Talk:British Empire

Cyprus deserves inclusion

Cyprus, which the British had ruled on lease from the Ottomans since 1878, became a Crown Colony in 1925 after Turkey had signed away any and all interests in the island in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. This is an interesting contrast to the Balkan countries, which gained independence after their respective liberations. This deserves to be edited into the article, not merely the late 1950's war against the colonial rule.

References

The only thing I would like to see in the way of an improvement is the References section. Complete MLA or APA references (footnotes) would be a great help to college students seeking to reference their research papers. As good as Wiki is, it is not suitable to use as formal reference so we need to backtrack as far as possible to the original research. An authors name and a page reference isn't an adequate footnote reference unless it points to a previous complete reference. Annotated footnotes are even better, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Cromwell for an excellent example. Traceyed (talk) 01:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC) Traceyed

The full details for each reference are in the bibliography. The Oliver Cromwell article is actually a hodge-podge of styles, for instance some give full details, others don't and refer instead to the bibliography. Nev1 (talk) 01:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes - click on the author's name in the reference section and it takes you to the full details of the text. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Germany and Palestine

From 1871 to 1918 Germany should be referred to as the German Empire. Furthermore it was due to political pressure from the United States that the UK abandoned its mandate for Palestine in 1948. (92.7.26.173 (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC))

Re Germany, says who? It's perfectly fine to refer to "Germany". We can, however, pipelink to German Empire.

Re Palestine, your edit is extremely misleading and suggests British withdrawal from Palestine was solely due to US pressure. Some sources:

• The Oxford History of the British Empire, Volume 4 (p. 298): "The campaign for a Jewish state was supported by massive propaganda, particularly in the United States, whose pressures on the British government to permit mass Jewish migration into Palestine greatly added to Britain's difficulties....In Feb 1947, in mounting despair, and appalled by the cost of the campaign, London announced that it was passing the problem to the United Nations for solution. Under pressure from both the United States and the Soviet Union, and to the chagrin of Britain, the United States recommended partition".
• Simon Smith's British Imperialism (pp102-103) "The American President wrote to the British premier demanding the immediate admission of 100,000 Jewish refugees into Palestine. In an attempt to involve their American critics in the problems of Palestine, the British established an Anglo-American Commission (which) failed to harmonise British and American policies. To make matters worse, British personnel became the target for Jewish attacks. Such was the level of disorder in Palestine that its strategic value to Britain was being progressively eroded. What is more, the annual cost of maintaining Britain's military presence there had reached (an) unsustainable figure. On February 1947, the British cabinet resolved to refer the whole question to the United Nations."
• Niall Ferguson's Empire (p. 297) doesn't devote much space to the matter, but: "In Palestine..the British cut and ran, in 1949, bequeathing to the world the unresolved question of the new state of Israel's relations with the 'stateless' Palestinians and the neighbouring Arab states."

Your edit [1] is completely misleading when compared with those sources. The US applied pressure on Britain to admit Jewish refugees. Britain invited the US to the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry. Realising the futility and expense of maintaining its military presence there, Britain announced its intention to terminate the mandate and refer the matter to the UN. The US (and USSR) then applied pressure at the UN for partition. Compare those facts with the original wording and your edit:

• "Rather than deal with the issue, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve"
• "Under heavy pressure from the United States, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve"

The former is consistent with the facts, even if it glosses over the complexity of the matter (this is an overview article so there is no room for complexity). The latter picks out one topic - "heavy pressure from the United States", conjoins it with the original final clause in an act of synthesis to incorrectly give the impression that this was a Suez-style withdrawal.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

ps I found the reference you cited on Amazon's "look inside" feature. It seems to me you are cherry picking words. It does say "under American pressure", but it also says "..but by no means reluctantly, Britain (withdrew)". That's quite a different kettle of fish to your claim - I underlined the important bit omitted from your edit which entirely changes the meaning of it all to suggest a Suez-like exit at the behest of the Yanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The American pressure should be mentioned because it was President Truman who was determined to create the state of Israel, despite the objections of the UK's Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin. (92.7.13.102 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC))

What about the pressure from Zionists? And the attacks on British troops? And the pressure from the financial commitments of keeping an armed presence there? Again, you are picking one aspect of the matter, and injecting it into a summary article on the BE which cannot possibly give all the aspects the mention they deserve. But that's OK because the reader can click on Palestine to find out more. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The financial implications and attacks on troops were NOTHING compared with the immense political pressure from the United States. (92.7.16.26 (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC))

If that were the case then the sources would reflect this to the exclusion of all other factors. Generally speaking domestic pressure is far more important to politicians than external pressure from allies (unless the latter could lead to domestic consquences, e.g. raised fuel prices). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it would probably be more accurate to refer to the German Empire. One of the factors usually cited in the outbreak of the First World War was the German desire for an Empire like other European states at the time. Why is there not room to refer to it as the German Empire?

On Palestine the article currently states "Rather than deal with the issue, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve, which it did by voting for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state." "Rather than deal with the issue" doesn't really cover the mounting despair felt at the situation and what it was costing Britain. I think there is room to improve the wording here. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's one thing to argue that the technically correct name was the "German Empire" as 92.x.x.x was doing (although debates like that are silly - following that logic we'd end up always referring to the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" instead of "the UK" or "Britain"). It's quite another to say that because Germany wanted an overseas empire we have to refer to it as the German Empire - that doesn't make sense at all - "Deutsches Reich", or German Empire, refers to the homeland, not the overseas empire.

Re Palestine, what do you propose, bearing in mind this is an overview article, and readers can click on Palestine, British Mandate for Palestine, etc to read about the details? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I would disagree, it was the conflict with the German Empire that led to WW1 but it seems your mind is closed to considering that so I won't press the issue.

Well at the moment, it simply states that Britain didn't deal with the issue. If we look at the books you quote above, they state, for example, in mounting despair, and appalled by the cost of the campaign, London announced that it was passing the problem to the United Nations for solution. It would be more accurate to note the cost and frustration of the Palestine Mandate led Britain to pass it onto the UN. Thats all I was saying. BedsBookworm (talk) 09:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

As I had no response to my comment, I've copy edited the article to better reflect the source. BedsBookworm (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted that, sorry, it was way too close to the source. The current summary seems apt, although if we note it was an expensive issue that may be useful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK since you object to the wording not the edit, I've had another go. Is that better? BedsBookworm (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Better, but still not that great. That information isn't from the source given, which is the major issue. There also wasn't a campaign, which your wording implies. It also loses the information that the British simply passed off the problem rather than bother about it themselves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The British did try to sort it out they delayed making it a trust territory and passing it back to the UN while an Anglo-American Commission spent time coming to a recommendation, but nobody accepted it, and further talks and conferences failed to come to a conclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Although newbies may be delicious served with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti, it is actively discouraged. (Been looking forward to trying that out since I created it)
BedsBookworm has a point, the article as currently written doesn't reflect what the sources say. It is inaccurate as MilborneOne points out, the British did try to sort the problem; the UN was new then so it may have seemed the solution. Chipmunk may I ask why you didn't try rewriting the text to address your issues rather reverting twice? Wee Curry Monster talk 18:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I was hoping that The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick would comment on the edits, being the one who provided the sources above and who mostly wrote the existing text. I wouldn't feel that comfortable sourcing something from a paragraph of text from a book I haven't read, lest I misrepresent the books point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Truman administration put immense pressure on the Attlee government to announce the UK was abandoning its mandate for Palestine no later than May 1948. This should definitely be mentioned in the article. The Britsih government, especially Ernest Bevin, was opposed to the craetion of the state of Israel but the United States insisted on it. In addition "Britain" should never be used when discussing the UK, because Northern Ireland is not part of Britain. (92.7.14.190 (talk) 17:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

"Britain" is common shorthand for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Your other point has already been addressed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that's the UK. (92.7.14.190 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC))

Britain is a common shorthand. That's undeniable. Whether it should be is different. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Britain refers to England, Wales and Scotland. (92.7.6.232 (talk) 14:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC))

No, that's "Great Britain", a geographical term. "Britain" on its own, particularly when used in a context like this, is short hand for the political term "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it only became "Great Britain" with the Act of Union in 1707. Before that the island was just called Britain. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain, it is part of the island of Ireland. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

Wrong. The island was first referred to as "Great Britain" by Ptolemy 1800 years ago. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

It only officially became Great Britain by act of parliament in 1707. (92.7.0.36 (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC))

You are failing to make the distinction in your mind between geographical and political terminology. Read Terminology of the British Isles, and if you wish to dispute that, take it up at Talk:Terminology of the British Isles. Though, please note that article is not only sourced, it is the result of many debates with editors like you who are misinformed. Regardless, this is not the right talk page for the "Britain" terminology debate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

92.x anon editor

Apparently this anon IP is a permanently banned user HarveyCarter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log); a discussion can be seen at User_talk:Binksternet#92.x. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my refactoring for clarity. Binksternet (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Palestine

(easier to start a new section) How about "The British Mandate of Palestine, where an Arab majority lived alongside a Jewish minority, presented the British with a similar problem to that of India. The matter was complicated by large numbers of Jewish refugees seeking to be admitted to Palestine following Nazi oppression and genocide in the Second World War, while Arabs were opposed to the creation of a Jewish state. Frustrated by the intractability of the problem and the increasing cost of maintaining a military presence in the region in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations, Britain announced in 1947 that it would withdraw in 1948 and leave the matter to the United Nations to solve. This it did by voting for the partition of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state." Not sure if that reads OK? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say that is a distinct improvement. Wee Curry Monster talk 00:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The "This it did" is potentially ambiguous, but besides that it's good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this reads well (the phrase is too long and unwieldy): "Frustrated by the intractability of the problem and the increasing cost of maintaining a military presence in the region in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations". Any suggestions for improving it? It would read better if "in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations" was omitted, but that would be leaving out an important point. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:17, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"Frustrated by the intractability of the problem, as well as the increasing cost of maintaining a military presence in the face of attacks by Jewish terrorist organisations," I added commas and replaced "and" by "as well as". Hopefully that would keep key points together? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Much better. What about the "This it did" bit? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

We could just rewrite that sentence. "The General Assembly voted for a plan to partition Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state." Something along those lines. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I updated the article with a slight modification from the wording above - what do you think? Probably should add some references to it... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It reads fine to me, but yes, definitely reference. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. Can I ask why my contribution kept being removed, from my reading of the guidelines this is edit warring isn't it? I don't edit very often so its discouraging that when I do and it gets removed. BedsBookworm (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A revert isn't warring. The repeated insertion of a contribution is warring, much better to do as above and discuss it on talk. CMD (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Mid Importance

Can anyone tell me why this article isn't Top Importance? OKelly (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The British empire WAS an empire...

..it's no longer! Biased editors are clearly trying to obfuscate the fact that the British Empire has ended by using subtle words that are not completely clear. Plain and simple, the British Empire IS GONE and the causal user might find that important. Why, you must think? Type in "Is the British Empire" to the Google search bar and the first suggestion is "Is the British Empire still around". 1 thank you. --134.71.161.235 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it arguably wasn't an empire at all. It e.g. never had an emperor. It was sui generis. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't the article in discussion "British Empire"? Keep the witticisms to yourself and stick to the subject matter. Thank you. --134.71.161.235 (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

See etymological fallacy. I'm referring to your edit, which puts, in my opinion, undue weight on the term "empire" for something that was very unusual for an empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It might be good to have a few sentences in the article on this point, which is interesting - it was some kind of "assumed to be an empire" empire - for example, there was never an "Empire Office" in Whitehall, the Queen was "Empress of India" after 1876 but only that, there were various commercial companies and products using the phrase "Empire" and there was at least some of the machinery of Empire (Governors, District Officers, Imperial Message services, etc) but not formally at the highest levels. It's an interesting empire in the sense that it significantly maintained itself partly through the illusion that it wasn't an empire in the old sense. I suppose the modern equivalent is the US which always denies the imperium whilst filling the planet with military bases, constantly interfering in foreign governments, assuming its laws apply to all countries, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an anachronistic point of view. I don't recall that the Romans or the Mongolians had an "Empire Office" either. The British didn't go to great lengths to pretend their empire wasn't an empire (Kipling certainly didn't!); it was simply, de facto, an empire. Perhaps historians of the future will classify the US as an empire when its time has passed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the precise term "emperor" is of course from Rome, but I agree there is a lot of variation in past "empires" about how they described and thought of themselves. Often those who are in great power have self-serving reasons to avoid wishing to advertise to an extreme extent just how supreme their authority is. Even the Roman system posed as some kind of Republic most of the time, just with a head man. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the title of Queen Victoria "Empress of India"? danielkueh (talk) 14:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. But she was Empress of India, not Empress of the British Empire. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that is rather strange that they would restrict that title to India. I wonder why it never caught on with the dominions. danielkueh (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

It would be worth doing some digging on that; I vaguely remember something about it being discussed at the time between PMs and the Secretary of State for the Colonies (note the terminology - it's hard to have Colonies without it being an Empire!) and they kind of collectively decided it would be unwise to declare the British monarch a sort of World Emperor, even though (s)he nearly was at times. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If it said "comprises" you might have a point, but it doesn't. The word "comprised" is already past tense. Your edit is unnecessary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also, with reference to the alleged biased editors and their evil program of obfuscation, if 134.71.161.235 bothered to read to the end, (s)he would find a section entitled "End of Empire", followed by "Legacy". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should change your name to "The Tinfoil Hat of Pat Ferrick"? :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Mau Mau Uprising

I moved the newly added info on the Mau Mau uprising to the Winds of Change section [2] - leaving it as a single sub sentence was not very good. Not sure it's the best prose though - any suggestions for improvements? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps just change "not a peaceful process" to "not always peaceful" or something similar? CMD (talk) 22:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)