consolidation of England, Wales and Scotland is a necessary part of the context, but not part of the Empire. Naturally, the history of Ireland ruins this convenient distinction. The gradual English conquest would be relevant, but unfortunately I can't find an account of it anywhere in Wikipedia. --Townmouse 09:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about splitting the article, into English Empire (pre-Union), Scottish Empire (pre-Union) and maybe one more for all of those nations temporarily joined to England or Scotland due to a shrewd marriage? --LupusCanis 14:21, 3 Dec 2005 (GMT)

[edit] System of Government

I'm not sure if this would necessarily be appropriate in terms of content, but I find that there is a strong need to discuss the progression of governance, or at least to an extent, the system of government used by the British Empire during its history. I feel that in reading through the article there is a lack of context or direction in terms of the actions of the Empire on a whole. -- User:216.211.52.93

There is a particular idiot, and a very bigoted one at that, who needs to do a little more thinking and work, if that is at all possible for one of his intellectual prowesses [sarcastically] which [rolling eyes now] are insurmountably imprudent and impudent. He, or it may even be a she, regardless of the sex, needs to fathom [sighing] the fact that the British empire, while not a contiguous continental empire, was indeed the world's largest empire at 14 million sq. miles [36 million sq. kilometres], this is common knowledge available from just about anywhere. The Mongol Empire, far smaller and much more volatile, was at a mere 11 million square miles [30 million sq. kilometres], this too, is common information. You may receive this sort of information from all over the internet, encyclopedias [kingfisher, dorling kindersley, britannica, etc.], books, almanacs, and the like. Perhaps, before that person reverses the British Empire and Mongol Empire pages back to the stupidity of his bigotry, he might consider his idiocy and actually do some RESEARCH. [oh! The idea!] If time will allow me to continue, which it does not, visual confirmation or comparison I should say of the two empires will reveal [to that idiot's utter consternation I am sure] that the true champion is the British Empire. Thank you for your time and patience. Vale!

If anyone is in doubt, you may visit an un-biased website, i.e.

http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

Actually, after the mongol empire's size had been adjusted to show that is was smaller that that of the British Empire, there was a notise posted that if "that person changed it again, it would be considererd vandalism and he would be blocked from revising it again." Obviously, the person who manages the Mongol Empire page on wikipedia is aggresive, stupid, and in control of the wikipedia page, perhaps maybe an administrator. God knows and god cares, just fix the article to make it accurate: the British Empire is larger, sorry, Mongol sympathisers, just accept the fact.

Well there isn't supposed to be anybody managing any Wikipedia page, Mongol or otherwise, but I take your point. Checking this, I note that 1861 the census reported that its size was 8,500,000 sq miles; in 1891 10,500,000 sq miles according to http://century.guardian.co.uk/1899-1909/Story/0,6051,126377,00.html; in 1900 Australian schools were teaching that the Empire was 12,000,000 sq miles and about 400,000,000 subjects (over a fifth of the world's population) according to http://www.cpa.org.au/garchve03/1149catch.html. Since the Empire increased in size over the next 20 years, 13,500,000 sq miles looks plausible for 1921. The current 11,000,000 miles seems to refer to its extent in 1891; Indeed this Isolationist writing in 1940 believed that the empire was 13,300,000 sq miles at that time. I take it that the 14.1 million figure refers to the extent just after WWII. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:31, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAC?

Wow - just stumbled upon this (as a result of the comment to the nomination of Mongol empire on WP:COTW - this looks almost WP:FAC-ready to me, although some explicit reference would be good. Comments? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Quite a lot of refences, I would think, for an article this long and expansive.

James F. (talk) 12:41, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Superpower

I am very uncomfortable with this anachronistic dubbing of the British Empire as a superpower. In its heyday it was just one of the great powers and was certainly not head and shoulders above countries such as France. It competed on equal terms with many other countries in the scramble for Africa, had to play the Great Game and couldn't wrap up the first world war against a country in its first few decades of life. The term superpower was specifically coined to describe the emergence of the United States and the Soviet Union from this old world order and to emphasise the shift that he occurred. Surely it's a mistake to project it backwards? --Mr impossible 11:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think that perhaps it would be better to describe it as the world's first global power?! Jooler 22:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Brilliant and duly done. --Mr impossible 14:58, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Still, the Wikipedia article insists on referring to Britain in the 19th century as "the world's sole developed superpower", which in my opinion is a wrong concept. Britain has never been the dominant power in Europe, neither in political nor in military terms. Instead, the continent was characterized by a multipolar equilibrium where Britain and France were probably the two powers with the greatest global reach (as a result of their large colonial empires and cultural importance), but several regional empires like Austria-Hungary, Russia, and later Germany were also major players. On the other hand, as it has been already pointed out, ideas such as the notion of a country being a "superpower" or "developed" (as opposed to "underdeveloped") are post-WWII concepts that do not apply to the 19th-century world.

Britain was number 1 at more or less all times, France occasionally looked threatening but Britain in the 19th century was as powerful as America today in comparison to other nations if not moreso. Anyway, the article says sole developed super power- meaning the only nation that is developed and is a super power. There were other powers (though not in the league of Britain) i.e. France, Russia, etc... and other develoepd nations i.e. Belgium though none with both. Developed and underdeveloped apply to the 19th century, they meant different things to today though they apply to which nations were industrialised and which not. --Josquius 20:28, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, the nomenclature of 'super-power' applies perfectly to the expansive British Empire, it's from this that all modern civility that we currently endure arose, with smaller contributions from others a long the way. During the total disorganisation before the rise of the powerful empires of the last age, Britain and it's Empire would most definately be a super power. The term was not coined for the US/USSR debarcle at all, and the expensiveness of the British empire overshadows both the US and USSR combined. Jachin 1 July 2005 04:54(UTC)

Another reason you could include the British empire as a 'super-power' was its massive economic clout. As the first truly industrialized nation, Great Britain had an enormous advantage from the mid-to-late nineteenth century in terms of production. As an example, in 1870, Great Britain alone produced 112 million tonnes of coal, vs. 40 million by the United States, the next greatest. When you consider that coal drove the Industrial Revolution, this is a pretty good glimpse of the extent of the economic clout of Great Britain.

[edit] Accuracy of the Maps

Hello, I have noticed a glaring error on the map that shows the extent of the British Empire in 1921, as well as the map showing all the territories ruled from 1770 to 1948. The error in these 2 maps is that one of the countries that was never a part of the British Empire -- Nepal -- has been colored red in both maps! While Nepal was involved in a war with Britain that it lost, it was not a part of the British Empire at any time. For the geographically challenged, Nepal is the nation to the north and center of India. I hope this mistake will be recognized and fixed soon!172.144.221.36 03:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They had a special agreement which effectivly made them a protectorate and so part of the empire. --Josquius 19:25, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

A definite error is the inclusion of the entire Philippine archipelago on the map showing all territories ruled from 1770 to 1948. The only time the British controlled any Filipino territory was in 1762 when the British East India Company occuppied Manila. But it made little or no attempt to expand beyond the city. The Spaniards still controlled the rest of the archipelago from another city (Capiz, if I'm not mistaken). See History_of_the_Philippines for details. I hope this will be fixed soon. [[User:Boreanesia|Boreanesia] 00:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion on former British territories

Is there a list of all British overseas territories ever existed or this is it? I would like to see this expanded to include status of each that shows the evolution from colonies to independent countries, not just any the extent of the Empire at a given point of history. I wouldn't mind doing it or should I start a new article just for it? This list will be quite bulky. I propose to name it "Former and Current British Territories Overseas" such that it would not be confuse with the proper terminology of British Overseas Territories. This list will include territories of all status, colonies, possessions, dependencies etc. --Kvasir 13:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "First" global power ?

I have a great doubt regarding the claim that "The British Empire was the world's first global power", since already in the 16th century there were at least 2 world powers, Spain and Portugal, both of them ruled over possesions in all continents.

In fact Spain and Portugal come under the same rule from 1580 to 1640 so their common sovereigns ruled "an empire were the sun never sets" long before the British. (This statement was in fact invented by the Spanish)

This empire comprised in rough terms (the same you use to descrive the British Empire) Spain, Portugal, Naples, Sicily, the Netherlands(briefly) The all of South America including Brasil and Paraguai (Portuguese) Central America and most of the caribean islands What is now Mexico, Florida, California, Texas and several other US territories Most of the western coast of Africa Posesions in North Africa and in the estern coast of Africa the Philippine Islands Many Possesions in India Several other possesions in the Indian area -- anon - (81.193.176.222)

We all know about that though their actual control over these areas was limited and compared to Britain at its height their military strength was very much lacking. Britain was a super power during the age of globalisation so is a global power whilst the Spaniards and Portugese were just European powers. --Josquius 10:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

In his book, Imperial Spain 1469-1716, John Huxtable Elliott (british historian btw) refers to spain as the "first global power". Therefore I think the part claiming the british empire as the first should be removed or reworded so as to say some claim it was the first global power. I would add personally that Spain exerted much control over most of it's colonies. For example, Britain would try several times to seize the spanish main (war of jenkins' ear, napoleonic wars) but failed miserably always. European powers had some success taking caribbean colonies but spain would keep the most profitable ones (cuba, hispaniola, and puerto rico). Also spain had a huge cultural impact on the latin american colonies as well. In fact, they have much more in common with spain than any of britain's former non-caucasian colonies. (Bill)

---

We all know that these remarks represent a point of view and not a fact. Ignorance about the history, extent and military strenght of the Portuguse, Spanish, Mongol or whatever Empires should not be an excuse for a biased article. Wikipedia policy is that all articles should be written from a neutral point of view: without bias representing all views fairly. According to Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable". -- 217.22.55.50 ---

Indeed, keeping this article NPOV with all the anti-British bashing through subterfuge is very difficult. Jachin 1 July 2005 05:02 (UTC)

In his book, Imperial Spain 1469-1716, John Huxtable Elliott (british historian btw) refers to spain as the "first global power". Therefore I think the part claiming the british empire as the first should be removed or reworded so as to say some claim it was the first global power. I would add personally that Spain exerted much control over most of it's colonies. For example, Britain would try several times to seize the spanish main (war of jenkins' ear, napoleonic wars) but failed miserably always. European powers had some success taking caribbean colonies but spain would keep the most profitable ones (cuba, hispaniola, and puerto rico). Also spain had a huge cultural impact on the latin american colonies as well. In fact, they have much more in common with spain than any of britain's former non-caucasian colonies. (Bill)

"first global power" explicitly indicates a power exerted around the world to some effective degree. It is not about so called "overwhelming force" or "hyperpower". A "global empire" implies such a power. How could a global empire be established and maintained without the capacity to exert power, to some degree globally? Therefore Portugal & Spain take precedence - (but who cares about such a label when the term "global empire" already implies some level of "global power"!) However, the 19th century Brit empire WAS the biggest empire in history, and certainly - despite American protestations - a genuine (and the leading) SUPERPOWER, by the criteria stated in the superpower article ( but not a hyperpower - see British invasions of the river Plate, Concert of Europe, Afghan Wars, "great game" in Central Asia, Crimean War, the European balance of power politics and alliances, esp in later 19th century). This is a little harder to discern in earlier global powers - though they did exhibit some of the tendencies of a superpower in parts of the world (nascent superpowers?) (I wonder how a tercio would have performed against, say, Ming dynasty soldiers? I remember reading an account of a clash between defending Portuguese soldiers and a large body of attacking Japanese pirates that were the terror of the Chinese coast - bit of a disaster for the attackers) Robert 25-12-05

[edit] 40% of the world's habitable land

Most of the British empire was not habitable land (Australian desert, most of Canada, Desert of Rajahstan, Kalahari Desert, Antarctic Peninsula, Arabian Desert, etc.), so saying that the British Empire covered 40% of the world's habitable land makes no sense at all. If you want to give a credible figure, you would have to calculate exactly how much of the British Empire was habitable, and then you would have to find out how much of the world exactly is habitable land (in 1921, which is a different number than in 2005), then you would have to divide the former by the latter. I don't think anyone can obtain these data, so in the meantime I am deleting this absurd and inflated 40% claim. Hardouin 12:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on some of your points but not all. When you state that Canada is not habitable, or a place like Rajasthan in India is not habitable either, I think you have got the concept completely wrong. I don't know much of how you percieve the world, but I suggest that you re-study world geography and history.

[edit] Little Knowledge is dangerous

[edit] Delirious chauvinism

Actually, reading this article more in detail, I am realizing that a good part of it is just nationalistic inflated propaganda. It doesn't honor Wikipedia. A few examples:

• "The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enourmous part in the creation of modern technological civilization." -- This is totally subjective view that has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. We are not the frontpage of the The Sun here. Besides, I am sure there are many people in the world who beg to differ with this inflated claim.
• "The zenith of the empire was during the mid 19th century when as the world's sole developed nation Britain enjoyed unparalleled prosperity." -- This is totally WRONG. In the middle of the 19th century, both France and the UK were the two most developped nations in the world, having both entered the Industrial Revolution first. To say that the UK was the world's "sole" developped nation discredits a lot the intellectual level of this article.
• The section about the Middle Age and England's involvement in France has nothing to do with this article. Do people here really understand the notion of "colonial empire"? We can't talk of colonial empires before 1500. Besides, let us all remember that, ironically, in the Middle Ages it is England that should be considered the colony, since it was conquered by the rulers of Normandy, and settled by them, and they imposed their language, and their law, and their administration to England. Sounds pretty much like a colony. Anyway, the medieval part of this article is totally mixed up.
• In the section called "Extent", I have noticed a couple mistakes:
  • It is not Cameroon that was part of the British Empire, it is British Cameroon, which is only a small part of Cameroon. Most of Cameroon was part of the French colonial empire.
  • Bhutan was not part of the British Empire, it was not even a protectorate. It was merely a state in the British sphere of influence.
  • Same about Nepal.
  • In 1921 there was no more a British concession in Shanghai. It had disappeared 58 years before already!
  • Helgoland was not part of the British empire in 1921. It had already been ceded back to Germany.
  • On the other hand, I am surprised the nationalist people here forgot the New Hebrides (now called Vanuatu), which were part of the British Empire in 1921 (but were shared in condominium with France, and that should be specified). It was the only condominium in the world.
• The section "Post World War II Extent" is perhaps the most delirious of all. Here are a hotchpotch of territories, some of which were occupied for some years during the second world war, some of which were not occupied but briefly under British military command (Ethiopia), and some of which never ever saw any British troops (Reunion). The whole section doesn't make sense altogether, it is greatly misleading, and should be deleted. This has nothing to do with a colonial empire. Areas temporarily under military command during a war (with the British government never claiming them) have nothing to do with the British Empire. I mean, who can seriously consider that the British occupied part of Austria was part of the British Empire?!!
• In the section called "Territories Lost by British Empire before 1921" are also a few mistakes:
  • Medieval territories in France have nothing to do with the British Empire
  • Hanover was NEVER under British rule. It was under Hanoverian rule, and happened to have a ruler who at the same time was also the ruler of the United Kingdom. But the administrations were never merged.
  • Hawai and Florida are borderline. Hawai was never occupied. As for Florida, it was occupied only during wars.

Hardouin 13:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nationalism was one of the main forces that destroyed the empire by its expression in movements for independence. Imperialists fought against it from the late 19th century onwards, so it seems to me inappropriate to use the word here. Wherever you used the word you would have been better to use the word "chauvinism" since that is what you are actually talking about. However be that as it may, you make some reasonable points in amongst your colourful phrases. In particular, thank you for explaining why the 40% figure was not useful. Now that you have explained your reasoning I can happily agree with you. Chauvinism is a continuing problem with this article and can only be kept under control by continuous vigilance. Now that you have identified some of the problems, I hope that you will move to correct them. Just bear in mind that it is an ongoing process rather than a once and for all effort. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:59, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Hardouin - Some, but not all of what you say is true -
• In the middle of the 19th century, both France and the UK were the two most developped nations in the world, having both entered the Industrial Revolution first. - Well an element of confusion on both sides of this argument. The Industrial revolution in Britain began in the late 18th century. France was far behind, the French nobility did not encourage industrial development and it didn't really kick off until Napoleon was in charge, even then so much money was poured into wars that industrialization remained slow. A good guide to industiralization is the developemt of the railways. France only started to build railways in the 1840s and again progress was slow. See History of rail transport in France. By the late 1860s France remained predominantly an agricultural power. Industrially they were soon overtaken by the Germanic states, and it was as a direct consequence of this that they lost the Franco-Prussian War. Jooler 15:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• "The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enourmous part in the creation of modern technological civilization." - agreed hyperbole.
• The section about the Middle Age and England's involvement in France has nothing to do with this article. - It is about English possessions overseas. Colonies and overseas territory are not synonymous, but both can be viewed as Empire. The possessions of the Channel islands were part of the Empire and they are a legacy from this period.
• In 1921 there was no more a British concession in Shanghai. It had disappeared 58 years before already! - over entusiastic recent addition by someone.
• Helgoland was not part of the British empire in 1921. It had already been ceded back to Germany. - Correct.
• The section "Post World War II Extent" is perhaps the most delirious of all. ...who can seriously consider that the British occupied part of Austria was part of the British Empire?!! -Agreed, this is quite a recent addition, someone was obviously being over enthusiastic.
• Medieval territories in France have nothing to do with the British Empire Not in a truly literal sense of the Empire of Britain, yet a description of English overseas territories would be incomplete without mentioning it.
• Hanover was NEVER under British rule. It was under Hanoverian rule .. the administrations were never merged. - This is not relevant. The Empire, was an Empire of the Crown, not of the Government of Great Britain (later UK). Today the islands of Jersey and Guernsey and the Isle of Man are crown dependencies, what remains of the empire were once known as crown colonies.
• Hawai (sic) was never occupied - a gross simplification. Britain originally took possesion of Hawaii in 1794, though it was not officially recognised. Britain still maintained protection over the islands and ran an administration there. There was a good deal of British interest there. In 1843 the islands were ceded to Britain to forestall a French invasion. - see http://www.islander-magazine.com/british.html

In answer to the two previous comments. Well, I did not want to correct the article myself, because I know this is the kind of articles where you are reverted, over reverterd, and over over reverted. So better build some consensus before. Another thing is this: if the article is "a description of English overseas territories", then it should be renamed to make that clear. As far as I'm concerned, "British Empire" specifically refers to colonialism and colonies. There are still British overseas territories today, yet nobody think of them as "the British Empire". So either the article is about British colonial expansion and British colonies/protectorates, etc. since 1500, either the article is about England's overseas extensions since the year 1000, you choose, but you make clear what it is. Finally, again to say that Britain was the "sole" industrial power in the middle of the 19th century is simply not true. Any historian in most countries that I have heard talking about the Industrial Revolution recognizes that England was the first to enter the Industrial Revolution around 1770, followed a few decades later by France. By 1850 England and France were the two largest industrial powers in the world. Usually that's expressed in total amount of cast iron produced (in tons). England and France dwarfed any other country with respect to cast iron. Then historians usually agree that by 1880 unified Germany reached French and English production levels, while by 1890 the USA reached (and soon largely surpassed) French, English, and German levels. Hardouin 19:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The establishment of the British Empire came about through trade and conquest. Colonialism was a side-effect. I agree that the word sole shouldn't be used, but it is wrong to suggest that France was anywhere near as industrialised as Brtain. If you want to use Iron production as a scale of industrial development then fair enough. According to [1] British annual production of pig iron was up to 1,700,000 tons by 1840. According to [2], France's annual production of pig iron uptil 1870 never exceeded more than 320,000 metric tonnes. France wa sa net importer of iron. Britain was a net exporter. Next to Britain the biggest iron producer was probably Sweden. As I said France was still predominantly an agricultural nation. According to [3] In Great Britain, the proportion of the population living in urban areas was 25 percent in 1831, became more than 50 percent in 1851, and had reached 77 percent by 1901. In Prussia, and then Germany, the transition period was longer, beginning with 26 percent in 1816 and becoming more than 50 percent in 1900, whereas France's population was still slightly below 50 percent urban at the end of the 19th century - Jooler 22:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Hm, hm... on your document #2, table 3, I am reading that in the 1850s France produced 780,000 metric tonnes of pig iron annualy. In the 1860s it produced 1,191,500 metric tonnes annualy, so I don't know where you got your "never exceeded more than 320,000 metric tonnes" claim. At the same time, table 4 shows that the total pig iron production in all the northern German states combined was only 411,500 metric tonnes in the 1850s, and 1,022,500 in the 1860s. In any case, total amount of iron consumed would be a more interesting data than total amount of iron produced (some countries with larger iron ore deposits may produce more, although they may not actually be very industrialized and may consume little of it, and vice versa). Also, your data about urbanization prove nothing I'm afraid. France had three times more inhabitants than England back then, and a much larger territory, so even with a much lower urbanization rate, it could still put as many people at work in factories as in the UK. Also, in France many industries were located in the countryside, close to hydro power. Anyway... we are really getting off topic here. British Empire it is. So back to the subject, you say that colonialism is only a by-product, "the British Empire came about through trade and conquest" you say. Well, if conquest for trade interests is not colonialism, then what is? Or maybe you're thinking that colonialism is only the white man's burden and all that moralistic litterature? In all objectivity, it makes absolutely no sense to put in the same article the Franco-English Plantagenet Empire in the Middle Ages, which had to do with complex things including vassality and family ties, and the British Empire expansion, which had to do with trade expansion and also national prestige. Hardouin 00:55, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I was looking at table 8, and in fact I now see that I was looking at the wrong figure, so I apologise for that. The figure for 1840 is 347,900 metric tonnes (compare with Britain 1,700,000 tons), for 1850 is 405,700 metric tonnes and for 1870 is 1,178,100 metric tonnes. According to [4] "British production of pig iron rose to 2.5 million tons by 1850, and reached 6 million tons in 1870". It still proves my point. It was you who suggested iron production was a good indicator, but you now want to move the goalposts. According to [5] the population of Britain in 1851 was 27,533,755. In 1850 according to [6] (and other sources) the population of France was 36 million. Not really the 3:1 disparity you mention, or were you limiting the comparison to England only? I don't know why you are continuing to argue the point. France was not a heavily industrialized nation at this time. The majority of the French population were agricultural labourers right up until the early part of the 20th century and it remained primarily an agrarian economy. Regarding the other point - The British Empire (in its classic sense) came about as a result of trade. As British trading interests were threatened by other European nations (as they saw it), Britain began defending those overseas interests aggressivly to the point where Britain (or the chartered companies), declared its "protection" of various islands and outposts, this developed into colonialism. In short the protection of trade initially through the establishment of trading ports and later ouright conquest) led to colonialism, whereby the indigenous population of the colonies ended up being subject of the Crown. What are you complaining about? The brief mention of English overseas territories in the paragraph "Expansion in the British Isles and France" or the inclusion of "Mediæval territories in France" is the list of "Territories Lost by British Empire before 1921"? I think the first is entirely in context. The second is debatable, an inclusionist would include it, because it was "Territories lost by England before 1921" an exclusionist would say (as you do) that it was not part of the British Empire. On reflection I would probably agree with you. Jooler 04:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course I was comparing England only and France. The figure you give for the UK includes Ireland, which was very populated indeed until the Potato Famine and its aftermath, so it skews comparisons. At the 1831 English census, England had 12,993,000 inhabitants, and at the 1831 French census (metropolitan) France had 32,569,000 inhabitants. That's a ratio of 2.5:1. This was down from a ration of 3.5:1 in 1789, and the ratio went further down to 2.13:1 in 1851. As for France being an "essentially agrarian economy", that's an exageration frequently heard that you are repeating. I ask you one simple question: today a majority of the Chinese population are still agricultural labourers, yet, can we really say that China is an "essentially agrarian economy"? In any case, you yourself agree with me that the adjective "sole" shouldn't be used, so I guess the whole point of this little squabble is moot. Hardouin 12:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

In British English moot means debatable. Only in American English does it mean irrelevant. Yes I conceded from my first post on this issue that whoever used the word sole industiralized power on this page was wrong, but I was merely attempting to correct your inaccurate assertion that France was equally industrialized. Comparing England alone to the whole of France makes no sense whatsoever, one might as well compare England with Picardy or Ile-de-France. England and Wales have been treated as a joint entity since the first act of Union in the 16th century. Wales was home to many of Britain's heavy industries including coal and steel production. Many of Britain's greatest industrialists (and I'm sure Derek would have pointed out) were Scots. Parts of Scotland became heavily industrialised, the shipbuilding industry flourished there and that industry was also strong in Northern Ireland. The population of Britain as a whole expanded greatly at a time when the population of France remained almost stagnant. People in Britain moved away from the land (many coming across the water from Ireland) to find work in the cities. In order to feed that city dwelling population, Britain became a net importer of foodstuffs (one of the reasons for the expansion of the Empire). We could go one all day long about population density figures and so on but at the end of the day - China may have a large population living and working on the land, but the country still cannot feed itself. It is also a net importer of food. France was and remains a net exporter of food. You don't accept the iron production figures as a basis for determining industrialization (despite it being your suggestion), you also don't accept the size and extent of the railways system, you don't accept the shift in population figures, and I would hazard to guess that you wouldn't accept the net food import/export status. The simple fact is that France lagged behind in terms of industrialization and has been pointed out elsewhere, Belgium was actually more industrialised than France and this was primariliy due to the British men William and John Cockerill. Yes this is off topic. If you want to discuss this with me further then my talk page is always open. Jooler 15:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

It's also off-topic, interesting as it may be. As Hardouin suggested earlier, this page is for discussion of the British Empire article. Let's return discussion to that topic. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:23, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

True. So about the British Empire, I've just had the curiosity to check what Encyclopedia Britannica had to say about it, and this is what I've found: both current Britannica and Britannica 1911 DO NOT MENTION England's extension on the continent during the Middle Ages. This is the definition of the British Empire given by the current Britannica: "A worldwide system of dependencies--colonies, protectorates, and other territories--that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government." So that means two things. Number one, the British Empire started around 1600. So it confirms what I said earlier that the section "Expansion in the British Isles and France" is totally irrelevant, as well as the mention of the "medieval territories in France". Number two, note the very important "and the administration of the British government". What this means is that Hannower cannot be considered part of the British Empire, because it was not under the administration of the British government. Hardouin 15:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

'"The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enourmous part in the creation of modern technological civilization." -- This is totally subjective view that has nothing to do in an encyclopedia. We are not the frontpage of the The Sun here. Besides, I am sure there are many people in the world who beg to differ with this inflated claim. ' - I'll look up his name though there is a major historian saying this. Many others too. It is perfectly true. The British empire is responsible for the creation of the modern world which makes it pretty damn important.

That paragraph looks pretty contentious. It's important that you get a reference for it. Adding "According to noted historians, x, y, and z, the British Empire..." will make the difference between keeping it and getting rid of it as far as I'm concerned. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

"The zenith of the empire was during the mid 19th century when as the world's sole developed nation Britain enjoyed unparalleled prosperity." -- This is totally WRONG. In the middle of the 19th century, both France and the UK were the two most developped nations in the world, having both entered the Industrial Revolution first. To say that the UK was the world's "sole" developped nation discredits a lot the intellectual level of this article. - it depends what year we're talking about. By the late 1860s France was developed as were other places though before that in the mid 19th century it was just Britain and Belgium (which I suppose warrants mention but Belgium are hardly a world power). Bhutan was not part of the British Empire, it was not even a protectorate. It was merely a state in the British sphere of influence. Same about Nepal. - They were painted pink on contemporary maps and are generally regarded to be part of the empire. I agree with you on all the stuff about England and France in the 19th century. The British Empire only really starts with the tudors and the establishment of the navy and the age of exploration. This article should show the British empire in the positive light it acted in and not in the misled America centric view of stupid red coats shooting natives and all that rubbish. --Josquius 20:14, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I am removing the following paragraph until we agree what do with it.

The British Empire was an institution of the United Kingdom which is largely seen as having lasted from its formation to the era of decolonisation in the 1960s. The British Empire is one of the most important empires in human history, many saying that in the future it will be regarded as the most important surpassing even the Romans for its enormous part in the creation of modern technological civilization, which is up for debate as there has been tremendous amount of destruction, slavery and racism within its realm

My reasons are as follows. Firstly it states a chauvinistic opinion as if it is absolutely true; secondly it is speculative; thirdly it makes the sort of statement that belongs in a conclusion, not an introduction; and lastly it is highly contentious. Before returning it to the article all these faults need to be fixed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:10, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thats not what it said, it had been grafitied. It was not chauvinistic, the British Empire is the most important in history for being the empire that gave rise to modern civilization. The one we live in right now. --Josquius 19:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Empire that "gave rise to modern civilazation" was the British one, and many others before it. As a good profilatic measure against this "delirious chauvinism", I would recommend the reading of the Wikipedia articles:

- Wikipedia:POV - Wikipedia:Neutral_Point_of_View

212.22.50.55 , June 26 ---

This topic seems to be grasping at straws. You see, you will get slightly off-NPOV in any area where people are proud of their history, take a look at any article to do with a currently existing super-power entity. One thing is for sure though, there is also quite a bit of British Empire bagging which is also NPOV, eventually these things balance each other out.

However, I call into question many of the points you made, rather than dragging it out and dealing with them individually and engaging in discussion, I will leave it at merely my stating that I disagree with a lot of the issues you raised as NPOV and find them to be baseless both in fact and quite biased in opinion also.

Jachin 1 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

I agree with you Hardouin that some of the article has chauvinism and propaganda, but I disagree with your points here, *The section "Post World War II Extent" is perhaps the most delirious of all. Here are a hotchpotch of territories, some of which were occupied for some years during the second world war, some of which were not occupied but briefly under British military command (Ethiopia), and some of which never ever saw any British troops (Reunion). The whole section doesn't make sense altogether, it is greatly misleading, and should be deleted. This has nothing to do with a colonial empire. Areas temporarily under military command during a war (with the British government never claiming them) have nothing to do with the British Empire. I mean, who can seriously consider that the British occupied part of Austria was part of the British Empire?!!

How, Hardouin, is it that an area placed under military government and occupied by soldiers drawn from the colonial empire (e.g. Iraq or Iran) has nothing to do with the British Empire? And how can Ethiopia not be occupied but placed under military command, isn't that physically impossible? How would the military command be effected? And since when was the article entitled "British colonial empire"? If this article is to only talk about formal colonies then a lot of territories traditionally considered part of the empire would have to be deleted including Egypt. The occupation of Egypt in 1882 was meant to be temporary as is stated in the wikipedia article on Egypt: Egypt_under_Mehemet_Ali_and_his_successors#Egypt_occupied_by_the_British As it was meant to be temporary it was never claimed for the Crown or for the government, however it is still included in the British Empire. So what is the difference between Egypt, the Trust Territories and areas "placed under military command"? And is it not true that the Ethiopia had been annexed into Italian East Africa and that the colony of Italian East Africa was then occupied and militarily governed by the British before they restored most of Ethiopia (minus the Ogaden for a brief period, which had been attached to Italian Somaliland since Italy's 1935 invasion) the Ethiopian government? So in that case, why should the case of Ethiopia be discarded but Egypt and Italian Somaliland retained?

As for Réunion, how could it have been occupied in WWII and never see British troops? And Reunion was occupied twice by Britain, first from 1810-1815 and then during WWII from 1942-1946.

*In the section called "Territories Lost by British Empire before 1921" are also a few mistakes:

• • Medieval territories in France have nothing to do with the British Empire
  • Hanover was NEVER under British rule. It was under Hanoverian rule, and happened to have a ruler who at the same time was also the ruler of the United Kingdom. But the administrations were never merged.

So in that case the only areas under British rule would be England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland, but not the Isle of Man, Channel Islands and so on, since their administrations were never merged with that of the UK. True, those islands are slightly different, but not vastly so and even then if the example of Hannover was maintained, then Ireland was never under British rule until 1801 and before that just happened to share a ruler with the UK. Also, what of the various protectorates? They never had their local government abolished and replaced by a colonial government and since they were never under colonial rule, were they also never under British rule?

**Hawai and Florida are borderline. Hawai was never occupied. As for Florida, it was occupied only during wars.

I believe someone already dealt with the case of Hawai'i and showed it to be more complex than you presented. As for Florida, it was never only occupied during wars (and if then so what?), you do realize that it was traded to Britain by Spain in exchange for Havana (or Cuba depending on your historical source) in 1763 and was then divided into the 2 British colonies of East Florida and West Florida, with the West colony being retaken by Spain in 1781 and the East colony being ceded back to Spain in 1783 as part of the settlement that brought about an end to the American Revolution, right?

[edit] Why the British Empire IS A Superpower

The Definition of a Superpower is: A state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. A Superpower is not a country that is "head and shoulders" above the rest but a country that fits a aforementioned definition.

Also, they are not the world's "First Global Power" as there were other power projecting Empires before the British took over as the worlds most powerful nation.

So the term superpower fits the British Empire very well. I would word it "Power projecting Superpower"

Two problems here

a) The British Empire is two men and a dog as of the beginning of the 21st century, so the most that could be true is that it was a superpower during the 19th and early 20th centuries.

WTF? This is a history article, nowhere does it claim the British empire still stands, Replying here as this bit was just added in. --Josquius 14:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? It wasn't "just added in"; it was added a week ago. And it's got nothing to do with the article; it's a reference to this section of the talk page. Take a look at its title if you want to know WTF. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:44, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

b) the term "superpower" is anachronistic. It was coined to describe America and Russia during the Cold War. It's not appropriate to describe the Empire (whose leaders thought of it as one of the Great Powers, not as a superpower).

I suggest that we would be better to avoid foreign style exaggeration and go with good old British understatement here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Yes to superpower doesn't mean totally above the rest. To a degree anyway. It does mean it is one of the elite, not THE elite but one of the top nations. Britain was the first global power, it was the most powerful nation at the dawn of the entire world being discovered. The Spanish empire was mainly restricted to Europe and South America. Great power is just a more victorian way of saying super power. --Josquius 19:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup. And that's why I think that it should be used instead of superpower. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:33, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see where you are coming from now 'The zenith of the empire was during the mid 19th century when as the world's sole developed superpower Britain enjoyed unparalleled prosperity.'. The keyword there is developed. Britain was the only industrial nation and the amount it made through this was unmatched by the rest of the world --Josquius 19:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The British Empire is certainly a superpower, after all thew still have quite a large commonwealth that includes Britain (proper), Gibraltar, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Singapore, India(which include Pakistan), Hong Kong, Austalia, New Zealand, the Falklands, Bermuda, Canada. As well they are one of the few nations with nuclear power. They also have the fourth largest economy in the world. They in fact do have have military power, economic power, and influential power. Aswell you must'nt forget, that the sun never sets in the British Empire.

My view is that British power is substantially reduced, but if it ever came down to the crunch as it did in the two world wars, the White Commonwealth would act as one if any one member was directly threatened, despite the lack of any formal military alliance. Collectively, the Commonwealth Realms are probably second only to the US in terms of ability to project power on a global scale. Nudge 21:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Axis occupied territories

I'm unhappy about the inclusion of occupied mainland European Axis territories after WWII, both in the article and more specficically on the map. Quite frankly it's nonsense to suggest that this was part of the Empire. Jooler 11:09, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. The Axis countries were never intended to be colonies; their occupation was always intended to be temporary, a matter of restoring order rather than acquiring posession. The same goes double for the colonies of Allied nations. DJ Clayworth 15:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree, those countries were protectorates under the Commonwealth of the British Empire and therefore would be considered to have the same state aknowledgement in the Crown as any other member for the duration of their protectorate status. Just because you don't understand how a system of Empirical government (in this case the Commonwealth) works, doesn't mean that listing those countries as part of the Empire is incorrect or inaccurate in anyway. Come on guys, a little homework before starting threads.  :P Jachin 1 July 2005 05:12 (UTC)

Sorry that is just rubbish. They were not protectorates under the Btish Commonwealth. They were goverend by the Allied Control Council (for Germany) and Allied Commission for Austria and elsewhere, and divided into military (not governmental) occupation zones. How about doing some homework of yourself. Jooler 3 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)

So why does an area have to be a colony to be regarded as being part of the imperial system? If that's the case then most of the territories in Arabia would have to be removed since they were protectorates and not colonies (and protectorates are entirely different). Even though the Axis occupied territories were never intended to be colonies, neither were the protectorates (and at least officially) Mandates and moreso Trust territories. And if the occupation zones were compared with protectorates, it would be seen that protectorates (at least some of them) had FAR more independence than the occupation zones and yet were included in and considered part of the Empire . Comparing trust territories (and class A mandates) with the occupation zones would show that in both cases British rule/control was never meant to be permanent as in the case of colonies and so if the occupation zones shouldn't be included because they were temporary then the trust territories shouldn't be either (and how can that be justified? After all the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands was considered to be US territory for the duration of the US administration). Sure the zones weren't in the same class as any other area, but then so what of it? The individual zones were not ruled by the Allied Control Commission (that only oversaw policy for all 4 zones as a whole), each country had some leeway towards implement its own policies in its own zone (hence the division in the first place) and each zone was governed by a military government created by the armed forces of the country governing a respective zone.

[edit] Empire Size

Wasn't the Mongolian Empire the largest empire ever, not the British Empire?-Shyvek

It was close but not quite. We actually had a comparison stating the difference between the two but some one has removed it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:49, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Mongolian empire was nowhere near the size of the British empire, it had the potential to cover large areas of land though it didn't. Most of Siberia was never even stepped upon by Mongolians. -josquius

217.22.55.50 keeps disrupting this page. Despite my appeal on his talk page. Jooler 3 July 2005 23:40 (UTC)

[edit] Superpowers

As I understand, the British Empire was called a "great power". It did reach a point of having greater financial and millitary power than any other empire, and could project this power on global scale more effectively than ever before in history. But "superpower" is really a 20th century term, and is a qualitatively different concept. Peter Grey 17:06, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Jooler

Yep. Wyss 17:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Which is why first "global power" is correct and superpower is incorrect. Some people seem to be struggling with this. here is what I have said to a few people. The British Empire was the world's first global power and history's largest Empire.

• a) - The British Empire was the world's first global power
  • The key word here is power Britain was able to exert overwhelming power on every continent. That is every habitable continent - North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia and Australasia.
    • I would imagine that you contend that either the Portuguese or the Spanish Empire was the worlds first global power. They were empires that existed in a global context but they did not exert power. One might argue that the Portuguese Empire was not an oceanic empire rather than a global one. It was mainly a network of coastal outposts connected by sea lanes. The Spainsh Empire was more impressive in size. Spain lay claim to a huge amount of territory, but it is illusory to think that Spain had any kind of real power over all of that territory. The vast majority of it had never seen the foot of a Spaniard. Half of the continent of North America was claimed by Spain as "New Spain", but it was not explored until that territory had been acquired by the United States. Spain had but a toehold in Africa and no possessions on the Asian mainland, the Treaty of Tordesillas put paid to any ambitions of global domination.

• b) - The British Empire was ... history's largest Empire.
  • This isn't even worth arguing about. See http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html

It's important to consider whether measuring "global" and "power" by modern or contemporary terms. One could argue that, before the 19th century, being a global power was not possible for any state because of limitations of technology. (Although Spain did pretty good in the Americas because there horses were a new technology.) Peter Grey 17:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Super power and great power mean exactly the same thing. Global power was just the popular term in the 19th century whilst today we use super power. They were the world's first global power and were a superpower however were not the world's first superpower. A superpower is simply a nation with a large superiority over its competitors, there had been many in history before Britain that enjoyed this. -Josquius

No they don't mean the same thing at all. It's anachronistic to use Superpower. Superpower is a modern term that was applied to the two major forces that arose from the ashes of the Second World War. during the 19th and early 20th century we had the Great Powers of Europe. They were all destroyed or bankrupted by two world wars and what emerged was a world dominated by two Super powers which between them had the power to destroy the world. Jooler

The term super power is a post world war two term that applies to nuclear powers with deep capacity to deliver their aramaments essentially anywhere in the world, presumably at the level necessary to sustain the principle of "mutually assured destruction." The British Empire was a global power but never a superpower in the sense the word has been used since it was invented. The only two "superpowers" I know of have been the USA and USSR and since the latter fell, there has been but one. Wyss 22:00, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Even if some people use 'superpower' to mean something other than the USA or the Cold-War era USSR, I don't think there's any reason or need to use the term in this article. That's not to say that there wasn't something different about the British Empire compared to it's competitors, and that fact needs to be mentioned. Peter Grey 22:17, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

To nudge that a bit more, I don't think foreign policy wonks or professional commentators have ever used the term superpower in relation to anything other than the post-war US or USSR. Misuse of a word is not a citation. Wyss 22:22, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Yep. For all those reasons plus the ones mentioned earlier on the talk page: Superpower/Hyperpower -- bad; Great Power/Global Power -- good. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Australia not declaring war and the Statute of Westminster

I've removed the following text and reworded that paragraph:

other than Australia, which had not yet legally adopted the Statute of Westminster

This didn't make sense, because New Zealand, which had also not adopted the Statute of Westminster, did declare war separately. The connection between the Statute of Westminster and the need to declare war separately needs to be explained or omitted.

Ben Arnold 02:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Probably a weak and ambiguous connection, and probably best ignored for the purposes of this article. Peter Grey 04:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why no mention of white supremacy as an official policy

The British Empire installed white supremacist systems in Southern Africa, India and the Australian sphere. It was believed that the British gentleman was superior to the colored savages. Also, like many other colonial powers also did, the British used the 'divide and rule' policy in order to make ruling easier. Britain deliberately set Muslims and Hindus up against eachother in India to prevent any unification of those 2 groups against their colonial oppressors, the British.

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

Also, there seems to be no mention of the fact that most of the land conquests of the British Empire would, in 21st century terms, be known as 'illegal occupations'.

The British empire was not, as so many express in their POV's, a benevolent entity functioning to spread wealth, but rather, to remove wealth from the occupied territories and bring it back to Britain, but as said before, this was not different from what other colonial powers also.

It did handle things better than Belgium. GraemeLeggett 07:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

no argument from me there, but Belgium is not the topic here --Marcel1975 23:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

This was a bias held by almost all European governments at the time and since it was part of the context of the era, its mention would be misleading and unencyclopedic. It' like saying, "Abraham Lincoln was a racist." He was a racist, but since almost everyone in his professional and social circles were also what we would now call "racist", it's not notable. Wyss 23:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. "White supremacist" is a word for this century, and if transplanted onto attitudes of 200yrs ago is entirely misleading. Incidentally, a quick look at the history of the Indian subcontinent before and after 1948, and indeed before 1750, is required before blaming the British for inter-religious strife. DJ Clayworth 18:27, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"Also, there seems to be no mention of the fact that most of the land conquests of the British Empire would, in 21st century terms, be known as 'illegal occupations'." - First, 'illegal' says who? International law? Such laws to my knowledge did not exist in the 19th C. There was nothing illegal about colonialism, it had existed in one way or another for centuries. Secondly, to judge historical events by today's values is bad history and, to me, does not have a place in an encyclopedia. - Johnbull 03:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

"* Francisco de Vitoria [c. 1483-1546] is widely considered to be a founder of international law. Scott holds that Vitoria's 16th century school of international law and his important Reflectiones, De Indis Noviter Inventis and De Jure Belli (the text of these are included in the appendix) are in fact the origin of the law of nations, which was to become the international law of Christendom and the world at large. In Vitoria's writings described herein he held that pagans had the right to freedom and property, declared slavery to be unsound, upheld the rights of Indians, questioned the Spanish conquest of the New World in the time immediately following Columbus' discovery of America which gave rise to his thesis that the community of nations transcends Christendom." Walker, Oxford Companion to Law 1279-1280. Harrypotter 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] British Empire Map

I changed the map because: 1 It wasn't detailed enough. 2 After WWI Britain controlled all of Papua New Guinea, not just the south 3 only the part of Cameroon that joined with Nigeria on independence is shown 4 I changed it to 1919 because the British still controlled Afghanistan at this time 5 Vancouver wasn't coloured pink 6 Long Island and Cape Cod weren't on the map 7 And many other smaller reasons

Well, the map needs revising again, since you have included too much of Cameroon (the majority of it was taken over by France).

== "Best empire ever, I thinke not--65.118.231.161 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)--65.118.231.161 17:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

---

---

---

---

"? <comic book guy voice> == "The British Empire was the best empire ever and..." Isnt that too POV for Wikipedia? Super Saiyan Plough 09:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits by anon IP

I've removed the following edits because they are way over-the-top POV, there may be some merit to the content but not using this language. Jooler 13:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The Crown proved its heritage by nearly destroying the native cultures in all these places by sending the most unwanted of the British society there. For instance, Australia was for the convicts and New Zealand was for the lunatics and psychopaths. ... It might be falsifying to call it export. Essentially, the Empire bled its colonies of economical and cultural wealth. India and South Africa were bled of huge amounts of gold and precious stones. Priceless artefacts were shipped to England and today, reside in the London Museum (sic - the editor presumably means the British Museum). It is a shame that a museum must stand witness to the gory history of the empire. Even more shameful is that it is glorified and more revenue is made from it. .... The British were amongst the most oppressive of cultures, and considering that the worst part of the English population had been transferred to South Africa, North America and Australia, it is not surprising that these countries continued slavery and owe their current prosperity to the toil and torture of millions of slaves. Unfortunately, not much of this is documented like say, the Holocaust. This also means that it is not viable to legally punish those responsible. ... If a wholesome view of British history is taken, then it is obvious that this argument is very probably true. Unfortunately, the Crown was cunning enough to make sure there was no documentation with regard to its crimes

[edit] Global Empire

The previous statement was that the Brittish were the first global empire.(Actualy they would be the only one under his definition). Now a statement like that needs a source otherwise I am going to put an NPOV tag on the article. Now I am going to add reasons why it was not the first gloab empire.

1. Not as large as Spanish Empire.

Nonsense. Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

When Spain absorbed the Portuguese empire in 1580(therbye eliminating the only other major colonial power then) they controlled more territory than any other empire in history even the Mongolian.

This is just utter rubbish! See http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html This assertion and the other factoids you put forward as arguments simply don't hold any water. Jooler 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

2. Portuguese controlled the known world. There is a such thing as a Trade Empire. Not all empires are measured in military force

Known world is not the globe. - By the use of the word POWER we ARE talking about force.Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Power can be economic. Remember phrases like, leading economic power, political power etc.

Qualifed use of the word "power" Jooler 19:08, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

3. The Spanish fleet was as dominate as the British. Remember the Spanish competed with the Portuguese and the Muslims. The Brittish competed with the French and Dutch. Both were equall dominant. And either way our opinions here do not conform to NPOV.

With so much competition there was no real dominance. Officially the hemispheres of exploitation was divided by Pope Alexander VI between Portugal and Spain with the Treaty of Tordesillas. The period of Spanish naval supremacy (ohh look no article on it!) was fleeting and was not exploited in the same way as British naval supremacy where Britain had a policy of maintaining the Royal Navy at a size where it was at least as big as the world's second and third largest navied combined. Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Except the Portuguese were conquered by the Spanish. The Spanish Empire brought in billions of dollars of gold, something that no other navy would ever match. While the Spanish empire was in decline longer than British that doesn't change anything about the empire's height.

Yes the Spanish shipped tons of gold across from the New World but the Spanish crown was declared bankrupt in 1557, 1576, 1596, 1607 and very nearly in 1627. Where did the money go? It was wasted. A billion "dollars" is an inconceivable sum for this period. The Portuguese terriroty that came under the crown of Castille mostly amounted to a few far flung trading posts. Jooler 21:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Check out Anglo-Spanish War (1585) and its discussion page for the relative merits of the Spanish and English navies in the 16thC. Also, bankrupt is a legal term that wild-haired historians shouldn't mess with - declared insolvent is more accurate ie. unable to pay its debts as they fell due. The US would probably be in the same state today, were it not for the forebearance of its creditors - it's a recurrent problem for imperial powers.--shtove 23:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

. The first global empire is well before any of these becasue a global empire can only control the known world. So effectively the Romans, the Greeks, the Babyonians etc were the first global empires. Falphin 19:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Double nonsense. Jooler 06:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

First Global POWER - not Empire - your arguments are not valid. Jooler 06:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Like I said under you definition the British were the only Global Empire. You should note I did not mention the Egyptians, Hitites, Persians, Libyans, Ethiopians, Khemers, Japanese, Byzantine, or any other early empires because they didn't control the known world like I mentioned. Look at the article on global empire again we are still using different definitions, which should be clarified in the introduction. 12.220.47.145 16:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Ridiculous nonsense. Jooler 19:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Global empire necessarily implies some degree of Global Power. Robert 25-12-05

Nonsense. A few far flung trading posts does not give power. Jooler 09:31, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] India?

Shouldn't there be some information here about how India was conquered? Or some description of the Raj? Its seems oddly absent. --JW1805 05:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

"Every aspect of the Empire was an aspect of Christ" - James Morris author of Pax Britannica: Climax of an Empire

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

[edit] Late Victorian Holocausts?

I haven't read this radical-left book, but it claims that British colonial policies contributed to massive famines that starved around 50 million people in India and China. (Verifiable is the Bengali famine of 1943, which killed 4 million Indians).

Refer to http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

I'm not sure why British imperialism is supposed to have been "better" than Belgian or Portuguese. The British contributed more to the concept of "white man's burden" and the colonial remapping and exploitation of Africa and Asia than any other global power IMO. Britain indeed is one of the foremost constructors of the modern capitalist world and its infinite positive advancements in social terms, but not without massive bloodshed before its direct colonial control was relinquished. Romantic visions of benign empire like Lawrence of Arabia, etc. are Hollywood fairy tales (entertaining, but still fiction). Britain has bombed, gassed, starved, and enslaved millions of people, just like the other Western powers and virtually every empire in human history. My point is let's not get overboard with "Pax Britannia" and "UK civilized the world" or other jingoistic assertions...try to balance the good with the bad of Empire. how is Lawrence of Arabia romantic, a fairytale or fiction? Bwithh 23:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Comparisons have to be contemporary. Anachronism (and revisionism) using modern standards plague a lot of history articles in Wikipedia. In this case the comparison with the Belgian rule of the Congo is used quite frequently to illustrate the difference between contemporaneous empires of the late 19th century. Famines were and are still widespread and have a variety of causes. We cannot "fix" them even now so any source that tries to blame an institution of the past for causing them and/or failing to remedy them is questionable. I've read this article several times over the last few years and I think it has improved a lot; For such a contentious subject it is quite balanced - if not quite yet "perfect". If you think something needs to be toned down then you can do it yourself. (Edit - that last sentence reads poorly - it is not supposed to be an imperative) Wiki-Ed 13:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

There has never been a famine in a democratic capitalist country a la the United States or Hong Kong or numerous others. Are you suggesting the totalitarian government of Communist China was not responsible for exacerbating the Great Leap Forward famine through its policies if not STARTING it in the first place? I agree the Victorian Holocausts book is biased but some have argued the policies of the Raj made Indian famines worse. Obviously it's a matter of debate; anything is "questionable".

Refer to http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

[edit] Deal with India?

http://www.atributetohinduism.com/European_Imperialism.htm

What is this nonsense about a deal with Indian nationalists at the onset of WWII. Does nobody here know of the Quit India Movement. I hope somebody will please correct this.

Jai Sri Rama! User:Rama's Arrow

What "nonsense" are you referring to exactly? WW2 started in September 1939. The article you linked to starts in August 1942. Wiki-Ed 14:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Personal Unions: Kingdom of England

I do object to Scotland being included under as being part of the Kingdom of England from 1603 - 1707. Scotland was in a personal union with England sharing a Monarch. However by placing this fact under the heading of Kingdom of England, suggests that Scotland was somehow part of that Kingdom. The reverse could be argued considering that the shared monarch was a Scot from the Scottish dynasty and not the English dynasty. However, that also wouldn't necessarily be true. Instead this should possibly be placed under the heading of the Kingdom of Great Britain. Since that was the self styled, non official, name given to the kingdom by James VI. In no way was Scotland part of the Kingdom of England within the dates you suggest. I'm new to Wilkpedia so I apologise if I haven't followed any formal procedures in pointing out mistakes etc User: Japanesewhispers 13:39 5 December 2005 (Tokyo)

Hi. Did you look at the rest of the stuff in that section? The section is entitled 'Personal unions', and also includes the unions with places like the Netherlands. It in no way implies that Scotland was part of the Kingdom of England. Morwen - Talk 17:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. The bits on the Dutch provinces were similarly deleted recently by someone who failed to understand the concept of personal union. --Kvasir 07:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That person being me, I do understand the concept of a personal union. William III was a Dutch stadholder before and during his rule over England. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE NETHERLANDS WERE PART OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE.

Sander 11:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the section is that it is too anglocentric. The United Kingdom is composed of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, so just having England and then the various personal unions of the United Kingdom seems biased.--anon 19:09 March 20, 2006

[edit] Sepoy Mutiny

I altered the discussion of one of the causes of the Sepoy Mutiny, which claimed the sepoys were unhappy because they had to bite the pig and pork fat greased cartridges before putting them into their Lee-Enfield rifles. The rifles the sepoys were using were actually muzzle-loading Pattern 1853 Enfield rifles. The Lee-Enfield was a bolt action rifle not invented until 1895, named after James Parris Lee, who designed the bolt action used in this weapon. I also changed the text from a statement of certainty that the cartridges were covered in pig and cow fat, to say that they were covered in animal fat that was rumored to be pig and cow fat, as it is unlikely they were a mixture of both, this was most likely a deliberate falsehood spread by the formentors of the Mutiny to galvanize Hindus and Muslims alike. M. Myers 20 December 2005

[edit] Zenith 1919 or 1921?

Because of some shennanigans over the last few day, the text now refers to 1921 whilst the image refers to 1919, with Afghanistan included. Were there any significant additions between 1919 and 1921? Jooler 10:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The Zenith was in 1919 when the British Empire still included Afghanistan. That is why I put the Image of it's zenith in 1919 there. However, I have recently discovered that a very brief British Protectorate existed over Iran (Persia) from 1919 to 1920.

Iran needed financial help and this led to Lord Curzon's Anglo-Persian Agreement of 1919, which established a British protectorate over Iran, similar to that which then existed over Egypt. Opposition to the proposed agreement's effective establishment of Persia as a British protectorate led, in 1919 to Reza Khan, an officer of the Persian Cossacks Brigade, seizing power by force in 1920 and abandoning the agreement, which restored Iran's independence.

Should I add Persia (Iran) to the map? Arthur Wellesley 2:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland - let us in, ye hoors!

No mention of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. The enduring policies for construction and maintenance of the empire were set right there, from Tipperary to Templecrone. Ireland is mentioned in passing in the Norman section (and I agree, that period has nothing to do with this subject), but entirely overlooked when considering Drake and Raleigh, California and Roanoke and Jamestown - it was back in the Land of Ire those projects were rehearsed, and botched.--shtove 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a third to a quarter

the area of the british empire was at it's greatest extent 37 million square kilometers. 37/148 = 0.25, this is a quarter of the total land area. I have changed the original "a third". Warniats 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

However if you look it was 14.3 million square miles, and the land area of the Earth is 45 million square miles ( http://pages.prodigy.net/jhonig/bignum/qland2.html ). 14.3/45 is 32, close enough to be called a third...Arthur Wellesley 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

So, it's 14.3 million square miles? That's 37 million sq km. The total land area according to the cia world factbook: "land: 148.94 million sq km" 37/148.94= 0.248 I don't understand what I'm doing wrong. Can you please look into this? Warniats 01:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Check this. Various serious reference books give land area of the Earth between 148,300,000 km2 and 153,295,000 km2. 37,000,000/148,300,000=24.9% whereas 37,000,000/153,295,000=24.1%, so Warniats is correct, it is one quarter of the land area of Earth. 81.64.90.173 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes but that does not include inland water, which takes up a lot of space...Did you even look at the reference I sent you...

Yea I did. So in the "14.3 million sq miles" figure, the area of lakes and rivers is excluded? If that's the case then I agree with you to use 45 million sq miles as the world total land area. However, it wouldn't be fair to include inland water to get "14.3", then exclude inland water to get "45". This would artificially make the division higher. Warniats 23:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 37 million sq km

So, how did the people exactly get this number? from

or from?

I doubt if its correct math(even include Iran)--219.79.164.159 08:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Because it is 14.3 million square miles. It had previously said 14.1 square miles, but that was not including Afghanistan, so I changed it because yes in 1919 Afghanistan was part of the British Empire.....If you look at one of the first posts it explains why it isn't 23 million sq km....because the pwerson who was converting it went from square miles to kilometres, not from square miles to square kilometres.....Please don't make the same mistake...Arthur Wellesley 19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Depends on when in 1919 you mean. Afghanistan ceased to be a protectorate in the Third Afghan War. Septentrionalis 21:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defeats dealt by Spanish navy?

I think we all know that Spain lost the anglo-spanish war concluded in 1604. This article seems to suggest that spain won however. Can someone cite a source for this which actually names these supposed royal naval defeats? The only one I can of is the Revenge (which wasn't a huge battle, the Revenge was just separated from the rest of her squadron and captured by the spanish). Also the Drake-Norris expedition didn't see much action at sea but rather was a ground campaign. It was a defeat for england but they later succeded in burning down Cadiz. So two points here,I think the implication that spain won the war (the opposite is in fact true) should be dropped and unless these royal naval defeats can be named and sources provided for them, I think the mention of these should be dropped as well.

The war ended with a peace treaty in 1604 - neither side was victorious. Are you sure the article suggests a Spanish victory? Insistence on English superiority at sea in this period is a Victorian delusion. It is obvious that Spain remained the dominant power, until overtaken by the French in the 1640's. As far as I know, the Revenge was sunk in the Azores battle during a storm, along with many Spanish vessels. Please sign your contributions (I know Wikipedia can log-off unexpectedly).--shtove 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

And please don't use phrases like "we all know that..." :-) Facts not rumors! Piet 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Well okay, I can admit when I'm wrong but I'm still curious about these supposed royal naval defeats. Drake-Norris expedition was not a naval battle. Drake's final expedition involved him being beaten back from puerto rico (he was beaten back by the fort, not ships). But the implication here is that spain's NAVY remained superior. Can anyone name these supposed battles where spain's navy beat england's? (I'm the guy who started this section)

But what's your user name, Guy?--shtove 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Related articles seem to support the claim that Spain remained the dominant naval power in the beginning of the 17th century. As for English losses against the Spanish in the 1590s, a few are mentioned in Anglo-Spanish War (1585). Piet 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that the Royal Navy has not been beaten by the US Navy, yet surely no one would deny that the US currently has naval superiority. So I question the need for anyone to name a battle where Spain's navy beat England's in order to prove that the Spanish Navy was superior. Superiority isn't always a question of who beat whom. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the period of transition in your example was one of an alliance between the two. England beat spain's navy in the battle of gravelines. I don't see how you can say Spain's navy made a comeback without at least being able to cite one naval victory for them in the period between the armada (1588) and treaty of london (1604). The purpose of armed forces are to fight. The way in which they are measured is by their war record. And Spain had plenty of opporunity to do so considering this was a fairly long war. (Guy)

I've spruced up Anglo-Spanish War (1585) with a blow-by-blow account of what happened at sea (it's generalised and not exhaustive). Details of the land campaigns in the Netherlands and Brittany need to be added there, and perhaps the style could do with some tweaking (help welcomed). Guy (still unsigned) makes a good point, in that the English navy was superior in almost every single fight with the Spanish, but then it was inferior at the more grown-up task of bringing back the bacon and patrolling an empire. In the light of the 19thC., perhaps the English can be said to have learned from the Spanish?--shtove 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

After reading some of the related articles and their links, I think I see the point the pro-spanish side is making. While the SKILL of the royal navy was unmatched at the time, the overall power of the spanish navy and the relatively small size of the royal navy prevented them from challenging spain for absolute control of the seas. When they finally did, the Dutch were their main competitors having displaced spain. I guess this is similar to the war of 1812 where the americans emberrased their royal navy counterparts in terms of skill (check out all the one-on-one duels) but obviously didn't have the overall strength to challenge their naval dominance. (Guy)

A few points. I think the Spanish navy in this period is better described as Royal (ie. centrally controlled and funded) - Elizabeth's navy received much of its funds from investors, and her admirals had a tendency, once out of the old dear's sight, to charge off on their own chaotic courses. I don't think their skill was superior - whereas the Spanish sailed around the world as a matter of course, the English had ships and cannon that were designed for smash-and-grab raids: they were effective in that sense, but only when their commanders could agree with each other, rather than acting like a bunch of blow hards. Under James I, the English navy suffered a severe decline, most likely because of the loss of urgency upon the peace with Spain. Don't know about the point on the war of 1812 - but good to see that, in a discussion on the Anglo-Spanish War (1585), America has the last word. BTW - revolutionary America still doesn't get a serious look-in here. Nor does Tudor Ireland. I am not John Bull, but shtove 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map showing France as an English "possession" and axis territories as British

Including parts of France that English kings ruled over in a discussion of the British Empire is one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever come across. At best it is misleading, at worst downright incorrect. The rules of the game then were completely different - this was not the age of European imperialism - and both parts of the term "British" and "Empire" make no sense whatsoever in describing that period. So I have removed English regal possessions in France from the map. I also strongly disagree with the idea that Axis home countries under military occupation post WW2 should be listed as British imperial possessions, even with a disclaimer. Imperial possessions of the Axis powers, perhaps, but certainly not the Axis countries themselves. For starters, they were not administered as colonial possessions. Anyway, for now, I have just removed France. Gsd2000 18:26, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see someone has already raised the subject of Axis countries above in "Axis occupied territories". There seems to be a tendency amongst some Wikipedians to try to be complete to the point of anal retentiveness. Technically, yes, the British administered them for a while, but no serious discussion of the British Empire (e.g. http://www.us.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/HistoryWorld/British/Since1945/?view=usa&ci=9780198205647) includes discussion of them. I have never seen a map of the British Empire (outside of Wikipedia) that includes Aquitaine or Austria, Burgundy or Berlin, Calais or Cologne. Gsd2000 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute...Gsd2000, can you give an exact starting point for the British Empire? Was it 1707 with the Act of Union, or was it with James I/VI when the crowns were united in 1603? And since the United Kingdom and her Empire evolved out of England and Scotland and their empires then why exclude the French possessions (especially when they are clearly identified as being former English possessions)? The book that you provided the link for has a lot of glowing tributes, however although it is a serious discussion about the British Empire, it "deals with the interaction of British and non-western societies from the Elizabethan era to the late twentieth century, aiming to provide a balanced treatment of the ruled as well as the rulers, and...". According to wikipedia the Elizabethan Era is the time associated with Queen Elizabeth I, who ruled from 1558 to 1603 as Queen of England only. Thus if the Empire is said to begin in 1603 (or worse 1707), that book deals with some of the period before that. So what is the difference between that book's aspect and the map's? If after reading the caption and looking at the colour coding, some people still interpret the image to mean parts of France were parts of the British Empire, then there is not much that can be done for them. And why not google in "Angevin Empire" for either websites or images and you can be sure that you will get information on English "regal possessions in France". The fact that they are regal possessions does not mean they the relationships were not imperial in some way. After all, what would you consider the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands? They are not simple dependencies, nor are they parts of the United Kingdom proper. They are crown possessions (regal possessions), but are they or were they never considered to be part of the British Empire? And if you have never seen a map outside of wikipedia with austria or burgundy etc in a map about (not a map of) the British Empire, then what of it? Oh and see http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/History.html , http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/BritishEmpire/Britain-20centuries.html, http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/BritishEmpire/Britain-20centuries.html#1403 (all three are from the same website, but just click the last one to go directly to the map) and http://www.worldstatesmen.org/COLONIES.html. And if no serious discussion of the British Empire includes discussion of a few territories that you admit were technically administered by them, then again is wikipedia only supposed to ape those discussions and not compile knowledge? I doubt anyone has ever seen any map with white borders (negative space) on grey landmasses outside of wikipedia either. And if a map that is clearly identified as being a map of English and British possessions cannot show the possessions in France, then why does the article contain a short "background" to the British Empire that details the English and Scottish Empires and starts out with the conquest of 1066? And what is to be made of the Kings and Queens of the UK also having the title of "King (or Queen) of France" up until 1801 (long after the British Empire had been established? Although none of the claimants since the end of the Hundred Years War could ever be considered in all seriousness as monarchs of France, the title still existed and had a history behind it and map was able to help explain this peculiarity. ---anon 12:07 March 16, 2006.

English crown possessions in France were not imperial. There was never any attempt to "colonise" France by the English. If anything, England was a Norman colony, Normandy became part of France, so by your logic England should be shown on maps of the French empire. Ridiculous. James VI of Scotland became King of England. Does that mean that England then became part of a Scottish "Empire"? What about William of Orange, did England become part of the Dutch empire then, because we had a Dutch monarch ruling over England? Did we become German when George I became our king? English imperialism began with attempts to colonise Ireland, period. And at least have the courage to sign your own rants (I do). Gsd2000 22:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Was there ever any attempt to colonize The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man? And then what type of colonization are you referring to? They type in the Americas and Australia with settlers or the type in India and the East Indies where states became dependent upon the UK? I never said England was never a Norman colony and if you wish to denote that England was a Norman colony on the maps of the French empire then go right ahead. As for being ridiculous, I don't recall ever saying that you were being ridiculous, only pointing out that you were being rather arbitrary with regards to the map (and by extension the article): if the remnants of the English "crown possessions" in France are considered to be dependencies today and as part of the British Empire (and their relationship with the Crown having changed little in the hundreds of years) then why are they included in the article and why should the English crown possessions in France be excluded entirely? As for England becoming part of the "Scottish Empire", the question can be reposed to you "James VI/I united the crowns of Scotland and England. Does that mean that Scotland then became part of a English "Empire"?" If so then why is this article entitled the "British Empire"? And if England did not become a part of the Scottish Empire and Scotland did not become a part of the English Empire then what happened? In answer to your question, no England did not become a part of the Scottish "Empire" insofar as Scotland did not become a part of the English "Empire", but both countries remained separate, with one common head of state. As for William of Orange, according the personal unions site, England, Scotland, Ireland and most of the Netherlands were in personal union. The same thing happened in 1603 between England and Scotland. The only difference was that the Netherlands had a rather unique political system at the time, so whereas when England and Scotland united it was a straightforward personal union between two kingdoms, William of Orange represented a personal union between a hereditary kingdom and a non-hereditary republic. Had the office of stadholder been hereditary before William III's time (instead of almost half a century later), then it is possible that the Netherlands would be united with the UK today in some way. When you ask "did we become German...", who exactly is "we"? The English? The Scottish? The Welsh? The British? The answer of course is no that you did not become German, since a German-speaking head of state does not make you German, just as how an English-speaking head of state does not turn the Scots into Englishmen. Also, you misuse the word "German" since George I's nationality was Hannoverian. "German" was an ethnic term before 1871 and only then could it have been properly applied as a nationality, just as how "Germany" was a term denoting an area before 1871. You say "English imperialism began with attempts to colonise Ireland, period." but then this again shows that you are being inconsistent. What does "English" imperialism in Ireland have to do with the British Empire in the strictest sense (which is how you were defining it in relation to occupied and administered territories and the crown possessions in France)? And when does the history of English imperialism in Ireland begin? If you say it began with the papal bull in the 1100s then how can a papal land grant/gift to the English crown, which turned Ireland into a possession of the Crown be any different from the crown possessions in France? What was so special about the crown possessions in France? Didn't the English monarchs claim them as their right of succession and in so doing were monarchs over those areas, just like all English monarchs after King Henry II did in Ireland/ And again, I have to ask, what did you find so wrong with the crown posessions and former personal unions being on the map if the key explained it? Are all maps supposed to be so simple as to be self-explanatory and if so what is the purpose of the key? Now since I have answered your questions how about answering those that I posted to you both in the original message and this response (and no more baiting, if you don't like my opinions, you don't have to call them ridiculous or issue challenges, it doesn't make you more knowledgeable or more right).---anon 18:50 March 18, 2006.

Gsd is right, including Angevin territories as part of the "British Empire" is ridiculous. So is showing the British occupation zone in Germany. As to the beginning of the British Empire, I think the 17th century and the foundation of English colonies in the New World at that time would be the clear starting point. English rule in Ireland was a precursor to the British Empire, but should not be confused with it. At any rate, I think the "British Empire" can only exist after the personal union between England and Scotland - prior to that there were two British states. BTW, the "German Nation" most certainly existed before 1871, and "Germany" was a well-established concept with a well-established political meaning. The only time there was no German political entity in European history was between 1806 and 1815. john k 02:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Those territories as certainly not commonly understood to be included in the British Empire, but let us not forget the literal meaning of empire. British monarchs only dropped the title King of France under the Hanovarians - indeed the monarch continues to be Duc de Normandie, the last existing dukedom of France continuing to receive official recognition (in the Channel Islands where the British monarch holds that title - the monarch also being formerly King of France). So whilst it is incorrect to so colour the English kings French territories as a part of the "British Empire", it could certainly be said that those lands were a part, once, of an "English empire".--jrleighton 07:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppport Gsd2000 on this matter, I recently changed (ie removed) the Netherlands from the map in question, simply because we¹ were never ever we ruled by the English as wel as from England. Yet the Netherlands were shown on the map, the excuse was that William of Orange had a "personal union" with the English ... the defender presumed that a stadholder equaled a King (which still doesn't justify the annexation of the Netherlands into the British Empire) which is not true, the Netherlands were a republic at the time and a Stadholder is simply an very important person in charge of the defense of the republic, and the only reason he got in to the english royal family was because the Dutch were at the time the world superpower and in the passed Anglo-Dutch wars had nearly destroyed the English naval and merchant fleet.

All I'm saying is that the persons who made the map in the first place were more filled with pride and nationalism than good sense.+ I believe the "British Empire" should start in 1707 as there was no "Britain" before that time.

Sander 10:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A clear starting point for what is known as the British empire is 1541, when the Irish parliament passed the Act for Kingly Title, converting Ireland from a lordship under the authority of the English crown to a strange little kingdom in its own right ie. H VIII of England then became H I of Ireland. With the Protestant revolution, Ireland was used as a sort of hunting ground for colonists (hope I'm not betraying bias - the history of Tudor Ireland is quite unbearable in parts - often like a Greek tragedy). There's a lot of literature on developing colonial ideology (beginning with the Portuguese, Italians and Spanish) in the 16thC, and on English absorption of continental ideas - these gave form to a committed policy of colonisation of Ireland from about 1550, which culminated in the Plantation of Ulster in 1610. By that time, the concept of Britishness was explicit in Stuart politics (eg. the first version of the Union Jack dates from the reign of Ja I). The Plantations of Ireland (and especially that of Ulster) were the templates for the British empire, and several people involved in Irish colonisation also had a hand in the early colonisation of NE America eg. Humphrey Gilbert, Walter Raleigh, Ralph Lane etc. Look up Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. An article on the British Empire that fails to examine its root is flawed. The inclusion of Angevin territories prior to 1541 strikes me as daft (as does that of post-WWII Axis territories).--shtove 11:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Shtove - this sounds reasonable to me. john k 17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The former map clearly identified that the Angevin territories were under the associated with England alone, so how can anyone say that they were included in the map of the British Empire? Also there is most certainly a difference between the "German Nation" and "Germany". Replace those terms with "Kurdish Nation" and "Kurdistan" and then identify anyone alive today who has a passport identifying them as a Kurdish citizen. Yes Germany was a political concept, but it was not a unified nation, same goes for Italy. I pointed out however, that having a Hannoverian king did not automatically make the people of the British Isles members of the German Nation and that to be more clear the use of the word German in that instance was ambiguous (just imagine how it would look to someone stumbling across this that didn't know that George I was German-speaking). As for their being no German political entity between 1806 and 1815, technically there was a German entity during those times, several in fact. But if you are referring to the time between the Holy Roman Empire and the German Confederation, then what of the Confederation of the Rhine? Also, I stated that Germany as a unified country did not exist until 1871 which is true. The German confederation was composed of independent states and it was not nearly as unified as say Switzerland. So implying that the German Confederation (and its predecessor The Holy Roman Empire) were unified nations as in the sense of Spain, Portugal, the United Kingdom (1707), France and Austria (which was a member of both German entities) is a stretch (although it is true that the Holy Roman Empire evolved from being a unified state into a confederation of independent nations). And as George I was not born in the Holy Roman Empire, but in Hannover in the German Confederation, his nationality (not in terms of "German nation", but independent state) was Hannoverian and his ethnicity was German. That is all I was saying. And if the German Confederation can be considered as such, and were the sole German political entities, then why are the crown possessions in France treated differently? And why does a map that shows the Netherlands have to mean the Netherlands were ruled from England or that the Netherlands were annexed into the British Empire? Did the map state that? Just because it is coloured on a map does not mean that it was annexed. And the former map was not the first map that I have ever seen depicting it (see http://www.euratlas.com/time2.htm and more specifically http://www.euratlas.com/time/nw1700.htm). So unless, the people who work on Euratlas are quacks then why can't it be shown? Euratlas is Swiss by the way and thus, then people who work cannot be filled with pride and nationalism for the British Empire as opposed to good sense. Plus those maps are among the most detailed and accurate that I've ever come across, I didn't even know about the Republic of Cracow til I glimpsed those maps. Conversely, it could be asked why doesn't the Dutch Empire map depict the former personal union? And if personal unions cannot be depicted then Scotland and Ireland should be removed from the map as well. And a stadholder was a very important person, but they were not "simply charged with the defence of the republic" as then they would simply be army chiefs. According to the articles on stadholder and the politics of the Dutch Republic, they were involved in governance. And then look, Shtove and Sander can somehow agree that the Angevin territories are not to be included in the map (even though the map clearly stated that they were connected to England solely) but their proposed dates for the start of the British Empire differ by 166 years, with Sander of the mind that nothing was British prior to 1707 (in which case the association with the Netherlands had already ended), but Shtove advocating 1541. So now I must ask Shtove, what was so significant about the act passed in 1541? And while I agree that the plantations in Ireland were a template for settler colonization and political colonization (to an extent) elsewhere in the world (Ireland was the first settler colony), I wonder if the Union Jack can really be considered a product of the feeling of Britishness, or if it is a case where the flag came before the country. If I recall correctly, at that time the Union Flag was not really a national flag (in terms of a flag for use by the people) as a state or royal flag and that its use was restricted for quite a while. The Tudor re-conquest of Ireland, by the way also makes mention of English settlers (peasants and labourers) that had displaced the native Gaelic inhabitants in the east and south-east during the Anglo-Norman conquest. As Shtove said, an article that fails to examine the roots of the British Empire is flawed. As to how far back those roots go, it is apparently debateable, however, considering that the British monarchs continued the numbering system from England and Scotland (so the current Queen is Elizabeth II of England and Elizabeth I of Scotland and William III/II and William IV/III, etc.) then it would appear that at least in the minds of the rulers of the kingdom that roots stretch back to at least the Normans and their descendants (hence Edward I, although he was technically the fourth Edward to rule England).--anon 9:51 March 19,2006

Whoops, my mistake, George I was born in the HRE (so just ignore that part).--anon 10:05 March 19,2006

The Dutch situation is pretty complex and I'm not qualified to comment on the technicalities. But in logic, doesn't William's accession to the English, Scottish and Irish (etc) thrones render Britain and Ireland part of the Dutch empire? (Another point that annoys protestant nationalists in Britain is the assertion that the Glorious Revolution came about from the last successful invasion of the country.) A useful analogy may be Phillip II's acceptance of the offer of the Portuguese crown in 1581 - did that make Portugal part of the Spanish empire (or vice versa)? See Struggle for the throne of Portugal. On the Irish point, the constitutional situation under the 1541 Act was a mess - a large part of Tudor Irish historiography since the 1970s has been asking the question Kingdom or Colony? and getting the unsurprising answer A bit of both. But the main point is that the policies and methods of colonisation (which underpin the concept of the British Empire - as well as the Spanish and French empires, but not the American) were set and pursued by the English in Ireland from about 1550, in imitation of the Spanish. By 1600 the term British was being used in political discourse in preparation for the accession of Ja VI - I think Robert Cecil was active in this regard - so there is substance behind the example of the Union Jack. The Norman invasion of Ireland is tricky terrain - some insist on referring to the invaders as Cambro-Normans: so you can refer the British Empire back to those origins, but only if the term British means Welsh! Which, historically, it does!! From a WP point of view, I think it's sensible to discuss the Irish roots of English and British colonialism and to take the Irish plantations as the beginning of the empire proper. Inclusion of earlier polities mixes up the terms of the debate, as does inclusion of post-WWII Axis territories.--shtove 15:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The accession of William to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones most certainly does not render them part of the Dutch Empire. William was not the monarch of the United Provinces, which were a republic. Furthermore, the Portugal/Spain business is not a valid analogy, because Spain and the territories it controlled before 1580 were much, much bigger than Portugal. When William received the English throne, England was much, much bigger than the United Provinces. Including personal unions as part of "the British Empire" is quite, quite problematic. This includes Scotland - the details of the union of 1707 have very little to do with the formation of a British Empire. john k 17:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think some contributors are too ambitious in trying to include every territorial authority ever held by English monarchs, so I made the mischief-making points to help point this out. The article is written with emphasis on the mid-18thC to late-19thC, and doesn't pay enough attention to the origins of the colonial empire.--shtove 17:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest adding material on Ireland, and its connection to the foundation of England's American colonies. john k 18:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"The accession of William to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones most certainly does not render them part of the Dutch Empire." I agree most whole-heartedly John k! I wouldn't say that the Portugal/Spain business is completely invalid. Yes England and Scotland are bigger than the Netherlands, but England and Scotland were experiencing troubles with the government which basically weakened them enough for William to be invited to land in England. So in terms of weak state-strong state relationship, it is partially valid. Although the Spain/Portugal business also is somewhat unclear as the struggle for the Portuguese throne article notes that Portugal was not to become a Spanish province and its colonies were not to become Spanish colonies, but then the related article on the Iberian Union gives a slightly different tone (although I did notice that this map in question did not attempt to show the Dutch colonies as being English/British colonies). I also agree that including personal unions is problematic, but it seems to be more because of inconsistency in dealing with them and outlining them. As I already mentioned the Swiss mapmakers of Euratlas must have done a lot of research and seemed to have no problem showing that the Netherlands were in personal union with England and Scotland and showing the feudal domains of the English Kings in France. Then looking at the articles personal union and dynastic union, there is the example of Austria-Hungary which apparently was a personal union, yet I have never seen a map that showed only Austria without Hungary (although, just because I have never seen it does not mean such a map or maps do not exist- I just haven't come across them yet - I have to wonder why some persons seem to believe that if they haven't seen it on traditional maps then its wrong). If the map seems too ambitious, then how about a series of maps? One for each section, including the background material on the Anglo-Norman kingdom, feudal domains in France (which still go a long way to explain why British monarchs until the 1800s still styled themselves Kings/Queens of France), English colonialism prior to 1707 and various points in time from 1707 (when the term "British" Empire could be applicable, because before then there was no state formally named "Britain")? That way, none of the information in the previous map would be lost simply because (and for no other reason than) it was styled as being "ridiculous" (I mean, seriously did anyone know where the British Commonwealth zone in Japan was before this map? Or did anyone ever see a map depicting the British Commonwealth Zone?). So John and Shtove, you both seem to know something about Ireland and the plantations, why not add the relevant stuff into the article?--anon 19:17 March 19, 2006

Austria-Hungary was considerably more than a personal union. Foreign affairs and military affairs were explicitly run on a joint basis, and it should be recalled that the Ausgleich was a compromise between Hungary and the Emperor, not between Hungary and Austria. The post-1945 stuff, while interesting, is most certainly not really related to the British Empire. I don't think 1707 is a valid date for anything. In 1707 the "English Empire" became a "British Empire," I suppose, but there was no substantive change in the Empire itself, and it seems silly to insert one because of an utterly unrelated issue with respect to relations between England and Scotland. john k 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point about Austria-Hungary. And also about 1707 not really being one of substantial change for anything (except formalizing the United Kingdom of "Great Britain" and thus turning the "English" Empire into the "British" Empire). This was one of my earlier points, that there is no real date for the formal establishment of the British Empire and that it just kind of evolved out of England and Scotland and that when Gsd2000 decides that simply including the royal domains in France is ridiculous because they were not a part of the British Empire (even though the map's caption and explanation key never claimed any thing as silly as that), then Gsd2000 is in effect declaring : 1) that map was claiming something which it didn't (at least from what I read and know of English) and 2) that there was a date for the British Empire's establishment which he/she would not or could not specify, but of which he knew that anything involving France was rubbish (even though as I pointed out English and then British monarchs almost continuously claimed the French throne for almost 450 years). I believe it is silly to insert a date partly because of a partially related(not utterly unrelated) issue of relations between England and Scotland (if you are referring to the coronation of James VI/I or the Act of Union as I suspect you are). It is also silly to insert one, because there is no universally accepted date to insert (1541, 1500s, 1603, 1707..). The post-1945 stuff may not be traditionally considered as related to the British Empire, but then again, the British Military Government did have rather extensive control over its zone of occupation, probably even more control than Britain had over some of its Gulf protectorates or Indian princely states. Also, tradition does not equal gospel. Look on the internet for maps of the CSA and you would be hard-pressed to find a map that showed Indian territory as being allied to the CSA (much less a map showing Confederate Arizona territory at all). Most of those maps also show Indian territory as constituting all of current Oklahoma, however today's Oklahoma "panhandle", was never a part of Indian territory during the American Civil War (it was Public Land or something), but that never stops "traditional" maps. So, do you want to reorganize the article slightly and detail the necessary information about Ireland as template for Empire? How about those series of maps? (which could be less confusing and would add more depth). By the way, how long does the discussion page have to get before parts of it are archived?--anon 9:08 March 20, 2006

Anon - I have to disagree with you. The "British Empire" means British power asserted on a colonial basis. This begins in the 16th century in Ireland, sort of, and continues in the early 17th century with the establishment of colonies on the eastern seaboard of North America and the Caribbean. The feudal dominions in France are unrelated, and it's just confusing to have them on a map of the British Empire. john k 18:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay then, point taken re: colonialism. I have to disagree with the feudal domains being simply unrelated. They may not have been highly prominent or relevant, but they were related as I already mentioned in the fact that the various monarchs who presided over the Empire styled themselves as monarchs of France. The previous map however, from what I remember was a map of the British Empire and England, not the British Empire alone, so how can it be confusing (unless the colours were too close) unless the caption and key weren't being read?--anon 19:07 March 20, 2006

Anon - again, can you point me to some serious historical texts (not some dodgy URLs that you found in Google) that cover feudal domains in discussing the British Empire? As was pointed out above, the British Empire has its beginnings in the colonisation of Ireland. It is not cogent to argue that something should be included merely because it is informative (re: your quotes (1) "I mean, seriously did anyone know where the British Commonwealth zone in Japan was before this map?" and (2) "if no serious discussion of the British Empire includes discussion of a few territories that you admit were technically administered by them, then again is wikipedia only supposed to ape those discussions and not compile knowledge" which seems to be where you are coming from). You seem to have your own opinions in this area which do not conform to the consensus in academic circles, which I would say that Wikipedia should very much "ape" (or at least summarise eloquently), rather than branching off into a soapbox for your own ideas. I also note that you seem to be in a minority of one here. Gsd2000 06:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say I sometimes find discussion on Wikipedia far more stimulating that anything I ever had during my degree course. I think the traditional interpretation of the term "British Empire" is what is causing the problems here. Personally I don't see much point in following academic opinion slavishly as it tends to categorise through segregation. That's fine for a modular history course or a book, but Wikipedia allows us to chart the development of a topic much more thoroughly. We would be remiss to ignore that opportunity. So where do we start, what do we include and in how much detail?

Clearly the article really has to focus on the main period of British imperialism between ~1700 and ~1950. In lesser detail I think it should also cover the main evolutionary stages from the slow build up started by Cabot in 1497 through to the dissolution and eventual handover of the last large colony, Hong Kong, in 1997 (as per Niall Ferguson). AND I would also include a brief introductory section covering what happened in the period between the unification of England and the Elizabethan era. We should not take a topic in isolation - the territorial ambitions of English monarchs and their people did not suddenly and randomly manifest themselves for no reason (in 1541, 1707 or whenever...). Wiki-Ed 12:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought though. If you wish to argue that the origins of the British Empire lay in territorial ambitions of monarchs hailing from the Norman era, that's fine, but Wikipedia isn't the place for it. Talk page, yes, but not main article. Gsd2000 06:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it too simplistic to set colonisation as the basic criterion? If not, then Ireland again marks the dividing line: pre-1541 it was a derelict version of the feudal domain established by H II - in 1541 it became a kingdom, and 10 years later a method of colonisation was in use there that was to be applied to NE America in 1584, at Roanoke. On that criterion, Norman feudal domains should be omitted.--17:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that colonialisation is probably the best criterion to use because it requires all sorts of other developments (which we'd associate with "Empire") to sustain it. But surely Ireland was something that simply carried over from era to another. If we're trying to divide history into little segments and say that the British Empire came about all by itself then, as the article says, this started anew - even if it failed - in 1497, not 1541. Henry VII gave Cabot letters patent providing him and his sons: "full and free authority, faculty and power to sail to all parts, regions and coasts of the eastern, western and northern sea... to find discover and investigate whatsoever islands, countries, regions or provinces of heathens or infidels, in whatsoever part of the world placed, which before this time were unknown to Christians ... [and to] conquer, occupy and possess whatsoever towns, castles, cities and islands ... as our vassals and governors lieutenants and deputies therein, acquiring for us the dominion, title and jurisdiction of the same..." To me this looks like a cross-over between feudalism and imperialism... or oops... is that "original thought"? I doubt it, but since I cannot recall reading anything suggesting a link I guess we'll have to pretend that is for now and leave it out. :) Wiki-Ed 11:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise Cabot was given that remit. But on the agreed criterion of colonisation, what did the English colonise before 1550? As for Ireland being a carry-over (from feudal to colonial, I guess you would say), interestingly 1497 is another significant year, as it was then that the English began to reassert themselves in that country (Poynings' Law and all that). The feudal period of English rule in Ireland didn't entail wide-spread colonisation, and in fact pretty much ended up country-wide with Norman-origin landowners becoming "more Irish than the Irish themselves" (adopting language, customs and laws). The only real hold-outs were the municipal corporations and parts of the Pale. By the end of the colonisation period 1550-1610, that had changed quite violently - so the effect of, rather than mere aspiration to, colonial empire-building had hit home. Ireland's constitutional status does muddy the water, but its experience of settlement and plantation in the 16thC is the clear origin of the colonial empire.--shtove 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000, what exactly do you define as "serious historical texts" (and which professor are you to make such a judgment anyway)? If you wish me to find a book specifically on the British Empire from the union of the crowns then as we all know, no such book exists which would discuss the feudal domains. But that is simply because, as everyone knows (and as the previous map stated), the feudal domains were attached to England. You still appear to think that somehow, because something is coloured on a map then automatically it must be associated with the main content of said map. Now is it not true that the prior map was entitled Anachronous map of the British Empire and England? And if so, how is it ridiculous to display the English feudal domains on such a map? And how is it incorrect? There were English feudal domains under the direct rule of the King of England, were they not? And as for serious historical texts, would you care to point one out to me that discusses the history of England and Britain in its entirety which does not include discussion of the English feudal domains. As to URLs being dodgy, well that is your opinion. You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink. If Euratlas is so "dodgy" (provided you actually looked on it), then where do suppose they obtain the information they put on their maps? By magic or word of mouth? They probably obtained from those very same "serious historical texts" you like to refer to. And please note that it was only recently agreed upon in the discussion that for all events and purposes the model of British colonialism began with the English colonization of Ireland. Nobody prior to that actually agreed on when the British Empire started and as been shown recently. even the agreement over the model is not concrete. Thus far I have seen the dates 1497, 1541, 1603 and 1707. Of course, any date prior to 1603 is an anachronistic application of the term "British Empire" (just like the term "Angevin Empire"). Back in 1541 people would probably thought you had too much to drink if you referred to England's empire as the "British Empire". As Wiki-Ed pointed out, the territorial ambitions of the various monarchs did not just appear out thin air. You say that "it is not cogent to argue that something should be included merely because it is informative". If that is true, then by the same logic "it is not cogent to argue that something should be excluded merely because it is 'ridiculous'" because what is ridiculous is subjective. I know you have a good knowledge of English, so is it not true that the prior map, in its title and caption, never actually stated that the feudal domains were ever a part of the British Empire?

The discussion so far has basically been trying to simplify what was a complex imperial system. Colonies are a good place to start, but were the Native States of India ever colonies? Were the Arabian Gulf states ever colonies? Were any of the protectorates, "colonies"? and if so why the different terminology? And what exactly constitutes a proper government? Are military governments to be excluded from that definition and if so why? Some of those areas occupied by the British had governments set up by the British which had more control over the area than the British ever had over some of their protectorates. As for being in a minority of one, that's not a problem. There is not minority or majority when discussing facts, only when discussion opinion, which is what you seem to be doing. Anon 11:48, 13 March 2006

I feel as though we are going round in circles here. I've made my point already and would just be repeating myself. Gsd2000 23:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Circles? How so? If anything I am confused as to what your point really is for in this article you say it is silly to include the possessions in France in a map entitled "Anarchronous Map of the British Empire and England", but then in the Evolution of the British Empire page (which admittedly was incorrectly named considering the first few sentences) you say "This article is about the empire that was British. Because England had begun establishing overseas colonies before the union with Scotland, it is fair, accurate and reasonable to include those possessions in this article. As the second paragraph says, 'The rise of the British Empire has its origin in the 15th century during the reign of King Henry VIII of England.' So why on earth are medieval English regal possessions in France listed in this article? It is utterly ridiculous and highly misleading to do so. Neither word, 'Britain' nor 'Empire' makes absolutely any sense whatsoever in this context. If one is going to include them then the article should be renamed to 'Territories ruled by England and Britain'." So if that is to be so, what was wrong with the previous map? However your statement is self-contradictory as by the first line in your statement the article should be solely about the "British" Empire and therefore a separate article should be made for the overseas empire of England from the 1400s to 1707. After all, the empire could not be properly British since there was no British government before 1707. Remember Scotland had a separate government which could chart its own policy (like the Darien scheme) and Scots as far as I recall were not (and could not legally) be involved in some of the English colonization efforts like the English East India Company (setting up their Company of Scotland instead) and there were still separate royal navies and customs controls at the border. Anon, 3:11 pm April 14, 2006

[edit] outside our purview

The article covers a vast empire with hundreds of millions of people over many centuries. It should not get bogged down in trivia. Thus "The last colonial expansion of the British Empire was the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, begun in 1938 and abandoned in 1963. The last territorial expansion of the British Empire was the annexation of Rockall to the west of the Outer Hebrides in 1955. The Royal Navy landed a party on the isle and officially claimed the rock in the name of the Queen. In 1972 the Isle of Rockall Act formally incorporated the island into the United Kingdom." When we use "colony" we mean a legal entity with a regular government--a governor for example. It is not the same word as "birds colonized island X". The Phoenix island business was not a new colonial venture. It happened inside a colony. The Rockall had nothing to do with people or government. So let's stick to real colonies. Rjensen 19:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This it is not "original" research. Both of these events happened. Your contention that the Phoneix Island scheme was not a "proper" colony is your opinion and one that is not shared by Maude, the chap who set it up. By your definition lots of "colonial" ventures would be disregarded because they don't meet [your] certain criteria at an early stage in their history. As for Rockall, well a large number of small rocks and proper islands that have been claimed by the UK are very similar. Do we ignore them too? Yes. They are trivial. Rockall is not. It was an unusual land-grab at a time when the British Empire was being dismantled and therefore (in addition to having economic and cultural relevance) as an anomaly it is significant for the record. Wiki-Ed 20:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

. No legitimate sourcee considers these expansions part of the expansion of the british Empire. Somebody named Maude thinks so? No--we need a legitimate source on the British Empire that considers these episodes part of the history. I did some checking and none do so. (see the Bibliography). All or most of the colonies at one time or another expaned into previously unsettled areas (that's the history of Canada and Australia etc), but that expansion is always treated as part ofthe coloby's history, not as an expansion of the Empire. Rocks are not colonies or Empires. Rjensen 21:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rjensen. It may have happened, but it's trivia, plain and simple, not kosher imperialism. I removed the paragraph. Gsd2000 23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed. I think it is significant. I'm putting it back. Guinnog 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the point. It's not about whether it's significant, or interesting. It's about whether it is original thought. The onus is on you to provide a source to back up your argument before putting it back. I reverted again. Gsd2000 01:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not "kosher" eh? Thanks for sharing your opinions guys. Maude is the guy who started the Phoenix island scheme. This article is a broad-brush approach to the British Empire. It needs to start somewhere and it needs to finish somewhere. Or, more properly, it needs to show the evolution of the process. By removing this "trivia" you prevent it from achieving that. That the traditional ("legitimate"???) sources skip over it and focus on punchy bits for their populist/student audience is not important. Wiki-Ed 00:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, again, Wikipedia is not a forum for original thought. The alleged original thought in this case is that Rockall etc constituted a mini expansionary phase of the British Empire (rather than whether or not these events actually happened). If this is original thought, it should not be on Wikipedia. To prove it is not original thought, as Rjensen says, you (or Maude) need to provide a legitimate source from mainstream academia on the British Empire that considers these episodes part of the history. It's that simple. Gsd2000 01:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No, that's your interpretation of the content of this section. However, the section makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims. Since we cannot plagiarise secondary sources the very act of writing articles is to some extent original. However, from Wikipedia:No original research: This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. You argue that we should not include a specific event in a specific context because a favoured academic has not specifically written about it in that way. Such an anarchic practice would destroy most of the content of this article. Even the layout could be debated as being "original thought" as most academics use a theme-based approach while Wikipedia's historical articles tend to be chronological. It is therefore necessary for us to come to a consensus and place facts in a logical order.

There is no contention that Rockall was a "mini expansionary phase" - which would be original research and wrong - it is simply a record of the fact that the UK made its last (and somewhat bizarre) territorial acquisition at a time when the trend was to divest itself of the territory it had acquired. There were particular reasons for this act which we can see, with hindsight, were not "imperial". However, at the time it attracted (usually sarcastic) comments about empire-building. Published sources do make this link: [[7]] or [[8]].

The Phoenix Islands resettlement - for the third time - Maude was the chap who ran the scheme. He does not need to "provide a legitimate source", what are you talking about? He was there. I believe the University of Adelaide has his papers [[9]] and if you look around you might find some more of them online. Not that it's relevant - you seem to want to refute the fact that this was the last colonisation enterprise within the British Empire. Since you cannot you will need to explain why you think this factual statement is not significant, bearing in mind that nearly all of the other sections of this article - taken in isolation - could be regarded as equally "trivial" or their placement questioned.

As I said above, this is a historical article which uses a chronological structure (unlike "mainstream academia"). It uses facts to show what happened and when. Various colonies and annexations have been passed over for reasons of space, but events at the start and end are included. Newfoundland goes in at the start... something has to go in at the end. This is not original research, it is an expanded timeline. Wiki-Ed 13:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockall is an extension of the UK in effect and not an addition to the Empire per se and certainly not a reversal of the shrinking Empire. It is really too minor to get bogged down in detail within the main article. GraemeLeggett 15:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Rockall wasn't part of the UK until 1972 and I've covered the other points. Wiki-Ed 10:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed, for the second time, it's not about whether or not these events actually happened, it's about whether discussion of them in the context of the British Empire is valid. I agree with GraemeLeggett that it's minor, but I would go further and say it is downright misleading to mention it. This is an article on the British Empire, not an article on every piece of territory ever ruled over by a English/British monarch, government or military administration (although unfortunately silly and pointless lists to that effect have been tacked onto the end of the text of this article). For the same reason that we should not include French feudal fiefdoms in an article on Britain's imperial past, or militarily occupied Axis territories in Europe (see above discussion), because their acquisition was not imperial, we should not include these rocks. Gsd2000 23:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, does anyone else think a series of maps (in the same format) say in 1500, 1707, 1800, 1921, 1945 and now would be better than several different maps interspersed far from each other? This rather large debate (which I didn't read in its entirety) could be resolved by using different colours for what could be "considered" as a British possession in whenever, i.e. the personal union stuff with other monarchies, and then the WWII "possessions". 219.77.98.22 04:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't personally, for the same reason I mention above, that this is an article on the British Empire, not an article on every piece of territory ever ruled over by a English/British monarch, government or military administration. The two are not equivalent. In fact, I think a new article should be started for the latter, and those lists tacked onto the end of this article moved there. Gsd2000 11:25, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I had also suggested a series of maps, however apparently there would be some problems differentiating between when the colours on a map represent English possessions as opposed to British possessions or differentiating between the various forms of control (which is partly what Empire is about). Gsd2000, how a can the article stand as it is if it is "not an article on every piece of territory ever ruled over by an English/British monarch..." but you still seem okay with the article using the 1500s as a starting point when there was no British Empire to begin with until 1707 (strictly speaking)? Either the article really is on the British Empire (1707 - present) or else it combines information on the English (and Scottish) and the British Empires (in which case, as you pointed out in another article), the title will have to be changed. As Wiki-Ed pointed out, this is an online article in Wikipedia (with Wikipedia having many styles), academic styles are nice, but they serve a specific purpose (which is to be read in a book that has to be limited in content and cannot be expanded and have sub-articles and links to other articles being made as Wikipedia can). If Wikipedia was to conform to these academic styles in all instances then a great many articles would have to be deleted (and if you insist on academic style then you should start deleting or re-organizing all of those that do not conform). Wikipedia's historical articles can be both chronological and theme-based, but I don't see why the article has to be exclusively theme-based simply because you favour the academic style and think we should "ape" the academic references. Also if military administrations are to be completely excluded then we would have the confusing situation where a good number of colonies would not have been "officially" controlled by any of the colonial powers since military government was instituted in a number of areas which were later officially ceded by Spain, France or England. And how exactly is "kosher imperialism" determined and what happened to the consensus? Can you give us references for what kosher imperialism is, and therefore show us why and how, say Rockall does not fall within the definition of this kosher imperialism? (By the way these are all serious questions, I'm not being sarcastic in case that is why you didn't answer some of them earlier). Anon 3:42 pm April 14, 2006.

Anon, clearly "Kosher imperialism" is GSD2000's opinion of what should be in this article due to some confusion between British imperialism (a historical term for a particular period with particular characteristics) and British Empire (dictionary definition: "group of territories under the rule of one state or person"). I prefer inclusive articles whereas other people appear to prefer exclusive articles which are pruned to suit their own interpretation. The lists and maps were the most helpful feature of this article. They were factual whereas the text is littered with secondary analysis and judgements. Wiki-Ed 10:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

According to strict interpretation of that dicdef, discussion of Sussex and Kent should also fall under the British Empire. Hmmm. You are absolutely right that Wikipedia is self-correcting - that is exactly what happened in this case with the removal of this misleading paragraph which spoiled an otherwise excellent article. Gsd2000 10:45, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What I still don't understand is how Wikipedia can be self-correcting if the outline of an article is determined by only one editor without any attempt at reaching consensus or at least answering some fundamental questions. Sussex and Kent as parts of England by definition were also part of the British Empire (unless we exclude Britain from the British Empire), but again you indicate how you would prefer the article by saying discussion of Kent and Sussex should also fall under the British Empire. Kent and Sussex need only be discussed under the British empire inasmuch as other subnational territories such as the counties of Australia, Canada and New Zealand or the parishes of England, Scotland, Australia, Canada and Barbados. I (and I assume Wiki-Ed) take it for granted that other persons reading this article are not simple-minded and therefore easily mislead and thus do not require us to segment history into little boxes for them or to discuss such obvious things like provinces, counties and parishes for them when outlining territories that fell within the British Empire (they can just click a link to see those subnational entities). I don't believe this stuff is actually worth starting some edit- or revert-war over, but perhaps we should bring the topic to some appropriate forum for voting or bring in someone from admin. By the way, I still await some answer to the questions I posed, especially what kosher imperialism is. Anon 7:07 am April 15, 2006.

You are misrepresenting the situation by claiming that it's just me advocating this position. Read the above debate again, see comments by GraemeLeggett and Rjensen, and then please retract that falsehood. Gsd2000 12:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like everyone to see what we are arguing about here (see picture on right). That's it. A rock. The British Empire is a heavyweight topic that had a profound and irreversible effect on the course of history and hundreds millions of lives. Come on people, lets leave trivialities and technicalities out of it. Gsd2000 13:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

So what if it's a rock? I think you're being pretty arrogant here, deciding what does and doesn't fit in this article. Let me remind you, the article is entitled British Empire, not Imperialism or anything else. As such, the last extension of the Empire seems pretty noteworthy to me. Guinnog 13:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

How dare you accuse me of vandalism or suggest that removing this paragraph again is vandalism. (see this user's edit comment). That is the lowest of the low. Provide a legitimate source that includes Rockall as imperial British expansion, or contribute something of substance to the discussion beyond adding two brief sentences. Gsd2000 13:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you don't like it, but this is nonetheless vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. Guinnog 14:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

You are bang out of order. Stop reverting disputed content without contributing anything of note to the discussion on the talk page. My reverts are no more vandalism than yours are. Gsd2000 14:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000, I saw the comments by Rjensen and GraemeLeggett, and if it will help, I am sorry if it appeared as though I was falsly accusing you of solely advocating the position on Rockall. However, my statement was not only on Rockall, but the article in general including the map and your position that we need to copy the style of academic literature. Read it again and point out where I mention Rockall. I simply pointed out the fallacy in your argument for excluding Rockall (which from 1955 to 1972 was a possession and not anything like a county Sussex) and that your example again indicates overall how you would wish the article written.

As for Rjensen's comments, maybe he should then explain the various uninhabitable rocks possessed by Australia, the United Kingdom, and in particular the United States (e.g. Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Rockall, Baker Island, Howland Island, Johnston Atoll, Navassa Island and all the other United States Minor Outlying Islands). Empire does not only deal with people and governments it also deals with territory and the status of the territory in relation to the possessing country.

Guinnog, as I said before, this stuff is really not worth starting an edit war over. If Gsd2000 wants the article a certain way and others support him, then they have every write to edit the article. Of course, considering that they can hardly answer any questions or points we may bring up (or maybe they just ignore them) nor actually give definitions to what constitutes kosher imperialism, trivialities etc then we should bring this debate to some forum or bringing in an admin (although by Gsd2000's comments he (or she) seems to be or thinks he (or she) is admin). Anon 7:05 pm, April 15, 2006.

Oh and Gsd2000, I believe Wiki-Ed already provided one source that refers to Rockall and the British Empire, but more than likely you wouldn't see it as legitimate. Anon 7:09 pm, April 15, 2006.

Oh, I wouldn't be so sure. I am sure we can reach a compromise that everyone can accept. Guinnog 00:34, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganisation

OK, I may get bitten for this. I have done two drastic things, mainly because of the huge and unwieldy lists that followed the main article. (1) I moved "personal unions" into British Personal Unions, and added a "see also" link to it. Personal unions are not empire per se, and don't really belong in this article. (2) I completely snipped out the "extent" section, because it is duplicating the Evolution of the British Empire article. I'll don my flame retardant suit and wait for the fallout... Gsd2000 14:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Very good idea! I like it, though maybe there should have been a couple stub sections (like the various "History of..." and "Demographics of..." sections in articles on various countries). The article was rather large. The extent section wasn't exactly duplicated in the Evolution of the British Empire article, so maybe any info (apart from the lists, such as explanations, etc) that was in that section, but not in the other article should be added to the Evolution of the British Empire article. The same kind of reorganisation should probably be done for the various other Empires (French, Spanish etc). Anon 3:49 pm April 14, 2006

[edit] Rockall

Here are my arguments against including discussion of Rockall in discussion of the British Empire. (1) it was not a colony, as it is uninhabited (2) it never fell under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies which was the governmental body for administering the empire (3) it is claimed as part of the United Kingdom itself and was never considered an "imperial" posession (4) its acquisition arose when decolonization was at its height, any suggestion that Britain was on a mini-imperial binge is downright misleading (5) its acquisition cannot be deemed to be a result of imperial designs (6) no serious discussion of the British Empire that I have read ever talks of Rockall (7) until someone can cite a source that refutes in particular (6) I will hold this position. Gsd2000 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1: Irrelevant - Antartica is also uninhabited as are the majority of the British Virgin Islands etc.

2: Nor did Ireland. I suspect that there are other instances too.

3: Same with Ireland.

4: The timing is irrelevant.

5: Its acquisition was to prevent it being acquired by another power, which was what an awful lot of British expansion was about.

6 & 7: It is a footnote to be sure. But see http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf

Finally this is what the plaque nailed into the rock said - "By authority of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of her other realms and territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith etc, etc., etc., and in accordance with Her Majesty's instructions dated the 14th day of September, 1955, a landing was effected this day upon this island of Rockall from HMS Vidal. The Union flag was hoisted and possession of the island was taken in the name of Her Majesty. [Signed] R H Connell, Captain, HMS Vidal, 18 September 1955." - It sounds like a unilateral imperialistic gesture to me. Jooler 17:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

It's also just the sort of thing come to Wikipedia for (e.g. to settle a bet or find the answer to a quiz quetion etc). Jooler 17:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jooler - please don't my revert my attempt at a compromise. The paragraph in question was under the heading "impact of the first world war" and had nothing whatsoever to do with this. It's now in the "See Also" section, with a brief statement summarising why, even though I think it has absolutely no place in this article whatsoever (see - I'm compromising). It's there for people that want it, and it's no longer an irrelevant and out of place paragraph in the WW1 section. And there is no "consensus" here. Some people are for its inclusion, some are against. Read the full debate. Gsd2000 22:07, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done GSD for attempting a compromise. This tiny mention does not do it justice though, but I agree with you the WW1 bit isn't the best either. Let's continue to arrive at a compromise we can all live with. Guinnog 23:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Jooler, there were certainly other instances of territories not falling under the jurisdiction of the Colonial Office. India is a big one with its own Office (which could very well mean that direct British possessions in India don't qualify as colonies and should be removed from all discussions in the article). I also doubt that many of the protectorates fell under the Colonial Office (e.g. Bahrain), but I could be wrong. Again, it seems that there is little appreciation for the complexity of the British Empire (or the French Empires).

Anyway, good work on compromises, perhaps we can arrive at compromises in other areas as well. Anon 7:33 pm April 15, 2006.

Gsd2000 - your "compromise" is to remove the entire para and add replace it with a weasley worded footnote. Not acceptable. I have Moved the para to later in the article as a compromise, uinder the heading ::The last gasp:: - perhaps it is worth mentioning this along with the Falklands War which some people (particularly the Argentines) view as a British Imperialistic war. Jooler 10:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestion. If you don't do it, I will Guinnog 12:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot live with a heading "Last Gasp". My main objection to including Phoenix/Rockall at all is the thought that someone would get the impression that Britain, at the height of decolonization, attempted a mini expansion of Empire-proper. "Last gasp" gives the impression of the last breath before death in an attempt to stay alive. That is absolutely not what this is. Portugal's wars in Mozambique and Angola were last gasps. Holland's war in Indonesia was a "last gasp". I have changed the heading to "Footnote" (after all, Jooler, you said yourself it is a "footnote to be sure") and I have changed "territorial expansion of the British Empire" to "....United Kingdom" because that's what it was. The compromise I ask of you guys is not to accord a bigger weight or significance to this than it deserves, in order not to mislead. Jooler, you may think that Wikipedia is a place to settle a bet or find the answer to a quiz quetion - I happen to believe it to be a serious encyclopaedia that adults and children alike come to learn, and what we teach should be a succinct summary of mainstream academic thought. If you want to go beyond mainstream discussion of a topic and add an interesting fact, fine, but don't make it a bigger deal than it is. Gsd2000 12:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we not just run it as a short para at the end of the previous section (Decolonisation and decline)? Along with, yes, a mention of the Falklands. I certainly don't like footnote as a section heading. Gsd, doesn't giving it a section of its own accentuate its prominence in the article anyway? Guinnog 12:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point, that would be better. Can we make the font white too? :-P I hope though we aren't going to add words to the effect of "the last war fought by the British Empire was...". "The last record listened to by the British Empire was...." "The last beer drunk by the British Empire was...." etc etc. I know the headline at the time was "Empire Strikes Back", but that was a British war, not an imperial war. Argentina may have considered it imperial, but insurgents in Iraq think Britain is there for imperial purposes too. Gsd2000 13:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think a mere mention (a one sentence summary) would be appropriate. After all, we've got the Suez crisis in there, as we should, even though it wasn't really an imperial war either. In spite of my strong anti-Iraq War POV, I wouldn't support mentioning the Iraq War either. Guinnog 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, although the Falklands War was nothing on the scale of the Suez crisis, which was a pivotal event in the empire's history - it was the final nail in the coffin of Britain's status as a true go-it-alone world power. Quoting Eden after the event, "we must review our world position and our domestic capacity more searchingly in light of the Suez experience, which has not so much changed our fortunes as revealed realities". Gsd2000 13:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, it was when, as Eden acknowledged in the quote, understanding caught up with reality. 1,650 dead in Suez versus 1,001 in the Falklands, not that huge a difference. The FW arguably underlined Britain's capacity to fight a colonial war (albeit in defence of a colony) in a postcolonial era, just as the Suez crisis arguably brought home the end of pretensions of genuine world power. Guinnog 13:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant "scale" in geopolitical terms rather than number of dead! Gsd2000 14:27, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gsd2000 here, the Falklands War was a British war, not an imperial one (the last wars truly fought by the British Empire (and Commonwealth) would probably have been Korea and Suez). Adding this to the Decolonization and Decline section is a good idea. While I wouldn't go so far as to say I cannot live with a section entitled Last Gasp (since I, nor anybody else, has exclusive rights to the format of this article), I also think "Last Gasp" is an inappropriate title for such a section. At the very least, if there is to be a new section, maybe it could be called "Post-colonial era" or something like that. The amount of info presented might'n warrant its own section anway. And certainly the Falklands War was much smaller than Suez geopolitically. After all the Falklands was basically just the UK and Argentina, while Suez had the UK, France, Israel and Egypt as active participants and the USSR and USA threatening to do something about it (not to mention the war was over control of a strategic waterway - very much unlike the Falklands). Anon 12:13 pm April 16, 2006.

I don't accept that the Falklands War was a colonial war but that is not a view shared by the Argentines and others such as Marxists etc.. It deserves a mention, if only to make the assertion that it wasn't imperialistic. I think I'm happy with what the article currently says. Jooler 19:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rockall & Phoenix Islands Scheme - Request For Comment

After further thought, I would like to open this up for a request for comment. This is the first time I have done this so apologies if I get the procedure wrong. See above for discussion to date - some are for, some are against.

My request relates to a paragraph about the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme and Rockall. Whilst the fact that these events happened is not in any way in question, I propose that they are irrelevant to discussion of the British Empire. No reputable publication Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_counts_as_a_reputable_publication.3F has been cited that discusses these events in the context of the British Empire. The reason for inclusion is that some contributors consider them "significant" because they were the "last" colonial expansion and territorial expansion respectively, when the Phoenix Islands were already in a British sphere and (uninhabited) Rockall was annexed by the United Kingdom rather than the Empire. I therefore put forward the view that their inclusion constitutes original research Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_original_research.3F: ie an interpretation of these events that they were significant occurrences in British imperial history. Specifically I am suggesting it falls under the following definition of original research: "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimbo Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."" I believe this paragraph to be a "novel narrative or historical interpretation", and unless a reputable publication can be cited, it should be stricken from the article. Comments welcome. Gsd2000 13:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't quite see what you're getting into such a bother about. Jooler

Relevant comments welcome. Please don't comment if you don't care (though I'm surprised you don't given that you reverted my revert claiming that I was acting against a non-existent consensus, and are therefore involved in this particular issue). Gsd2000 18:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Please. Do I care? Of course I care. That is why I reverted you. But What I don't understand is why you are getting so steamed about the issue. The majority opinion (a consenssus) i.e. all opinion bar your own, is that this is relevant and worth inclusion. You asked for compromise and a compromise is what we got, but now you have decided to take the matter further, and judging by the comments below the general consensus is still that this is relevant and worthy of inclusion. Now please respect that. Jooler 22:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to clarify something for the record. Jooler's statement that there is a consensus and that I am in a minority of one is factually incorrect. As the debate above will show, Rjensen first removed this paragraph. I then got involved. GraemeLeggett echoed our opinion. Wiki-Ed, Anon, Guinnog and Jooler were against. That was three versus four, which was not a consensus. Jooler, please do not attempt to weigh the debate in favour of your own viewpoint by claiming a consensus when there is no consensus. Gsd2000 22:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess this goes back to the confusion over what constitutes the empire. My understanding is that it includes only colonial ventures. There should be a definition in the introduction. Does there have to be an administration in situ? The Falklands War is included, which was waged solely for a strategic purpose; I suppose the Phoenix Islands and Rockall have similar strategic significance. Irish republicans still get steamed up about the claim to Rockall, seeing it as a flexing of imperial muscles.--shtove 18:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000, I agree that no reputable publication has been cited regarding the Phoenix Islands settlements, but for Rockall, what about the link provided at http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf? Doesn't it count since it is a PDF version of a physical (university) paper submitted to the Journal of Historical Geography in February 2004? It was a paper in a reputable journal. All that needs to be done is to put the citation for it beside the relevant text. If you want another reference, then I do remember seeing a book in the pharmacy by Simon Winchester (I believe the title was "Outposts: Journeys to the Surviving Relics of the British Empire". I am almost sure it dealt with Rockall. So if you or anyone else has access to the book you can check it out.

With the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, if you have access it to it (I don't, since Amazon doesn't have it in print) maybe the "Report on colonization of the Phoenix Islands by the surplus population of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands." by Harry Maude (the fellow who came up with the scheme) would be useful. It was published as a government report on January 1, 1938. I have a feeling that the person(s) who wrote the article on the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme had access to the report or materials that made use of the report. Plus if anyone can go to a library and find any good book on Kiribati, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands or more specifically the Phoenix Islands, we will probably have a number of sources.

I disagree that the Phoenix Islands represented the last territorial expansion, but they would represent the last planned colonial expansion (since colonization does not always equal annexation of territory). So you are partly correct there since the Phoenix Islands were already under British control, but all that needs be done is remove "territorial expansion". You cite that (your quote): "Rockall was annexed by the United Kingdom rather than the Empire." as a reason for excluding Rockall, but I know you cannot find any reference to any territory that was annexed by the Empire. All territories that were previously included in the Empire (and were not protectorates) were annexed to either England or later the United Kingdom (just read any of the treaties that followed some war in which the UK gained territory). Anon 2:44 pm April 17, 2006.

I actually have a copy of Winchester's (very readable and enjoyable) book and you are right that it does mention Rockall - although I would say two things (1) his book is not a historical writing on the British Empire - it's a travel essay about Britain's overseas possessions with a sprinkling of history (2) Rockall's mention is tucked away in parentheses into the chapter on the British West Indies, not even afforded its own chapter. I'm not arguing that Rockall never appears in print anywhere, only that no reputable publication on the British Empire discusses it. For example, I have James' Rise and Fall of the British Empire, Ferguson's Empire, the Oxford History of the British Empire and Smith's British Imperialism to hand. None mention Rockall whatsoever, and they have a fair amount of combined page space to do so should they have wished. We need to be even more tight in our editing given the short amount of space, yet here we are devoting a similar wordcount to these inconsequential events as to the independence of Malaysia. Re the PDF - it was submitted, but was it ever published? For all that though, at least Rockall is mentioned somewhere. The only source for the Phoenix Islands that has been cited is a text by the bloke that thought it up. The Phoenix Islands sentence should definitely go - no question about it. Gsd2000 00:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

From RfC: I see nothing wrong with including either of these, at more or less the present scale. They serve as a useful reminder that Britain did not simply and steadily shrink from 1921 onwards. Septentrionalis 21:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Obviously keep. The distinction between British Empire and the UK seems a rather meaningless one, as Anon says above. Guinnog 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Move Phoenix Islands settlement scheme back to See Also, because the only source that has been cited was a report on the actual event, and it is not that the event that was in doubt but its interpretation as a significant event in the history of the British Empire. (Anyway, it's not that far removed in principle from resettling a village to land previously uninhabited because you are constructing a reservoir, and as pointed out above colonization != colonialism). Leave Rockall where it is, but reword slightly so the paragraph doesn't stick out like a sore thumb as it does right now (that's another objection I have at the moment). (Constructive) thoughts? Gsd2000 11:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph we are arguing the toss over currently says "The last colonial expansion of the British Empire was the Phoenix Islands Settlement Scheme, begun in 1938 and abandoned in 1963. The last territorial expansion of the United Kingdom was the annexation of Rockall to the west of the Outer Hebrides in 1955. The Royal Navy landed a party on the isle and officially claimed the rock in the name of the Queen. In 1972 the Isle of Rockall Act formally incorporated the island into the United Kingdom." -- What exactly is wrong with this? -In what way does it "stick out like a sore thumb"? I still don't understand what your objection to this para is. Are you saying both ventures are too insignificant? - As I said earlier, people come to Wikipedia to find the answer just this sort of quiestion. I don't see why you have such a huge objection to these 80 odd words which give verifiable information in the correct context. As far as I can see a compromise has already been reached on this, and you now want to move the goalposts. Jooler 13:43, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I must admit I was irked by this as well. Having spent large amounts of my time and patience reaching what I thought was a decent compromise, here we are in RfC just as if we hadn't bothered. Moving the goalposts is right. Guinnog 15:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the eventual "compromise" was in fact no compromise at all. I moved it to See Also, so it was still in the article - that was the compromise - but it was subsequently deemed "unacceptable" and it was put back word for word in a different section. How was that a compromise? The words say exactly what they said before. My, and the other two contributors' objections still stand. The reason I opened it up for rfc was because I wanted other people's opinions, outside of this little circle of argument, preferably qualified people, not people who think that the criteria should be whether or not the information can settle a bet. Are you irked by the possibility that someone might contribute to the debate who has differing views to your own? Gsd2000 16:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quoting Guinnog on a user talk page: "I'm pretty annoyed too that after all our efforts to accommodate him he has gone to RfC, presumably to get the result he wants". I'd just like to say again to everyone concerned that I want to open this debate up for constructive comment, because I feel one side is incorrectly claiming a consensus and at the end of the day have not actually compromised one iota. That's what RfC is for, no? If users can't agree. I haven't asked for arbitration. I'm following Wikipedia policy here. Gsd2000 16:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• When I read the line for the first time, it seemed to be establishing contrast, i.e. an adjustment of the territory of the UK that explicitly did not qualify as an expansion of the British Empire, but was instead a UK-only affair. Its value is in illustrating what is and is not the British Empire. If that is the intent, then underlining the constrast might make it a little clearer. Peter Grey 15:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• My understanding (though I don't have an authoritative reference handy) has always been that the 'home' territory is everywhere that elects members to the British House of Commons. Everything else is a province/colony/dependency/whatever. That has the wonderful advantage of making for a nice, objective, precise legal definition. Peter Grey 17:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense. Otherwise (arguably) many of the territories mentioned here would not be, as already pointed out. Guinnog 17:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gsd2000's Quote: "For example, I have James' Rise and Fall of the British Empire, Ferguson's Empire, the Oxford History of the British Empire and Smith's British Imperialism to hand. None mention Rockall whatsoever, and they have a fair amount of combined page space to do so should they have wished." But as I outlined earlier, books are finite. All of those books you mentioned were single volume, one-off publications, except for the Oxford book of course. As I mentioned earlier, if any of the rest those authors were to go into the real minutiae of the British Empire, they would have volumes of books (just like Oxford). Just look at "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" (3 volumes) and "The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire" (8 volumes) and I doubt those books even deal properly with the Byzantine Empire which is greatly connected to the old Roman Empire. Just look on Smith's work. It the "British Imperialism: 1750-1970" right? In that case, Smith's work has to deal with 220 years in less than 150 pages. In that case, he is going to have to skip some stuff. Do any of those books write about Antarctica, South Georgia Island, Christmas Island, Anguilla's rebellion or the United Suvadive Republic? And how much about each of those places, if any? I'll bet Oxford's volumes will say something on Antarctica, as for rest, I wouldn't even venture a guess. In Wikipedia, if an article gets too long, then you can simply create a sub-article which will deal with the lengthy information while the main article has a summary. I'm rather surprised that more of the sections in the article do not have links to a sub-article or related article (only 4 of the 10 sections have any links to more lengthy articles).

Gsd2000's quote: "We need to be even more tight in our editing given the short amount of space, yet here we are devoting a similar wordcount to these inconsequential events as to the independence of Malaysia." I don't think we need to be tight in our editing since we are not writing a book that has to be published, but of course if the article gets too lengthy then we just need to create a sub-article to put all the extra info. The word count doesn't mean that much when you consider that decolonization in Ireland alone gets its own little section, whereas India is lumped in with every other colony (and of course no other area gets its own little decolonization sub-section).

Quote: "Move Phoenix Islands settlement scheme back to See Also, because the only source that has been cited was a report on the actual event,"...and "The only source for the Phoenix Islands that has been cited is a text by the bloke that thought it up." Actually, I was hoping that other persons out there would find a book on those general Pacific Islands (rather like how you nicely provided us with 3 or 4 British Empire book), but that aside, what is wrong with a government report by the fellow who started it? I'm sure articles aren't prohibited from using references composed by the persons who were there, e.g. Winston Churchill and World War II, any biographies, The accounts of other historical figures, etc.

Re the PDF - the fellow who submitted also left his email in the PDF, so if we really want to know we can just ask him politely. In addition if anyone has access to the Journal of Historical Geography (or at least access to an index for the 2004 volumes) whether or not it is published can also easily be checked.

Anyway, currently this article is a "good article", which is nice and means that it is well written, accurate and verifiable, stable, contains images and is broad in its coverage. Of course the main thing separating a good article from a featured article is mainly (but not solely) that a featured article is more than broad in its coverage, it is comprehensive. I rather doubt deleting stuff (as opposed to trying to re-write it to fit into the article) is going allow this article to upgrade. Now Peter's proposal is nice and constructive, although it depends on there being an actual difference/contrast to the status of Rockall from 1955-1972 and any other piece of territory (like the uninhabited Phoenix Islands) that were considered a part of the Empire. I doubt there is much of a difference, since the adjustment of the territory of the UK (as an entity separate from the other polities in the Empire) seems to have happened when Rockall was incorporated into the UK (via a county of Scotland). Anon 11:11 am April 18, 2006

I'm a bit late for the event, but Fraser Macdonald's article, 'The last outpost of Empire: Rockall and the Cold War' AKA 'the pdf', is currently listed as 'in press, corrected proof' at doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2005.10.009 (use http://dx.doi.org/ to resolve the doi). Mr Stephen 11:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hong Kong

Am I alone in finding this: "The sun finally set on the British Empire in 1997 with the lowering of the Union Jack at a ceremony marking the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China under an agreement made thirteen years earlier. Britain was left with a scattering of far-flung rocky outposts, the British overseas territories, with which to remember an empire that spanned five hundred years and a quarter of the world's surface." a little flowery? Would anyone else like to make it a little more encyclopedic? Guinnog 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Chris Patten was in tears!  :-p I'll try not to take this personally given that I wrote this and given our previous conversations both on talk pages and above, as I know the spirit of Wikipedia is that one must expect one's edits to be edited mercilessly. However, it's a closing paragraph relating to the end of an era - I just thought it nicely closed the article - and it is still factual. Encyclopaedic doesn't have to mean cold and heartless. Gsd2000 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think it would count as one reasonable, though not the only, landmark event that could be considered the end of the British Empire. I'm not sure how to qualify it as a symbolic event without invoking weasel words. Peter Grey 18:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but may still have a crack at toning it down towards a more NPOV position. The BE is not universally remembered with affection, nor is it yet utterly extinct, Guinnog 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

...although the HK handover is conventionally seen as the end. The remaining territories are either too small or too unwilling to govern themselves, or too unwilling to be incorporated into their nearest geographical neighbour. It's no longer an empire. I don't see how the last paragraph indicates "affection", myself. At least can you pls wait to see what others think, seeing as you have offered it up for discussion? Gsd2000 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've been bold

I have attempted to fit the Phoenix/Rockall business better into the flow of the article. The wording is slightly altered and some words snipped out, but if someone wants to read more about these particular antics they can click on the link - no need to get bogged down in unnecessary detail in a high-level article on the BE. Phoenix Islands was human colonization rather than "colonial expansion" (the latter conjures up images of Royal Navy landing parties, when really this was a resettlement - ie colonization like life colonizes) so changed accordingly. Gsd2000 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I am replying to this message left on my talk page: "I must say, I find it highly ironic that you are claiming OR (in your edit comment - "Nuclear missile test? sounds like OR to me") for a fact in the very piece of research cited to disprove my claims of OR: http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf. Despite participating in a debate relating to OR and someone coming up with this source in the talk page debate to prove it was not OR, you must not have even opened it and read the abstract on the first page: "Rockall was annexed in September 1955 because it was situated within radio-electrical range of a test site for Britain’s first nuclear missile, the American-made ‘Corporal’.", for if you had, you would have cited that if you needed to prove this to yourself. I do not mean this to be antagonistic or arrogant in anyway, but how can I take you seriously as an editor if you are not even prepared to read the very sources that are being cited to settle the debate that you had such strong opinions on? Just because Wikipedia is mainly contributed to by amateurs does not mean that lower academic standards are justified. Gsd2000 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)"

I was actually being far kinder than you deserved. I know for a fact that no nuclear missile test ever took place from the South Uist test facility. The source you quoted was in error, and you have copied the error. Now, if you were to say 'nuclear-capable' missile, that would be accurate. Once again you have flown off the handle; in fact, the epithets you so carelessly throw around ('amateur', 'lower academic standards') certainly do not apply to me in this case.

As far as I am aware, the MGM-5 Corporal was never tested with a nuclear warhead. Guinnog 19:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have not flown off the handle. But I am now puzzled. If you knew this for a fact, why didn't you simply change to "nuclear missile-capable" or remove "nuclear", as you eventually did? That would have been the obvious thing to do. Gsd2000 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right, that would have been better. Anyway, please don't take any of this too personally! I was leaving the rewrite for a day or two as requested. I think it looks much better now, with nearly all you wrote retained, the less significant scheme de-emphasised, the Rockall thing mentioned, and the significant Falklands war summarised. This, of course, is how Wiki improves and evolves. Guinnog 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. I take back my statement about the article looking better. I hadn't realised you'd reverted my changes. I really don't like the flowery concluding sentence, and I really must insist on the inclusion in the Falklands of at least the casualty figures and the unique post WW2 naval warfare fact, as they are noteworthy. The parts about not taking things personally and the message I left on your talk page still stand, and I am resisting the temptation to revert, for now. Guinnog 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets try to resolve this amicably. If you check carefully, I did make the last sentence less flowery. "Remembering" empire is now the "remnants of empire" (subjective now objective), and it is important to mention the British Overseas Territories at the end because they are all that's left of it - I wasn't sure why you excised this sentence completely. Re quoting military details, they need only be quoted where they are relevant to the article at hand, for the reader can click on the Falklands War to see the military details. The effect of the Falklands War on Britain's international status is very relevant to an article on the British Empire (you snipped this out), yet how many people died and which battalions did the fighting is not. It is, however, vital to mention this in the Falklands War article, and any failure to do so would be utterly crazy. So I'm absolutely not disputing your facts, or the importance of your facts, or whether they should be included in Wikipedia, and I'm not demeaning the deaths of the soldiers involved, I'm just disputing the relevance of those facts in this particular article. Gsd2000 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Source supporting the claim that the Falklands War reversed a downward trend in Britain's status as a world power

Lawrence James, Rise and Fall of the British Empire: "The reconquest of the Falkland Isalnds at the end of May 1982...gave a fresh lustre to national self-esteem... Overnight Britain had been transformed from a passive nation, an international has-been, into a power to be reckoned with. What had been, in effect, Britain's last imperial war... reversed a string of humiliations going back to Suez."

Daniel K Gibran, The Falklands War: Britain Versus the Past in the South Atlantic, p115: "The fight ... boosted Britain's international standing.... Alan Clark..told an interviewer that in his view the Falklands War 'has enormously increased our world standing. You asked about world opinion - I mean, bugger world opinion - but our standing in the world has been totally altered by this. It has made every other member of NATO say "My God, the British are tough"'".

Gsd2000 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a fan of Clarke, but I wouldn't rely upon his world-vision: "Japanese will become the language of the élite" (c.1985). The passages from James and Gibran quoted above have a Sunday-supplement ripeness about them - anyone for a book-promotion? They are perfect Sunday Times gibberish (the organ for dissemination of "intelligence-lite", as described in evidence to the Hutton inquiry). State the facts and let the reader decide.--shtove 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, but this article begins "The British Empire was, at one time, the foremost global power". Is this a fact? Who says it was the foremost global power? Further on, "During the long period of unbroken Whig dominance...the Empire became less important and less well-regarded". Is that a fact? By whom was it so regarded? Is "white settler colonies in Canada and Australasia whose British or European inhabitants were seen as outposts of the "mother country" a fact? Who saw them as that? How factual is "The British East India Company was probably the most successful chapter in the British Empire's history."? Again, who says so? If you wish to strip this article down to bare bones facts it will read like a list of dates. Gsd2000 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

True, but a balance needs to be struck. There is a slightly Anglocentric tone to quite a lot of this article; let's try to trim this and make it more encyclopedic. Whether Alan Clark is regarded as an authoritative source on the subject is certainly debatable too. Take out the POV, without making it a list of dates, and this will be a better, leaner article. Guinnog 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How does the sentence read now? BTW I don't view Alan Clark as encyclopaedic either, it was more the bit before he was quoted, and I missed out an intermediary sentence saying words to the effect of "this was not lost on some of Britain's politicians". :) Gsd2000 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording "The British Empire was, at one time, the foremost global power" is what emerged after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with the old wording which was something like "The British Empire was the world's first global power" (i.e. able to exert power on a global scale). It kept getting removed by people wanting to assert the prior global scope of the empires of Portugal or Spain. Jooler 09:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defence of Australia

According to Simon Smith in British Imperialism (referring to another text), the British Dominions Secretary Clement Attlee informed Curtin that "Your greatest support in this hour of peril must be drawn from the United States" after the fall of Singapore. In the article though it says that Curtin wrote in a national newspaper the year before that Australia should look to the US for its defence. Can a source be provided for that? Gsd2000 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

ps I said "Churchill" in the edit comment, I meant Curtin! Gsd2000 20:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Mongol/Anti-British POV

There is currently a bit of an agenda going on, primarily from User:24.9.78.176 (check his comments here and here) from what ive seen, which persistently makes changes to the List of largest empires, Mongol Empire and now the British Empire (see here ) with the aim of placing the Mongol Empire erroneously as the largest empire in history. Neither Empire or indeed Empires generally are my area really i just stumbled across the suspect changes while reading casually so i thought it best to bring this to the attention of users who are probably more involved/concerned with these pages than i am so that an eye can be kept on them. siarach 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland

I think it is a mistake to include information about Ireland in this article. Because it was an important constituent nation of the United Kingdom and was actually represented in the British Parliament, where it elected its own members. I know that it did not have full equality with England and Scotland in the U.K. to the extent that the different states in the USA such as New York and Pennsylvania have full equality with each other. And I know that the union was unpopular with most people in Ireland and the British were harsh on the people of Ireland sometimes. But since Ireland was represented in the British Parliament and the Irish people could vote in elections for seats to Parliament it was certainly not a mere British colonial possession like India was. FDR | My Talk 1:16 AM May 24, 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at discussion about Ireland in section 42 above, Talk: British Empire #Map showing France as an English "possession" and axis territories as British, about half-way down.--Shtove 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion, but it does not fully address the point I made. FDR | MyTalk 2:24 AM May 24 2006 (UTC)

Ireland only became part of the UK on the Act of Union in 1801 - before that it had it's own parliament. Before 1541 it wasn't even a kingdom, but a lordship. The reason it's included in the 16thC context is to show how the colonial empire undertook its first "adventure". So I think it's not a mistake to include it in this limited way - if the impression is given that it continued as a colonial possession (certainly post-1801), then that should be corrected.--Shtove 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that the section about the end of British rule in Ireland does give the impression that the island continued as a British colonial possession and that section should be removed. FDR 11:40 AM, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure - I try to stick to history and avoid politics. It won't go without a fight. Maybe Jdorney will be helpful.--Shtove 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget that I brought it up. Its not important. FDR 10:59 PM May 24 2006 (UTC)

Well, FDR, your point may not require substantial changes, but as Shtove said, if the impression is given that Ireland was still a colonial possession after 1801 then a correction should be made. As Shtove said, that section will not disappear without a fight, although I don't understand why the "end of British rule in Ireland is given its own section", while the 50+ colonies and protectorates are all lumped under "decolonization and decline". Kinda strikes me as being a bit unbalanced, especially when the independence of India is regarded as the loss of the Jewels from the Crown. However, that is another (related) issue that should be dealt with. As for the "End of British rule in Ireland" section, perhaps you could insert a sentence or two, clarifying that Ireland at this point was not a colony (even if all the Irish thought so), but a part of the United Kingdom itself since 1801.72.27.55.46 22:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Empire?

There's been quite a bit in the English press about a reassertion of Britain's imperial role - this time "benevolent", according to government thinking. Is there an article on this resurgence/recrudescence, or should it be addressed here?--Shtove 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's a bit difficult to have an Imperial role when the Empire currently consists of ... the Isle of Wight? -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

And downtown Basra too. Le Isle of Wight rocks, Tony.--Shtove 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Bit more than that Derek. Anyway, if this story merits a mention then it should probably appear here, although I can see it might irritate certain people. Can you provide some links? Wiki-Ed 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well maybe a little more: the Falklands, Diego Garcia and sundry other bits and pieces, but nothing as big as the Isle of Wight... <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

First ive heard of it. siarach 11:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking of stuff like Euston manifesto.--Shtove 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

A worthy document but, according to our article on it, its authors intended it to promote liberal democracy rather than imperial hegemony. I note that our article also manages to describe it without using the words "imperial" or "empire" even once, so, to say the least, its connections with the British Empire aren't strong. "Imperialism" is used by its opponents but that is a much more generic term used to describe (or attack) a behaviour rather than an entity. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough.--Shtove 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map Changed

I changed the two maps about. The one at the top of the page is the one with red areas, with the scan of the pink map further down the page. I did this so that the page conformed to the other Empire pages in which the same style maps are used at the top. Also, the red map that is now at the top is clearer in marking out the territories that are included. Any problems at all? Xtrememachineuk 15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You've put the 1897 map in the 1920s section. Also, I'm not sure that putting a 1920s map in the intro for stylistic reasons is valid. In my humble opinion a primary source looks better (even with cartographical errors). Wiki-Ed 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed 'em back. The 1897 map started off the article for a very long time and looked great. The 1920s map is horrible. I don't understand why people can't leave a good thing alone... Gsd2000 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The end of the British Empire?

This article talks like the British Empire ended somehow. It's only been reduced. The Empire lives!--Sir Edgar 00:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Those one-and-a-half dozen overseas territories will get you far. ;p —Nightstallion (?) 14:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been more than reduced, it's evolved beyond being an Empire. At least it had more positive and classy ending than most empires. Peter Grey 04:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Aside from any sort of misguided British nationalism, it is true that de jure the empire still exists and perhaps this should be reflected slightly better in some areas of the article?

What can technically be considered an empire does still exist. Although realistically its a lose empire of mainly former colonies and states which fall under the category of Crown colonies. However the major elements of the empire such as Australia, India etc. are all autonomous now. But also consider that the Queen of England (HRH Queen Elizabeth II) is also the Queen of Australia. So in many senses elements of the empire survive and I agree that these should be more appropriatley represented.

People need to realise the recent years of the British Empire aren't like the fall of the USSR where one day it all ended. Its never officially been ended, its just slowly been dismantled. And thats the key word, the empire wasn't lost or ended - it was 'dismantled' because it was in the interest of the United Kingdom to no longer have to sustain a costly overseas empire for very limited gains. In just the same sense that in the 1800's it was in the interest of the UK to hold such territory.

I supose in many senses one can look at the empire as a big buissness buying out and asset stripping a smaller one. Now nations like India have limited assets remaining due to hundreds of years of asset stripping and as a result require large amounts of investment to bring them up to speed with the rest of the world in the 21st century. The UK couldn't foot that bill and so pulled out. Lack of popularity in India was just one reason for withdrawl, people too often look at only the former colonies side of things in these matters and not the fiscal, poltiical and social aspects both in the UK and the colony. Most of the empire was dismantled on a modus operandi with the former colonies that it was in the best interests of both groups. I'd very much support this being added to the article to more accurately paint a picture of the recent years and the empire.

[edit] The US "joining" in a "scramble for territory"

Someone asked me why I removed the sentence about the US "joining the scramble...." The reason is that US actions in the Philipines need to be understood as a continuation of the war with Spain. That's not to say no one in the US wanted territory in Asia, but the sentence, as it stood, contained an inaccurate description of US actions in the Philipines. I wouldn't object to a rephrase, one that captures that US involvement there is viewed, at least by many historians, as a continuation of the war with Spain, which was started far closer to home (Cuba), not as a joining in the scramble for territory. But the paragraph would also be fine as it is, in my view. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-20 21:39 (UTC)

That was me that was. I have no expertise in this area, but if it was only part of the war with Spain then how come the garrison is still in place 100 years later? Perhaps it's an issue for discussion on American Empire (God bless WP), but empire is empire, in all its forms.--Shtove 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying it was only part of the war with Spain, but the phrasing -- "joining in the scramble for territory" suggests 1) primary U.S. motivation was to expand, and 2) it felt the need to "scramble" (for competitive reasons, or whatever). That's just not how it was, if only because the U.S. was far larger than Japan, and the small European nations who really did, indeed, need more territory to remain powerful. It got involved in the Philippines because of the war with Spain. (And the garrison remained because it was useful.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-21 07:44 (UTC)

[edit] Albion

Is this an ancient name for Britain, or for England? The article gives both as alternatives - I suspect one is wrong.--Shtove 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically for the Island of Britain, although the ancient nomenclature really only referred to the South. The word means "the white" and is a reference to the chalk cliffs of the southern coastline. It's an important imperial mythology though; British claims to the Pacific Coast of North America were steeped in Drake's voyage to "Nova Albion", a name often featured on maps right up to the seizure of California by American adventurists in 1848-9, and partly because of that semi-mythical heritage and also in direct reference to England, one of the earliest non-native settlements in British Columbia's Lower Mainland (before it was British Columbia, c.1828), was Albion, British Columbia, directly across the river from the Fort Langley Hudson's Bay Company post.Skookum1 21:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British enforced the Monroe Doctrine?

Can some explain what is meant by this statement:

The Americas in particular (especially in Argentina and the United States) were seen as being well under the informal British trade empire due to Britain's enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine keeping other European nations from establishing formal rule in the area.

First of all, the Monroe Doctrine is an American principle. While it is true that the British sought some of the same objectives as those in the Monroe Doctrine, I find it very unlikely that they would have seen themselves as "enforcing" that doctrine. Is there a scholarly reference for this?

Secondly, the sentence does not seem logical. How is the British' perception that the Americas were under their economic control a logical result of the British preventing other European nations from establishing formal rule in the region? The statement doesn't preclude those nations from establishing informal rule of the type apparently excercised by the British, so how should the British be so confident in their control due to the lack of competing formal rule? I do not question that the British felt they had informal control through trade, but I expect that came more through their status as the "workshop of the world" than any attempt to enforce American foreign policy! Joel Bastedo 19:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Enforcement" is a wholly inapprorpriate term. The British may well have separately decided that the independence of Latin American countries was the best strategy to promote imperial interests. Outside the United States, the Monroe Doctrine has never been considered meaningful foreign policy, but was rather considered a wishful declaration of a sphere of influence. The British (and everyone else) were merely ignoring it. Peter Grey 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

When the Monroe Doctrine came out it was declared by a second rate country with a rather laughable navy compared to most of Europe so Europeans just ignored it... That was until the British all of a sudden signed on. Now the British has a navy that by law was as large as the next 3 largest navies and they had an Empire that was the largest ever known with an economic might to go along with it. When the Britsh signed on thats when other European powers took notice and listend to what it had to say! Check out the Encyclopædia Britannica for more info on this. UKPhoenix79

I fail to see the text in that article which you think backs up your argument. The British never "signed on". Quoting "International Law and the United States Military Intervention in the Western Hemisphere" by Max Hilaire, "With its victory over Spain [in 1898] recognized, the United States moved to intervene in a dispute between Venezuela and Britain over the boundaries of British Guiana. Britain initially refused any US intervention unless her territorial rights were recognised. However, Britain later agreed to US intervention in settling the dispute, and by so doing gave its tacit consent to the authority of the Monroe Doctrine. With British acceptance of the Monroe Doctine and the US victory in the Spanish-American War, the US became an unchallenged power in the Western Hemisphere." Note the words tacit consent. The British were not "signed on" and they never "enforced" it. Gsd2000 01:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no authority of the Monroe Doctrine to consent to - the doctrine is more a mythology than something that can be "enforced". And mediating between a European state and a South American state is hardly reinforcing the doctine's premise. The article could say something to the effect that the US ideological and British commercial interests converged on roughly compatible foreign policies in Latin America. Peter Grey 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The doctrine is quite clearly something that can be enforced if you have the military might and the will to do so. I think you are getting bogged down in an irrelevant argument about "enforcement" though. I am arguing in agreement with the original (anonymous) poster against the suggestion that Britain enforced the Monroe Doctrine. Gsd2000 22:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant as a tenet of international law. The US could, of course, impose it as a foreign policy. Peter Grey 17:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a complete side argument, but... enforcement does not necessarily imply that it is a law. Enforcement can also mean compelling to behave in a certain way. Check out the US Dept of State's own article about the M.D. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/jd/16321.htm - "In the late 1800s, U.S. economic and military power enabled it to enforce the Monroe Doctrine") or an NBC article headlined "Pope appoints American to enforce doctrine" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7845420/). Doctrines can be enforced, period. But the Monroe Doctrine was never enforced by the British, even if they had shared interests with the Americans. Gsd2000 22:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I reworded the offending section. Gsd2000 14:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US forced end of empire...what?!

The article ends on a note saying that in order for the US to join the second world war there was an informal agreement for European powers to dismantle their empires? - this is totally new to me and i'm pretty sure its not true at all. In the 1940's the US was incredibly isolationist, I find it hard to believe they really cared that much about European powers having overseas colonies. Infact having all the nations rich with resources (basically the former empire states) all under one banner would have been good for trade standardization. Equally the US extensivley used British overseas territory in what was effectively its war with Japan. Its been flagged as citation needed and I suggest that failure to provide a suitable citation within a week of me posting this should warrant its removal until such a time as it can be proved. Its too significant a thing to have without backing it up with citation. Anon

(Please sign your posts!) The last paragraph was poorly written, out of place and factually dubious as you suggest. I'm always suspicious of "article creep" at the end of articles - it suggests that the adder has not thought how the information can be integrated into the rest of the article. There is a whole section on decolonization and decline, information about WW2/the Cold War should be integrated at the right place, not at the end after a paragraph on HK when the Cold War was over. Gsd2000 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The British Pacific - section needed

Gotta say I'm awfully tempted by all that Monroe Doctrine stuff above, and the previous item here on the US "forcing" the end of Empire, but I'll restrain myself. Except to say, because it's Canada Day (which I still "feel" as Dominion Day, but then I'm fifty), that one analysis of post-war Canadian history is we were part of Britain's repayment of the war debt to the US; that there would be a slow engaging from Britain's longtime patronage of the First Dominion, which protected it from overweaning US pride more often than not - more or less; I'm thinking of the unsatisfactory but better-than nothing Oregon and Alaska treaties...which like the Nootka Conventions have a "Foreign relations of Canada" category tag; but it struck me imediately that these matters were British imperial relations, esp. Nootka and Oregon (both 1818 and 1846); they are not part of Canadian history per se, nor is anything in that region until 1867, in an absolute sense. What's the appropriate tag for British imperial diplomacy/treaties?

I read through the main article looking for, rather than mere listings, any discussion of the British Empire in the Pacific. The challenging of the Spanish Sea by the opening of the fur trade between the California-Oregon-Washington-BC-Alaska coast and Canton, which helped fuel the China trade between there and India and Britain. The competing rivalry of the Russian and British Empires/navies for influence with the Kingdom of Hawaii has always struck me as a marvel of extreme geopolitics, and the HBC's long tenure there and Britain's patronage of the Kingdom (only to turn their backs when Hawaii was annexed by the US). Settlement, such as it was, of British Columbia and its predecessor colony, Vancouver Island, was accomplished from the Pacific, as much via Sydney and Suez as via Cape Horn; Callao and...Panama?...were part of the "grid"; and of course there's all those islands out there. I'm not skilled at overall British imperial history but wanted to field the idea that maybe there should be a discussion of how the empire developed in the Pacific, and how it was important to the Raj, the development of Hong Kong and so on...Skookum1 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "The Empire Today" - explanation for removal

The reason I removed this section is as follows: a) the British overseas territories were already mentioned and linked to in the paragraph above - instead of duplicating information from that article why not just let the reader click on that link if they wish to read more? b) they are territories not dependencies now; c) the Falklands War was mentioned two paragraphs above. Gsd2000 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Again I removed [[10]] sentences at the end of the article which were simply repeating what was already more succinctly stated: "The fourteen remaining British overseas territories, the Commonwealth of Nations and the enduring personal unions with the Commonwealth Realms constitute the legacy of the British Empire." Gsd2000 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size is a disputed thing

lets try to keep the article at a NPOV.(IIIV 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)) As it says on the NPOV article "Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources. "

We should let the facts speak for it self not say "it was the largest".(IIIV 16:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC))

Size is not a value judgement - it's a fact. Mucky Duck 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

IIIV - What on earth do Saddam Hussein and Hitler have to do with this? If the Encyclopaedia Britannica makes this claim (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9273752 ("The largest, richest, and most powerful empire in the world's history was the British Empire. At its zenith, Great Britain ruled broad lands on every continent and islands in every ocean. It was a common saying that the sun never set on Britain's dominions.") is that good enough for you? Please do two things: (1) read up on what POV means; (2) please try to do some fact checking first before labelling something POV; (3) please stop reverting this sentence. I have provided another trusted source that makes this claim - this should be enough to satisfy you. Gsd2000 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terrorist Source?

Has the british empire been the source of most terrorism? if you look at alot of terrorists today, they only exist because the english annexed their countries and naturally they got pissed off and fought back. Maybe england should be the focus of terrorism and not Iraq.

There has already been more terrorism against England than against Iraq. (Of course, England has not had a foreign policy since 1707.) Similar to the Ottoman and Soviet Empires, the British Empire prevented ethnic groups from killing each other and forced them to live together, which is the only reason they're still alive to be terrorists today. Peter Grey 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The Empire led to independence movements, a few of which used violence and so could be thought of as terrorist. But since nearly all of these movements have achieved their aims long since, the associated freedom fighters/terrorists have disappeared. With the notable exception of the IRA whose associated independence movement has only partially achieved its aim. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

^^^^ The british empire created iraq but there were only 'terrorists' there after the U.S. put Sadam in power and armed him

which reminds what happened to Osama and the U.S. they used to be best buds fighting communism in afganistan they even put the taliban in power but now for some unown reason(just to me possible) Osama attacked the US and the shit storm is still raging.

Please, less of that. In three months-three months- in 1798 British crown forces massacred 30,000 Irish civilians. The likes of you would contend it was all the fault of Her Majesty's forces. Untrue. It was all the fault of those barbarian natives who terrorised the ideological structure of colonial rule in Ireland with their mad French ideas of freedom and democracy, obviously. El Gringo 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology removed

I removed the etymology. It seemed superseded by the description of the coining of the "British Empire" phrase in the next section and seemed an awkward first paragraph David s graff 02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First and second empires?

Can I just make it clear that there was no gap between the first and second empires. These terms are made up by some american historians who say that the american revolution effectively ended the British empire. This is in no way true, before america was independent, new france had been captured, so had some of south africa, india was being conqured and australia was being discovered. How in any way was this the end of the empire? There is no first and second empires, the empire lasted from 1600-1997, uninterupted. --Segafreak2 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Map (3)

The map as it is now is pretty nice as an opening picture however it seems to be very debated and, at least for me, unclear. I was thinking of suggesting a new sort of map model that only shows the very basics (not capitals and such). The map should look something like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/Japanese_Empire2.png I was thinking of maybe making the map if the support for it is high enough. What do you say? --DerMeister 14:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

There is already an anachronistic map showing the evolution of the Empire:

However, I see no need to put it at the top of this page. There is no way to make a clear map at a reasonable resolution and the primary source material looks better. Wiki-Ed 15:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Righty. I do agree that the map would eventually make you think that you just smoked crap loads of pot due to all the colors. However the map that you linked to seems fine to me, it shouldn't be at the top of the page but it should deffinetly be in it :).--DerMeister 20:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

DerMeister, that map (and its earlier versions) was in it, but then Gsd2000 moved it to Evolution of the British Empire because the section it was associated with was making this article far too long. Strangely however, Gsd2000 "updated" the map by deleting a lot of the areas shown, including Suriname which was an English possession (with its main settlement being Fort Willoughby) traded to the Dutch for New York (then New Amsterdam). -- Anon 16:41, 12 October 2006

[edit] Rights in the Empire

Im very interested in what rights and freedoms the people in the empire enjoyed. But I cant find anything about this in this article. If someone could add it to the article, direct me to another site or just tell me here, it would be greatly appreciated. User:80.217.114.202

That's a rather open-ended question - the empire covered a large geographic area and existed for centuries. Quite a lot happened in that time. Generally speaking there was an increase in rights and freedoms as the empire developed, but if you're interested in a specific place and/or a specific time you should consult an article on the history of that place. Wiki-Ed 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Does anyone have a map of the British Empire at 1775 that they copy and send to me? It would be greatly appreciated.Cameron Nedland 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion

FYI, for anyone interested there are two AFD discussions going on at

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century) Gsd2000 11:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The British empire is overrated

British never really invade europe and most of their domains came from native africans or old empire -- (Anon)

Some came from Africa but most came from India, North America and Australia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ireland was "England's first overseas colony"

A certain editor is trying to say that England's Irish colony is now not considered "over the sea" from England and that therefore Newfoundland was "England's first overseas colony". I look forward to hearing how English colonists got on their bikes in 1352AD and cycled across the Irish sea which really is not sea but land (hence the name, of course). El Gringo 11:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find at least two editors are maintaining this line.

There are two points here. First is that we do not say "I am going overseas to Dublin" or "I am going overseas to Calais". We would, however, say "I am going overseas to Canada". If you have a problem with the way we use "overseas" to mean over-a-sea and not over-a-small-25 mile-stretch-of-water then that's unfortunate, but not relevant. The second point is that editors of this article have gone to great lengths to establish a starting point for the British Empire. The status quo for some months has been that academics regard it as having begun with the establishment of distant colonies on other continents. The alternative is endless bickering over the meaning of the word "colony" and where/and when such things were established in one of several places in north-west Europe at some point between 899 and 1550... Wiki-Ed 16:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

On a constitutional point, a statute was enacted in H8's time to extend the effect of the old treason act to offences committed "beyond the seas" so that rebels could be tried in England for their actions in Ireland. We've been over the Irish dimension before and it's well worked out in the article, with a brief reference to the Tudor era. Attempts to cut the Irish element from the colonial empire and to include Ireland as part of Britain on other pages betray an unpleasant agenda.--Shtove 19:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Now, why on earth would you be silly enough to say something as tautologous as "I'm going over the sea to Ireland"? Just why? That's just silly! Next we will have revelations like "I'm going to eat...food". Ireland is overseas from Britain: the name of that sea is the Irish Sea. This is a fact. Just how you can let political unionism distort this reality beats the band. In fact, Ireland is more overseas than Canada which is over an ocean (if you wish to be even more silly about this). As the old song had it: The sea, oh the sea is the grá geal mo chroí, Long may it reign between England and me. It's a sure guarantee that some hour we'll be free- Oh, thank God we're surrounded by water! And don't those lines hit on a truism that that sea has been quite the bane of the political aspirations of a section of British society for the past couple of centuries. I just didn't know they had got as far as denying its very existence. Astounding, completely and utterly astounding. The Irish sea exists. On one side of this sea is Britain, and on the other is Ireland. I suggest that you get used to that indisputable reality, and this one: Ireland was England's first overseas colony. El Gringo 23:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, Shtove. Also considered "over the seas" and "beyond the seas" were the countries in continental Europe. The British state papers, patents, signed bills and proclamations are replete with remarks and legislation about the alleged threat posed to Britain by Catholic forces "over the seas" and "beyond the seas". Somewhere since 1537 and 2006 all the sea around Britain must have disappeared leaving the Realm in, well, the heart of Europe. No more shall we hear "Fog in the channel; continent isolated". The new Britannia is, it seems today in this discussion, as much a part of the continent as Calais is. El Gringo 00:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a step back here, and disassociate the concept of Ireland as a colony from Ireland as an overseas colony. Ireland is generally accepted to be England's first "colony" - there is a section for this in the article (British_empire#Ireland). Noone is taking this away from you, El Gringo. But demoting Newfoundland to the status of England's second "overseas colony" is ridiculous when one considers for how many hundreds of years the overseas crossing was made between Britain and Ireland, and what happened and what had to happen before the first European crossed the Atlantic (ignoring the complication of the Vikings). Gsd2000 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Newfoundland doesn't even qualify as the first colony in the Americas - Francis Drake got to California before Humphrey Gilbert got to Newfoundland, and neither place was actually settled - the boys just waved their letters patent about and sailed off. The settlement on Roanoke Island was the first place there to receive English colonists. And I think Jamestown was developed before Newfoundland. Ireland is a tricky subject, but in terms of Tudor/Stuart colonisation methods, there is nothing to distinguish it from the above cases.--Shtove 06:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

So you would maintain that Sicily and Sardinia were "overseas imperial possessions" of Spain, in the same way that Mexico was? When the British Overseas Territories were so renamed, Northern Ireland should have been included because it's "over the sea"? Likewise for Corsica and the French Overseas Departments and Territories? Even now, when a British diplomat is posted to Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic, they are being posted "overseas"? If you still insist on this change, provide references from contemporary texts on English and British imperial history that list Ireland as England/Britain's first "overseas" colony. Gsd2000 10:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh. What about the Isle of Wight? If we want to be asinine, El Gringo, we could pretend that the Isle of Wight is overseas as well. There is, after all, a body of water between it and England. And hey, it was "colonised" by the English ten centuries before they set foot in Ireland. Wiki-Ed 10:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not citing this as a reference or proof of anything, because one cannot use WP to verify WP, but nevertheless, this might make interesting reading to Shtove and El Gringo: Overseas. Gsd2000 12:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop the lights! The draftsmen of the Tudor legislation had it all wrong - what a pickle we're in now! You might want to take a look at [[11]]. The Northern Ireland border alters the criteria, as it arises from the breakdown of the union of 1801. The matter is plain: Ireland is over the sea from England, and was the scene of England's first colonial adventure in the Age of Exploration. The Isle of Wight was never anything but part of the state - the natives still grumble about the bloody Romans. So, do you still insist on your exemption from the use of plain English? Or are you going to pray in aid another Spanish example? Try Castilian - you can wave your hands around as well.--Shtove 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you drawing a line with the age of exploration? You're making up limiting criteria now to justify your case because it won't hold water (!) otherwise. If you read the Isle of Wight history you will see that for a long time it was not a "part of the state" at all. It was colonised by an Anglo-Saxon tribe and it is across a body of water - which seem to be the foundations of your argument. The Wiktionary entry is too literal; the Wikipedia entry puts the word in context and explains what it is understood to mean in separate countries. If the Irish regard Britain as "overseas" then that's fine; but the British do not regard Ireland as "overseas". Since this article is about the British empire I would suggest it uses the British perspective of British overseas colonies. Of course this whole discussion is completely anachronistic: the word, the nations and the notions would have meant nothing to the people of the time. Wiki-Ed 20:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to add that if Ireland is "overseas", then so certainly is France, much of which was English-ruled a long time before Ireland. And neither Irish or French fiefs and territories were constituted as "colonies", rather as conquests/possessions. For the "first overseas colony" I'd think that would have to be Newfoundland, no? First discovered, though maybe another was chartered as a colony before Newfoundland was....Skookum1 20:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. Here I go, point by point:

• We've been over the limiting criteria ages ago, and kicked out the edits that included Norman conquests and Plantagenet possessions. We even had to kick out a gang of skinheads who insisted that the contintental administration zones at the end of WWII be included! In describing the origins of the empire, Tudor Ireland was chosen as the starting point, because that was the arena in which the principles of the colonial empire were first practised by the English.
• The Romans incorporated the Isle of Wight into the state long before the arrival of the German tribes - before the Romans, not a lot is known, apart from a few JCB raids by Time Team.
• The WP Overseas entry is unsourced, tendentious, and inappropriate for WP - it should be deleted, then pasted in to Wiktionary, purged of its faults.
• In my experience of WP talk pages, the term "context" is used to camouflage the sentiment, "I'm right; you're ignorant, horrible, and wrong".
• We're talking about the origins of the empire. So, sticking to that subject, please cite a reputable source that asserts that, the British do not regard Ireland as "overseas"? I can cite legislation to the opposite effect.
• "British perspective"??? Groan - WP is supposed to be an encyclopaedia that incorporates the sum of knowledge, not the sum of some knowledge.
• Discussion of the concept of empire is not anachronistic, and the British Empire is one of the principal historical examples. Here's a trick for the self-acclaimed winners in history when confronting those who expose the absurdities of their national narratives: Don't take things so seriously. They were different times, different mores! Can't we just be friends?. Friends, my preciousss!

Anyway, it's your fault, both of you. Not the whole thing, of course. Just this argument, on this talk page, in this "context". Best wishes, WikEd (and your little Skookum!).--Shtove 21:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of all this? Why don't we just use a different word to describe Newfoundland, and avoid the word "overseas" entirely? john k 21:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the term "overseas" serves to delimit the mother country of the British Empire and of the United Kingdom. Read those articles and you'll see a casual attempt to include Ireland within the mother country, without regard to constitutional distinctions. The attempt carries over in to British Isles. It's a slippery fish - you know that already, JK - and the argument will be worth it when "informal" short-forms and misleading claims are cut out.--Shtove 21:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

El Gringo/Shtove - are you two a double act? Every time it's the same - El Gringo wades into an article with an unpopular edit whose main raison d'être is to demonstrate to the world that Britain is Britain and Ireland is Ireland. Then El Gringo vanishes into thin air, but meanwhile Shtove has picked up where he left off (minus the rudeness and aggressiveness). Gsd2000 01:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - he's Abbott, I'm Costello, and you lot are the gang from Scooby Doo.--Shtove 06:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that every one has forgotten about the Isle of Mann. Its in the middle of the Irish Sea and was conqured by ALL of its neighbors. If the argument about Ireland is correct wouldn't this island be considered an overseas colony. Possably Britains first in the true sense of the word since each original nation conqured it (Scotland, Ireland, Wales and England)? The island is a crown property and as such not an official part of the UK... The argument that has been posted is that Ireland was independent from Britain then incoperated into it. The Isle of Mann was independent and has been incorperated (though not as fully as Ireland was). So would this island still be a colony? I would highly doubt that the people of this island would ever think that.

Lets not forget that one of the greatest, proudest and most patriotic Brit to ever live was Irish and even became its PM. I am refering to of course to Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. But that is aside the point I just dont think that the Duke would have ever thought of Ireland as a colony but a proud part of Britain. But like I said I doubt that the people of the Island of Man I see them selves as being a colony... but no one is saying that they are so please ignore that minor rant. So I repost my original question is the Isle of Mann overseas? Is it Britains 1st colony? -- UKPhoenix79 10:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No doubt Abbott and Costello will tell us that it doesn't count because [insert reason] and it's therefore irrelevant to the whole of history ever ever. john k I would have suggested an alternative form of words much earlier but I figured we'd get the revisionist response we got. I think both of them would do well to consider UKPhoenix79's point about Wellington. He was not the only person from the UK with mixed ancestry, both then and now. Personally I think that goes a long to explaining why many people in the UK don't think of Ireland as being "overseas" and/or foreign. Anyway, neutrality of wording is important to those with an agenda. I wonder if they would assent to using "England's first distant colony"? It means the same thing (in the UK and US and Australia and probably other places) but there would be no need to wrangle over which nearby island was "colonised" first. Wiki-Ed 12:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any attempt to fly in the face of consensus (in academia, outside of WP) and pander to these ridiculous edits by contributors with a political agenda to push.

• Page 7 of The Origins of Empire: British Overseas Enterprise to the Close of the Seventeenth Century, part of the Oxford History of the British Empire series refers to the distinction between British "domestic" and "overseas" colonization - British plantations in Ireland are included in the former.
• Page 318 of Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan Privateer, referring to the failed Colony of Roanoke: "the fleet sailed, closing the book on England's first overseas colony".
• Page 196 of Here: A Biography of the New American Continent, "Newfoundland...was Britain's first overseas colony".
• Page 3 of Pronunciation of English: A Course Book, "Newfoundland, Britain's first overseas colony...".

Ignoring the minor issue of which colony in the New World was the first overseas colony, the consensus is that "overseas" doesn't mean across the Irish Sea. Gsd2000 12:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The "consensus" from rightwing British writers with little knowledge of Ireland, but with plenty of indoctination into the myths of British imperialism, doesn't actually matter. The Irish sea exists; its existence is not what one can make a value judgement on. In fact, this entire "debate" about the actual existence of the Irish sea between Ireland and Britain must rank as among the most retarded in wikipedia's short history. Congratulations, GSD. El Gringo 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

john k I would have suggested an alternative form of words much earlier but I figured we'd get the revisionist response we got. Er, removing the existence of the Irish sea from this discussion and attempting to redefine the meaning of the word overseas to actually mean not overseas has redefined revisionism itself. Astounding stuff. Breathtaking stuff. And why? Because it patently doesn't fit into the British loyalist/unionist agenda of "at least two" wikipedia editors on this article, an agenda which at every turn is attempting to bring Ireland into the heart of the English realm, be it in the equation of Britain with the United Kingdom or the denial of the fact that British Isles is solely reflective of British supranationalist claims to Ireland and as such a totally political term. El Gringo 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Stonemad GB 16:44, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the point of all this? Why don't we just use a different word to describe Newfoundland, and avoid the word "overseas" entirely? john k. I did propose a very obvious and intelligent alternative in my edit a few days ago, namely that Newfoundland was "England's first non-European colony". Instructively. this proposal was not acceptable to our "there is no sea between Ireland and Britain" brigade above. El Gringo 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

UKPhoenix: There's Irish, and there is "Irish". Remind us, who was it who said about his Irish birth that 'because one is born in a stable doesn't make one a horse'? Surely not young Wellesley there? Alas! But it is typical of those with little understanding of Ireland to bring this down to blood, to "mixed ancestry". And it is a truly colonial line that spouts it because the next line is: "so let's all live happily under British rule!" Regular as clockwork is the "Why can't we get along" line which, interestingly, the British have started spouting only since they've been on top and wanted to secure their position. Hmmmmm. That specious, chimerical "pure race" colonial shite was discredited centuries ago. Even when Spenser was coming out with it there were objections. No actual Irish person would take it seriously, nor was it taken seriously throughout history (as Dónal Cregan's paper on intermarriage during the 1640s confirms beyond question). Irish society, being a democratic republic, is far more pluralist than its neighbouring society which continues to be institutionally sectarian at the highest level of state in 2006. Irish nationalism has been led by more Irishmen who were Protestant than your state has been led by Catholics, a state which specifically excludes Catholics from the highest position in state. I suggest the lot of you put that reality in your collective pipe and smoke it before projecting your state's values upon Ireland and claiming them to be ours. El Gringo 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with any attempt to fly in the face of consensus (in academia, outside of WP) and pander to these ridiculous edits by contributors with a political agenda to push. So, in the world according to GSD there apparently is no longer any sea between Ireland and Britain. And you call us ridiculous? Sweet suffering divine and merciful Jesus. How the Hell did the Brits keep my people faoi chois for so long? (yes, yes, yes I know it was through love, peace, flowers and cups of tea, just as was the case everywhere else in the British Empire) El Gringo 18:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I withdraw the suggestion of a compromise, given how absurd El Gringo and Shtove's responses have been. Just because there is an Irish Sea does not mean that Ireland is generally considered "overseas" from Britain. Is Northern Ireland currently an overseas colony of the UK? Or did Ireland cease to be a colony in 1801? Personally, I think Ireland can only be considered a colony at all in a very loose sense, and there's no need to go in for tortured compromises. "Overseas colony" is already something of a redundancy - usually "colony" in the modern, post-Roman sense, is taken to imply overseas-ness. Russia expanded in a colonial-esque way across the landmass of Eurasia, but Siberia is not generally considered a "colony" of Russia. Bohemia after 1620 was colonized by loyal German Catholics in much the same way that Scots Protestants began to be sent to Ireland somewhat earlier. Do we call Bohemia an "Austrian colony"? We can talk about Ireland as a colony of England in an informal sense, but we oughtn't to consider it to be technically a colony. It was, before 1539, a lordship, feudally dependent on England, and after 1539 a kingdom, permanently personally united and subordinate to the Kingdom of England. The relationship was a feudal one, not a colonial one in the modern sense, although it of course bore certain similarities to the colonial model that would later develop. But we ought to be careful about going past that to actually call it "England's first colony" as though this is a formal truth. john k 18:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

after 1539....The relationship was a feudal one, not a colonial one in the modern sense, although it of course bore certain similarities to the colonial model that would later develop. But we ought to be careful about going past that to actually call it "England's first colony" as though this is a formal truth. john k 18:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Utter nonsense which does not have the support of the overwhelming majority of historians in that period. El Gringo 19:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

john k - quite. El Gringo and Shtove are being absurd (but particularly El Gringo with his farcical claim that anyone here is denying the existence of the Irish Sea). Instead of trying to improve the article they are wasting everyone's time over a bizarre interpretation of "overseas". El Gringo - enough of your rants now - if you believe this should be changed, cite some contemporary references that state Ireland was Britain's first "overseas" colony. Without references, your rants are just a lot of hot air. This article ain't going to get changed simply because you're Irish and because you say it should be so. Gsd2000 22:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Umh El Gringo I hate to burst your bubble but I'm actually more Irish than I am either English or Scottish. My Mother is English Irish Scottish Protestant and My Father is Irish English Scottish Catholic. Wellington would have considered himself to be Irish from the United Kingdom that is all. It is not that unusual to be considered two things. Heck look at America you could say that your Californian, Texan or New Yorken (sp?) but all are considered American. How is it hard to believe that One of the Greatest British Generals can also be One of the Greatest Irish Generals? After all George W can be considered one of the (insert opinion here) American Presidents, or one of the (insert opinion here) Texan Presidents.

Yes for a long time there were anti-catholic laws but there were also anti-protestant laws in most of Europe during the same time. Its just that the anti-catholic laws went on longer than I personally would have liked ending in 1829. The 1640s for Ireland was bad because of the English Civil war which put in power the fundamentalist Puritans. So it is not hard to see why the Irish would see themselves as different since the Puritans saw them as such, but only due to their religion. Don't forget that the whole thing about religion and which side you believed in was a VERY hot topic at the time and for a long time the rullers of England were not only excommunicated from the Catholic church but the Pope orderd their assasination. People did not want to have any more persucutions about religion so to keep the status quo (and to keep themselves in power) they imposed such laws that now seam quite archaine. Dont forget that even in the United States they have had only one catholic president. Many persidential nominations were defeted because of the candidates catholosim and even in the 60's they were saying that he might not get in because of his religion. -- UKPhoenix79 23:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there are a few issues that are going on here that'll make it a difficult one to 'solve'. Namely, we have:

• Disagreement over the concepts of 'overseas' and 'colony'. As these are basicially undefinable (or at least, are contestable) ideas, this isn't something that can be solved with a simple source or argument

• Problems over how states opearated in the Middle Ages. They simply didn't 'work' in the same way as they do now, meaning that its difficult to go back and place labels such as 'borders' and 'colonies' on them

Given all that, and given the various arguments that have been placed, I think the key here is what the caption is trying to say; namely, that Newfoundland was the first colonial expansion outside of Europe. So one possible solution would be to do away with the whole problem and call it the 'first Translatic colony' or 'first colony outside of Europe' (even if the latter is a bit clumsy).

As for the labelling of things as overseas or colonies within Europe... like I say, I think this hinges on how we define overseas and colony and, as there is no correct definition of either, I don't see how there can be a single neutral answer to 'what was Brtiain's first overseas colony?' I mean we could debate ad infinitum, but where is the difference in the English kingdoms conquering Strahclyde, Mann or its lands in France? It seems to me that most editors are simply using the current UK as the basis for the initial 'integral' terrirtory; which is a reasonable approach I think (and would, under the definition of overseas provided by Wikipedia make Ireland a 'non-overseas colony'), but certainly not the only reasonable approach that could be taken.

If that all sounds baffled, its probably because I'm struggling to get my thoughts out on screen here. But baisically (cos I like lists) I think there are three options:

1. Make the caption read 'first Transatlantic colony' or some such thing (which I prefer) 2. Get a source or two and say what they say (i.e. 'Newfoundland, thought of as Britain's first overseas colony ^[1]) (not too keen on this approach, but I'd be cotnent that it follows the principles of sourcing an argument) 3. Attempt to come up with and agreed meaning of overseas and colony and then base the wording on that (good luck)

--Robdurbar 08:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The 1911 Britannica [12] says Newfoundland, commonly termed the "senior colony" of Great Britain, antedates in discovery (though not in continuous settlement) any other British over-sea dominion. Just to repeat, that says Over-sea dominion. I've already provided several contemporary references that use "overseas" in the same manner, including one written by folks that have spent far more time studying this subject than any of us (The Oxford History of the BE). This is as ridiculous as the debate on United Kingdom about the correctness or not of stating in the opening paragraph that the UK is "usually shortened to [amongst other names] Britain", both debates started by El Gringo. In both cases, reputable sources have been cited that chime with the current state of the article, yet it appears that this is not good enough for the editors concerned, that they know better than millions of English speakers, and scholars in the field. Language is not always logical and "strictly correct": see Distinguishing blue from green in language, and WP should go with how terms are conventionally used by the majority. The fact is that El Gringo has a POV agenda to push - to emphasise the separate identity of the whole of Ireland from Britain, and this is just another place he can do this. Gsd2000 10:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we really say Ireland was the British Empire's first overseas colony? When the British Empire, as it were, actual became, as it were, Ireland was already part of what was ruled. It wasn't made into a colony as part of the British Empire, it already was. That's just my thinking. Failing that I see no problem with the wording of Newfoundland as the British Empire's first non-European colony. Ben W Bell talk 08:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that you both have some good points. My only point is that if Ireland is seen as a colony then the Isle of Mann is Britains 1st one. Asside from the Vikings it was colonized by the Welsh in the early Dark Ages (displacing the natives), conqured by the Irish in the 6th century, Scotland in 1266, and the English in 1399. Lets not forget that it is also aparently Overseas so that would make it Britains 1st Overseas colony :) -- UKPhoenix79 09:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Also technically Ireland isn't overseas, it's over a sea. Overseas is plural. I'll get my coat. Ben W Bell talk 09:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL!!! XD -- UKPhoenix79 09:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You only took it off in the first place to have a fight.--Shtove 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ba-bum-bum, chhhhh! But seriously, UKP, my point is exactly along those lines; I'm not quite sure when we start counting 'England' as conquering others but (and I'm no historian, so correct me if I'm wrong), but prior to controlling Ireland, it had conquered the Isle of Man (not an integral part of UK territory, so what is it if not a colony?) and land in France (or had at least inherited it from the Duchy of Normandy).

GSD2000; I'm happy to accept that well sourced statement (indeed, that was my option 2); though are we sure here that by 'dominion' it means 'colony'? --Robdurbar 13:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Eh! England only had a toe-hold in Ireland for hundreds of years after it's first arrival. Next there were numerous battles to be won and lost. England controlled a small section called the Pale, which shrank and expanded many times over the centuries and it wasn't until the Flight of the Earls that any debate of control of Ireland can be made. So to say Ireland was conquered by England is farcical, Ireland never ceded England's quest for domination. At very best, England's control was a temporary little arrangement that was soon terminated. MelForbes 14:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mel, I didn't mean to give the impression that it controlled it all; sloppy writing on my behalf; but the point is that there was some sort of control over part of the island - whether this amounted to owning one shed, one city or a county-sized area is, as far as this argument is concerned, not the issue. --Robdurbar 16:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well Rob, on that basis Great Britain was Ireland's first over-sea colony ;) MelForbes 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I like Robdurbar's suggestion of Trans-Atlantic colony - it chimes with the Age of Exploration idea that underpins the origins of the empire.--Shtove 16:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this idea is that it is not the transatlanticness specifically that is particularly significant about Newfoundland, it is the fact it was simply a very long way from Britain (which is really what overseas means used in a British context), which marked the start of European nations starting colonies all over the world in areas they had no previous association with, as opposed to the medieval process of kingdoms jostling to expand their territories into adjacent areas.--Stonemad GB 17:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

No, No, No: you have it completely wrong when you say it is the fact it was simply a very long way from Britain (which is really what overseas means used in a British context). Just what sort of "historian" judges the past by the standards of their local extremist culture, 400 years of British nationalist indoctrination later? As Shtove, myself and literally countless (and I use the word advisedly) sources make very clear, the English and British state sources use "overseas" to refer to Ireland, and the rest of Europe, particularly where the threat of Catholic forces was concerned. In that particular usage especially (but not solely) was a reflection of British state interests to emphasise "the Protestant island". This "overseas" emphasis clearly is now inconvenient to more politically motivated types so, like other periods in British history, it must be obliterated from their historical record. But, thank God, they are a minority. There is no dispute about the use of overseas in British historical sources governing the time you say "Newfoundland was England's first overseas colony"- how could there considering the length of time it took the English to come from Chester to Dublin Castle- up to 7 days in the sixteenth century. These are genuinely British sources uttered by better Protestants and more genuinely English and more genuinely British subjects than the sort who have sacrificed their ancient sovereignty to the French and Germans (and we will not mention the United States). Saint George, among many others, would not be happy with the current situation. More seriously, there is a very obvious solution to this and it lies in the transatlantic/non-European etc etc form, a form which is patently unacceptable to the "Ireland is an integral part of Britain" fanatics (who have, clearly, never spoken with Irish people about this type of issue). El Gringo 19:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Stonemad GB 22:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought the Portuguese in Africa and the Spanish in the Caribbean "marked the start of European nations starting colonies all over the world in areas they had no previous association with". Also the Azores, Canary Islands, and Madeira, in the Atlantic. john k 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

John K - you're right: I should have said that the founding of Newfoundland was the start of this process for the British.

El Gringo - as overseas is a relative geographic term, inevitably it will have a different meaning in each English-speaking country, because of their vastly differing geographic positions. And it is the present-day meaning that we are debating here, as all words change their meanings over time. I think it is reasonable to use the British understanding of the term in an article about the British Empire. British people would not generally refer to Ireland or the rest of Europe as 'overseas'. The word is a rather old-fashioned one which has retained the meaning it developed probably in the nineteenth century of being anywhere that took a long voyage by ship to get too (ie everywhere outside Europe). This does not imply that places that aren't 'overseas', like France or Ireland, are somehow domestic rather than foreign. The point I was making is that it is not the point that Newfoundland was transatlantic that was important, it is that it marked the transition from expanding at the expense of your neighbours to starting virgin colonies in completely new places worldwide: ie the (thankfully behind us) Age of Empires. Non-European would do for this, but transatlantic would not: the colony would have had similar significance had it been, say, in South Africa. PS - do people in Ireland generally refer to England or France as being overseas?--Stonemad GB 23:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Besides Normandy and the whole French feudal mess, I don't think anybody has brought up Calais, which was certainly an arguable "English colony" and which is just as much "overseas" from England as Ireland. Calais was not inherited in some feudal scheme. It was conquered by force of arms in 1347, and then ceded to the English crown by the Treaty of Brétigny in 1360 (and thus held, at least until 1369, by the English not through their claims to the French throne). It remained under English control without a break until 1558, and for the last century at least it was pretty much managed exactly as one would imagine a colony would be, with a quasi-military governor and so forth, and not as a feudal dependency, or, at least, not any more like a feudal dependency than Ireland was. I'm not sure at what point we are to consider Ireland becoming an English "colony" (The Pale was perhaps arguably an English colony from the 12th century, but the rest of Ireland not so much until the 16th century), but Calais is competitive, surely. john k 18:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Robdurbar changed the article mid-debate - I have reverted it. I am totally not prepared to accept this change when I have provided several reputable sources and the other side has just spouted a lot of hot air based on personal arguments that are nothing more than OR. To move this debate forwards, the other side need to cite references, plain and simple. No more arguments based on logic, this is an article about semantics and, more importantly, convention. Gsd2000 21:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn and I thought my argument putting the Isle of Mann as Britains 1st Overseas colony could have won based on argument alone, just look at my facts. I mean everything I said was true after all... Now that I need to prove it with souces I'm screwed :) (hope I don't offend anyone by being a bit cheeky) -- UKPhoenix79 21:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, sorry about that Gsd. Like I say, I'm not entirely advers to the approach that you're taking; if Newfoundland is generally referred to as the first overseas colony then we 'could' call it that (and a quick google search brings up people such as the BBC describing it in that way (I'm automatically programmed to think that every the Beeb says is true)) - however, I don't see why that means we have to, when there are alternative ways of expressing the key fact about it which is that it was our first territorial expansion in the new world; I must admit john k, when I said France, I was thinking of Calais, and there are similar issues of the Pale (and I don't think calling IoM a colony is that rediculous).

If we look at the first few sources that come to hand, we see a mix of wordings:

• 'After the loss of Calais in 1558, the dreams of the English changed from a continental empire to overseas possessions' [13]
• 'When is a colony not a colony' an article about the Isle of Man which suggests that it was a colony from 1399 - no mention of overseas, of course
• 'ruthless surpression of Catholic rebellion in England's first colony, Ireland [http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/pirates/rogue1.html
• ' England’s first overseas colony remains her last, both in fact and, sadly, among too many, in spirit as well.' Not sure we can call this source neutral, though
• 'This last points begs the question of whether Ireland was part of Europe or simply an overseas colony' [14]
• Northern Ireland described as a 'shard of England's first overseas colony' [15]

Now with those sources I was playing devil's advocate - there are plenty (More) that support the view that Newfoundland is the first colony; however, this is far from the only view, and we need to account for this. --Robdurbar 09:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hahah thats great it looks like my fictitious argument might actually hold some weight :D So The Isle of Mann being conqured by all of the old nation states is truley Britains 1st colony :) Now if we can get it classified as overseas then I'll be rolling on the ground XD Wait if its classified as overseas would that mean that Britain is Over Seas from Europe... You could say that the North Sea seperates it not just the English Channel. Heck many Brits would be happy to find out that they're not a part of Europe! This convo keeps on getting funnier and funnier! -- UKPhoenix79 09:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

But continetnal Europe can be considered overseas from Britain; that doesn't mean we're not part of it though. Look at the definition if you search 'overseas' in google; or buy a property in Italy/France/Spain from http://www.overseasrealestate.co.uk/ . All 'overseas' means in this sense is 'abroad' or 'over the sea'. Islands such as the Shetlands/Isle of Wight aren't overseas because they're part of the same state; but Isle of Man IS overseas because its over the sea and a different country.

I don't know if there is a 'correct' definitions (I dislike the idea of correct definitions; as far as I'm concenred, a word means what people use it to mean) but my main point with this is that because we can't define overseas, or colony, we shouldn't go making statements like 'first overseas colony', unless there is total agreement from sources; which there isn't. --Robdurbar 11:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So N.Ireland is not overseas but the Republic of Ireland is overseas? And the Isle of Mann's highest govermental body is the UK Parlament so thats not overseas just like Jersey & Gurnsey is not? Very odd! -- UKPhoenix79 19:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Editor Robdurbar is correct on this. Because the term first overseas colony is leading to so much debate, it is better to leave the term out of the article. This sort of issue is often a problem with WP, as there are so many editors involved and no-one ends up satisfied with the outcome. A solo writer of a book would easily deal with this situation. So better left out. MelForbes 20:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't traced it all the way back but it has said this since at least May 2005. Why the sudden controversy just because El Gringo sticks his impolite nose into things? Leave the bloody thing alone, I say... Gsd2000 00:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ouch harsh, lets all cool off with this nice kitty emoticon (,,,)=^_^=(,,,) .... But I must say that your main point is valid. -- UKPhoenix79 04:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Miaow. Here is when it first appeared: [16]. 12th July 2004. That's two years and three months ago. For two years and three months this was acceptable wording. (It was even acceptable wording back in 1911 [17]). In the blink of an eye, it has suddenly become the source of heated controversy. Why? Gsd2000 12:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Er, by that logic can we assume that because the Irish didn't change the British state until 1922 they were all happy about it? By the way, is that the 1911 Britannica which said Wales was part of England? (Somebody brought that gem up over on the Irish Anti-Imperialist Isles) The fact that you are using the Britannica at all speaks volumes about where you are coming from politically. Just because everybody around you might think that way does not negate your very British nationalist mentality. Oh and by the way, GSD, there really is no point in continuously insulting me whether on this article or the United Kingdom one. You do not own this article, or any other one, so claiming that I am "sticking my impolite nose into this article" makes you come across as a control freak who is on a nationalist mission. One of your latest "insults" shows what an entirely different culture you are coming from when you lambast my: "unwelcome challenge by El Gringo of the status quo". Well, if you can't see the smile on Irish contributors at that wording you really need to drag yourself out of your little Tory "law and order" hamlet and realise that "unwelcome challenges to the status quo" have kept the Irish spirit alive for many centuries so a British nationalist telling us now that we should not give "unwelcome challenges to the status quo" is about as funny as an online discussion can get. El Gringo 15:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't need any lectures from a contributor that has a request for comment open on their behaviour [18], multiple warnings on their talk page, and multiple attempts to hide them [19]. Whilst you label me with the brush of a British nationalist, you have absolutely no evidence of my political persuasions. Yet yours are very clear. Which is exactly why you are not suitable to contribute to an encyclopaedia - you are unable to put your political beliefs to one side and contribute as a neutral. Gsd2000 22:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment; Gsd2000, please read WP:Civil. One should not attack other editors because one disagrees. This spoils WP for everybody, and it can make newer editors hesitant to edit. MelForbes 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As other editors above have pointed out, there is an abundance of sources showing that Ireland is considered England's first overseas colony. With that, it is clear that saying Newfoundland is "England's first overseas colony" cannot be sustained. There are numerous alternatives such as 'First transatlantic colony' etc etc. Certain editors should not be so hostile to such intelligent and accurate wording. Persisting in this silliness out of some pov is unbecoming. El Gringo 15:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Viva the Isle of Mann as Britians 1st overseas Colony :) -- UKPhoenix79 16:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be an abundance of academic sources (i.e. not websites) showing that Ireland was not and cannot be considered England's first overseas colony. Unless the "editors" with the agenda can (a) disprove the fact that other islands were colonised by the English before Ireland and (b) show that mainstream academics agree with their POV that Ireland is considered "overseas" there is no need to carry on this discussion - we are simply feeding the trolls. I've referenced the existing comment. Further unsourced changes should be treated as vandalism. Wiki-Ed 10:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV, neutrality disputed

The article pushes a rose coloured view of the British Empire. Even the images used are pushing that view. We see no pictures of slavery, famine or degradation which was often typical of the Empire. Read WP:NPOV for insight. MelForbes 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well you are always welcome to edit it. I do note that the importance of slavery in the Caribean is mentioned, but oddly enough no mention of the role of the British Empire in abolishing it. Not sure how you picture "degradation". Keep in mind that this is a general article on the history of the British Empire, and that many specific episodes, for instance of famine, might be best dealt with in the histories of the countries concerned. You would have to show that Imperial policy at a point of time was the cause of famine, for instance. --Michael Johnson 09:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article has a number of faults (uneven coverage, awkward structure and a lack of in-line citations), but neutrality is not one of them. It does not push a pro-British line, even though anti-British editors might think it does; it does not push an anti-British line, even though pro-British editors might think it does. Much more could be said on either "side" - we either put all of it in or none of it goes in.

In fact the only image which has any rose colouring is the map and the suggestion that slavery, famine and degradation were in some way unique to the British Empire or unusual at the time is certainly not neutral... So I'll remove the tag until specific sourced evidence (that this article is not neutral) is forthcoming. Wiki-Ed 10:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear, Michael Johnson and Wiki-Ed. Furthermore, this is an encyclopaedia article, not a critique or an essay. To pick the example of famine, making a causal link between the British Empire and a particular famine, or a counterfactual one (had the British Empire not existed the famine would not have occurred), requires some pretty watertight evidence. I'd say it was beyond the remit of an encyclopaedia. "Degredation" too is a very subjective word. I'm not in any way denying the B.E. did a lot of very terrible things, but throughout history and still today, so did a lot of empires, countries and people. It's a can of worms that this article should stay out of. Gsd2000 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It goes to prove that a country's history should never be written by it's own nationals. The article is written in a very 1950's-ish style. The images are very cozy and idealist, and the article has a tone of the idyllic about it. It certainly needs a dose of the rough. MelForbes 19:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

So edit it then. If the article contains facts backed up by references, what's the problem? Gsd2000 22:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's only a problem if you make it one. I will be editing it very shortly, in the next month or so. It needs a lot of work. MelForbes 14:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unity of India Prior to the Empire

I have deleted the following paragraph from the East India Company section - it is, at best, misleading.

After the fall of Mughal Empire, there was no single entity that administered the Indian subcontinent. The area was a patchwork of a multitude of kingdoms. The only common bonds were those of religion as most of the population followed either Hinduism, Islam or Sikhism. It may be noted here that there was no political entity called India at that time. The Indian subcontinent was a patchwork of many kingdoms, and much like Europe at the time, there was no single state that ruled over this vast expanse of land since the fall of the Mugham Empire. It was not until India was absorbed by the British Empire, that the idea of a single nation arose, much later in time. Thus, until the establishment of a single administrative and gubernatorial entity by the British, the word India only represents the peninsula south of the Himalayas, known as the Indian subcontinent.

Firstly it gives the impression that the Mughal Empire fell in the way distance past. In fact it was at its height in the first quarter of the 18th century. Secondly it was replaced as the ruling state by the Maratha Empire whose decline was in large part due to clashes with the nacent British Empire in the third quater of the 18th century. That the word "India" was not used to describe these empires hardly matters - that was the English name.

And finally it appears to be completely out of place - what does it have to do with the East India Company? Mucky Duck 08:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree entirely. Also the paragraph has a POV feel about it. --Michael Johnson 10:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)