Talk:British Empire

Cleaning Spam

Cleaned triple post by 86.157.91.112 -Woobie--88.112.25.38 (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hyperpower/superpower/great power

I just reverted a change to pipelink to hyperpower instead of great power, for the same reasons I stated before [1]. Also, a quick back of the envelope search in Google books (I realise this is very imperfect, but it's a good indication nevertheless):

• ["great power" 1,410,000 results] > [superpower 432,000 results] > [hyperpower 5560 results]
• ["great power" "british empire "15,800 results] > [superpower "british empire" 4,580 results] > [hyperpower "british empire" 70 results]

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

btw once upon a time I think "power" linked to Power in international relations. Perhaps that is the best choice of all as it avoids picking one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

My reasoning is based on the different types of power, from the project homepage it goes... "In the modern geopolitical landscape, a number of terms are used to describe various types of powers, which include the following: Superpower – In 1944, Fox defined superpower as "great power plus great mobility of power" and identified 3 states, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and the United States. China, the European Union and India are often considered potential superpowers. Great power – In historical mentions, the term great power refers to any nations that have strong political, cultural and economic influence over nations around it and across the world. China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States are often considered to be great powers. Regional power is also used to describe a nation that exercises influence and power within a region. Being a regional power is not mutually exclusive with any of the other categories of power. Many countries are often described as regional powers, among those are Italy,[5][6][7][8][9] South Africa, Egypt, Israel, Turkey, and Indonesia. Middle power is a subjective description of second-tier influential states that could not be described as great powers. Australia, Canada, India, Spain,Poland, Brazil, Mexico, and South Korea are commonly considered to be major middle powers alongside other middle powers. India and Brazil are also sometimes considered to be potential future great powers."

'Hyperpower' possibly also would fit also but this usage while used, is quite rare. I believe for the purposes of understanding 'Superpower' should be used rather than 'Great power' which poorly reflects the British Empires power considering it is regularly applied to the British Empire, more so than Hyper-power. I believe this article should be consistent with the established scales of international power. What are the opinions of other editors? G.R. Allison (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Providing there are no objections I'll change it to superpower then, which is the most applicable, soon. G.R. Allison (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree the wording should be changed, the UK is described as a Great power today so clearly a distinction needs to be made. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction of the superpower article says: "It was a term first applied in 1944 to the United States, the Soviet Union, and the British Empire" BritishWatcher (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

So if the term was first used in 1944 there is no point in pipelinking to superpower. Looking at the wording it clearly points out the BE was the leading global power over a certain period. That is fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought hyperpower was a modern term, used to describe the US exclusively, so not clear why that would even come up as an issue. I must say that I prefer Great Power, for several reasons. I didn't know superpower was invented as early as 1944, but it seems to be a modern phrase. I understood the phrase to be mainly a cold war usage, referencing nuclear-armed states also capable of world-wide war fighting. In the cold war, this was generally taken to refer to the USA and Soviet Union. Britain was of course not nuclear until some years after the war. It was capable of world-wide war in the days of the British Empire, more so than in the second world war, when it struggled, even with naval power, at which it was pre-eminent. The generally accepted term in the 19th century was Great Power and as historical articles in Wikipedia usually use relevant terms of the time, that would seem appropriate. Superpower sounds a little anachronistic and hyperpower certainly so. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"foremost global power." with global power linking to Great power seems the least problematic and most accurate. So no need for a change i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I vote to keep "great power" too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with great power though, is that to many people it will signify a lower standing than Superpower. The modern UK is a great power while the British Empire was undoubtedly a superpower. Superpower has been applied to the British Empire retroactively also. Simply put, my point is describing the BE as a great power is essentially wrong in modern usage of the term. Perhaps further discussion or a compromise is in order? As The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick mentioned the text once linked to Power in international relations and I propose we simply put it back to that as that contains information on all the categories of international power. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading through all this, MrGRA's solution seems good, an alternative being an explanation of status in the text, which may be possible, may not be. Historically the empire (and the UK) was regarded as a great power, such as in the preWWI era when the 5 powerful states of Europe are known as the Great Powers. However, using Great power in that context is an anachronism, the meaning having changed. Thus using great power in this context seems as anachronistic as using superpower. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a historical article - the historical term "Great Power" in relation to the British Empire is supported by the weight of sources. Modern terms, as described in the article Power in international relations, are not supported. It is not for us to revise history and recategorise something. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be a historical article, but it still must be accessible by ordinary people. Besides, it is a pipelink, so the chosen word does not even appear in the text, and the link to power in international relations may be more helpful. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

We are at risk of being anachronistic on both fronts here. I doubt that Great Power is the correct usage for the modern UK. Great Power is surely a 19th century term, referring to the British, Russian, French and German empires in the European and colonial contexts. It may be referenced otherwise in some esoteric academic sources, but it is never or rarely used in the modern media except in a historical sense - see [2] for example. Modern UK is surely a nuclear state, a key member of the Anglosphere, etc, but it isn't a Great Power in the old sense of that term. In a similar way, the British Empire was in it's heyday (let's say 1895 for the sake of argument) regarded as the Leading or Pre-eminent Great Power. It vied with France and Germany and it wasn't always clear-cut. It certainly did not have (as WWI all to sadly proves!) the power to totally destroy at will it's leading rival(s), which is strongly implied in the term superpower. As with genocide, this is an example of modernisms being debated in a past context where they are not always accurate or relevant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

To keep this on track, it's best not to be making personal arguments for this or that term. Once you find yourself saying X and Y therefore Z, you are engaging in original research. Look at what the sources say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that - where exactly was I saying something that cannot be sourced in your doubtless humble opinion? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While we're discussing this, I'd like to also point out that historians refer to Britain as the power, not the British Empire. e.g. [3] "The inability of Britain to maintain her Empire and her Great Power status after 1945 is only clear with hindsight. When the war ended, what seemed obvious both to the British people and the rest of the world was that Britain was a Great Power." Back to the discussion in hand, note in that 2001 publication, the author is quite happy to use the term 'great power': the arguments listed above about confusing people or being accessible by "ordinary people" (bit patronising - are we extraordinary?) - are irrelevant. Historians use the term, therefore so can we. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Empire was described as a "great power" for the vast majority of its existence. The term "Superpower" is one that, for the most part, applies to the era of the Cold War. The first usage of the term may have included the British Empire, but the term almost immediately ceased to apply to it. I have considerable problems with referring to the British Empire as a superpower (much less a hyperpower, a term made up in the 1990s to describe the United States' unprecedented position as the only superpower.) john k (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, although I still think it's applied to Britain rather than the Empire. Here's a quote from the Oxford History of the BE, the Historiography volume (p350): "The loss of Empire, in Asia mainly in 1945-48 and in Africa between 1957 and 1964, helped fuel the debate about Britain's decline as a Great Power." Note again it's referring to Britain, and it's written in modern times. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Take that back about Britain v British Empire - just found this from The British Empire in the Middle East, 1945-1951 by William Roger Louis: "One psychological moment of truth for the British as a 'Great Power' in the Middle East probably did come when the Russians exploded an atomic bomb in September 1949...To be sure, since the end of the war there had been no doubt that it would be extremely difficult, if indeed possible at all, to sustain the British Empire as a 'Great Power'." But anyway, historians use "great power", and so should we. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The usual term with regard to the empire is British Imperial Power or synonyms, as in, for example, Brittanica [4] and a zillion other easily obtainable sources. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked through the Great power page, it does a pretty good job of explaining things historically, although it could be expanded to more explicitly state the difference in usage. Maybe make this link to Great power and then note on that page the difference between historical and modern usage? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the link to the page on powers is really the best that can be done here, it's the compromise solution and explains the types of power to the reader as well as linking to information on Great Powers for example. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Time for a quick poll, perhaps?

1. Pipelink to Great power

Support, because that's what the majority of historians use. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support when refers to Britain during the Empire. In the case of British Empire, we should be more cautious as it's less clear-cut, but both superpower and hyperpower are obviously wrong, so obviously that I question we even need this straw poll. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support due to it being the most applicable term and causing the least amount of controversy, besides it could be easier to understand for the average reader. Also SP is hardly "obviously wrong" hence the discussion on it. It is wrong in your opinion.G.R. Allison (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Support Global power should continue to pipelink to Great power. It would be strange to say it was the foremost hyperpower or foremost superpower. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Support. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support --Snowded ^TALK 10:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

1. Pipelink to Superpower
2. Pipelink to Hyperpower
3. Pipelink to Power in international relations

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

At the apex of the Empire, the 'balance of power' theory dominated global politics: Britain wanted to see large powerful states standing off against each other, with Britain in 'splendid isolation', aloof. So Britain was not a 'superpower' guiding the fates of nations. It was rather checking nations by temporary alliances with others. We could think of the Crimean conflict, the 1878 crisis and the Napoleonic Wars. Nevertheless I think it fair to say that it exercised more power than your average 'great power'. Of course all this became unravelled on the eve of WWI, when the 'balance of power' policy failed, and two great power blocs replaced the finely balanced system of alliances. After the Great War, Britain found itself just another 'great power', and in WWII, it had to go cap-in-hand to the newest and strongest great power, the USA.So whether we describe the BE as a 'great power', 'superpower' or 'hyperpower' depends pretty much on what period of development we're talking about. Events like the Suez Crisis showed Britain to be a paper tiger, unable to act without the USA. We have a number of references to superpower and hyperpower, thanks to Red Hat and others. I suggest we examine them and analyse them. History is an interpretive Science. Unlike in the physical Sciences, Maths and Logic, a reference does not necessarily a fact make.Gazzster (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

History is an art, not a science. It is subjective and Wikipedia has rules for working out whether verifiable information is neutrally balanced (WP:WEIGHT). If the vast majority of sources use "Great Power", both now and at the time the Empire existed, it seems to me there is no case for anything else to be mentioned in the introduction. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed should continue to pipe to Great power, although i see its been changed to pipe to some international relations page. That needs changing back. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:47, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Even the editor who originally suggested changing it voted for "great power" above, so should we just go ahead and change it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:51, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Go for it --Snowded ^TALK 10:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't object now. After reviewing various sources I've come to the agreement that 'Great Power' does indeed suit quite well, Sorry for wasting time guys. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"More than 10 million Indians perished..." - WP:SYN violation

My recent edit related to the deaths of more than 10 million Indians was undone twice - [5] [6].

The way this paragraph is being phrased is a WP:SYN violation. It conveys to the reader that the British East India Company was the entity responsible for the starvation deaths of the 10 million Indians. In reality this happened between 1858 and 1900, a period in which the British government was in charge, having taken over in 1858. If you have a different argument, please discuss here before undoing my edit. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong. The famines did not suddenly start in 1858. For example, the famine of 1837-8 in which 800,000 died in the North West Provinces, Punjab and Rajasthan (see the cited reference from which this text was derived). Your edit has completely changed the meaning of the text, which I will repeat is REFERENCED - and your change here needs to be reverted. Also, please do not make alterations to the text without providing sources yourself, or they are liable to be reverted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 07:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You can find the cited reference on Google Books and can read pages 132-4 in their entirety. Please read them and per WP:BRD discuss here rather than revert again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. 800,000 did die in the famine of 1837-8 and the famines certainly did not suddenly start in 1858. Here are the details from the same source:

Years of rule of the British East India Company - 1818 - 1858 Years of rule of the British government - 1858 - 1947

Deaths under Company Years Deaths Province 1837-1838 800,000 Punjab, Rajasthan, North-West Total 800,000 India

Deaths under Crown Years Deaths (millions) Province 1860-1861 2 Punjab, Rajasthan, North-West 1866-1867 1 Different areas 1876-1878 4.3 Widespread areas 1877-1878 1.2 North West, Kashmir 1896-1897 5 Large portion of entire India 1899-1900 1 Unspecified Total 14.5 India

Again, the current phrasing [7] is a WP:SYN violation because it tries to imply that all of the deaths occurred under the British East India Company and not under the government. Here's a sample phrasing you could use to eliminate the WP:SYN violation:

A total of 15.3 million Indians died from the famines of the late 19th century. 800,000 of these deaths occurred under the East India Company whereas 14.5 million Indians died of starvation under the rule of the British Crown. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect.

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it known how many people died in famines in the years before the East India Company took control? This would give some context to the figures, so that people could form an opinion on whether the situation was improving or worsening under the Empire. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that comparison is required in the original context (probably WP:UNDUE) but if there is consensus to expand the article to include that kind of material, I would be more than happy to research and provide new content per WP:Reliable sources. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that you are completely misunderstanding what constitutes synthesis. The current wording is absolutely not synthesis because it reflects what the source says. Your proposed wording, on the other hand, is complete synthesis. Nowhere does the cited source total up the deaths pre/post 1858 and contrast the figures like you are doing (also note that the source is not providing a comprehensive list of all famines - the author has picked the worst). All the source contrasts is the differing RESPONSES of the EIC (none, or at least nothing coordinated) vs the Raj (investigative commissions, following an acceptance that it was the state's responsibility to take action). And that is what the text says. If you have a source which compares the situation under the EIC vs the Raj, put it here and we can disucss. Do you? If you don't, you are just engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't agree. I've taken it to the relevant board. Let neutral eyes decide what this is about. [8] Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As you wish, but please note that the NOR noticeboard is not some kind of arbitration panel who will "decide" on the matter. it's just a place for editors who are interested in that space to reply with their opinions. There are plenty of editors who look at this talk page too you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 06:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and most seem to agree that the proposed change is synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly concerned that underlying all of this is an attempt to push a particular POV into Wikipedia by this particular editor who has also inserted a bit of a diatribe into the India article about the British. [9] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I politely disagree with you yet again. I got interested in the topic after User:Derek Ross made a suggestion to compare relevant famine data before and after the British Empire arrived in India. I added one concise line of a few words to India [10] (this was my first edit to that article). I was then invited by a regular editor/admin to expand that one line. [11] I did so and things were stable until User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick Wikihounded me to the India article. The discussion now continues until we reach a consensus on the exact wording. What you call "diatribe" is a genuine attempt to find and document the reasons behind the disproportionate deaths (36 million or so according to the cited source) in India in the 19th century. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Ummmm... should wikipedia editors be attempting to find and document the reasons of anything using wikipedia articles? If it's that important, there will be a WP:RS out there about it. If its just mixing and matching here, then that's probably WP:OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we should find and "document" everything relevant to an article as long as it's per Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN. It's also important that we use secondary and tertiary sources per WP:Sources. I don't see anything wrong with that. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have raised the fact User:Zuggernaut has been canvassing to try and influence the outcome of this debate on the Admins noticeboard here. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not mention casualties

...that died for the British Empire. Military campaign figures are given; casualties not. That looks very biased to me; has a hint of glorifying nationalism. Why not show both sides of the coin?--85.179.146.183 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UThttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire&action=editC)

For the simple reason that this is an overview article of several hundred years of history across six continents, and therefore we can't mention everything. Fortunately, because this is an encyclopaedia, there is always a home for sourced material, and that is other articles specifically related to that topic. If someone wants to know how many casualties there were in the Falklands War, they can look at that article. The British Empire article doesn't need to state them - it's tangential to the subject at hand. If everyone's favorite "fact" was included, this article would be huge. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Height and foremost global power?

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power."

When was this height? 1920? largest Empire in history?? does this include water territories? who calculated its extent and for what time the foremost global power? Who claims that? The British? --IIIraute (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the British Empire at peak covered the largest geographical extent of any recorded empire. It might be worth giving that date - the territorial maximum extent is usually considered to be 1924. [12]. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is doubt indeed; the question is what areas the calculation is made of? For example: are water territories included? What about the Mongol Empire? But much more interesting: for what time (100+ years) the foremost global power? --IIIraute (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Mongol Empire is usually cited as having 33m contiguous square km. [13] The British Empire in 1924 ruled over more than 33.7m square km of land surface, so it's not all that big a gap. There's a list of large empires page in Wikipedia with appropriate sourcing (although it's currently under an AFD process - for the fifth time!!). If you feel you have better sourcing, you can bring it up at that talk page and see if people take it up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

...at its peak, it certainly was not the foremost global power, or would the foremost global power need the entry of the United Staates to defeat a little "great power" like Germany? By that time the British Empire was already almost finished. Also, the claim of covering "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" is not really true, as this calculation includes water territories, great lakes, etc.. The earth's surface (land) is 148,940,000 km2. That does not include great lakes, etc. About 70.8% of the earth's surface is covered by water... So, can you see my point? the rest is maths. How come nobody ever checked those numbers?--IIIraute (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The BE was overwhelmingly the foremost military power in the world in 1924 - don't forget, the US didn't re-arm until 1939-41 and Germany until after 1933. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in 1924, what I very much doubt; I'd like to see figures. But what 100+ years period are we talking about? you still did not answer that. During the Great War they were certainly not the foremost global power, neither the foremost military power, as they could not defeat the Germans on their own. I think that is very obvious.--IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Make an alternative proposal for that sentence and see what people say about it. The WWI stalemate as evidence will be contentious, since that was Europe; Germany never challenged British power during 1914-18 in, for example, Asia and only to a minor extent in Africa. The same is of course true in WWII, but I doubt that is counted as part of the "more than 100 years", or certainly not after the Japanese invasion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am just not sure if some "Jingoism" claims, facts and figures should be included into the Wikipedia. They should be made more transparent. Largest Empire? ...not that clear, as I explained earlier. 1/4 of the earth's total land area? not true. And as I asked before: for what 100 years? Not in 1914, as by that time Germany, having experienced a spectacular industrial revolution was rapidly overhauling Britain as Europe's foremost industrial power. In 1913 Germany had reached Britain's export figures, milled more iron than Britain and more steel than Britain, France and Russia combined. Giant German cartels like Siemens and AEG dominated the European electrical market. German chemicals consortia produced most of the world's dyes and industrial acids. The population had increased to 66 million. This economic strength translated easily into military power. The German High Seas Fleet possessed 14 dreadnought battleships, compelling the British to bring their capital ships back to the North Sea. Although still smaller than the Royal Navy, Germany's fleet was far more modern and boasted superior shells and night training. Germany could mobilise almost 9 million men and benifited from superior staff training and advanced technology (especially heavy artillery). My point is... circumstances in 1914 were very differnet than in 1924. And maybe Britain was the foremost military power in 1924, but so much in debt and out of resources that this effectively didn't mean anything, as one was going to experience in WWII. But then again: what 100+ years period are we talking about--IIIraute (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I get the impression you aren't going to make a specific proposal for new sentences or change to sentences, so won't spend much time just "debating" with you. Just to clarify one or two points though. (1) The Earth's land surface area roughly 149m sq. km. - therefore the BE's 33.7m sq. km is roughly 1/4 of the land mass. So you are wrong in your assertion that it isn't true. Unless (I ask again) you can provide a contrary source? No? Then stop just raising empty debating points. (2) Comparison's with Germany in the first world war - yes, many scholars do argue that WW1 marked the turning point in BE power. Therefore it is valid to ask what period the "more than 100 years" of "foremost power" covers. I would suggest it is roughly 1750 - 1900 with a second phase, roughly, 1919 - 1935. The article would benefit from having this spelled out a little more. Care to make alternative sourced suggestions? If not, please stop raising empty debating points, Wikipedia is not a blog. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First point: "foremost" does not mean it was omnipotent. Second point - the sentence is slightly misleading - the period during which it was the "foremost global power" (1815 - 1914) is not the same as the period when it was at its largest (around 1924). I hadn't read it that way previously, but I can see that some people might do so. In terms of area we're just quoting the sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no "Global Power".... what basically translates into "Superpower". The category of "Global power" does not even exist in the Wikipedia; and that for a reason. Up to the 20th century no "Global-or Superpower" did exist. Great Britain just did not have the means to execute such power, and certainly not from 1815-1914 (what would still not be for "over one century"). In 1812 Spain was still far too powerful, holding vast territorries in Northern- Middle- and Southamerica. The Austrian, Ottoman and Manchu Empire were extremly powerful; not to forget Prussia. The British could not fight Napoleon without help of other European allies, nor were they ever successful in any other campaign on the European continent on their own. In 1848 the Russian Empire stretched from Prussia to the Russian Americas.--IIIraute (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The (many) sources cited in this article disagree with your POV about "global power". Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about military strength but the capital was coming from British colonies. Here's a quote from the Indian Prime Minster at his speech while accepting a Honorary Degree from Oxford University in 2005: "As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952." Gandhi has said "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India." Nonetheless this article is very POV biased and needs a {{POV}} tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a featured article, meaning it passed a series of checks to ensure it met Wikipedia's standard, but the same cannot be said of the POV edits you have been trying to make. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing is static on Wikipedia and everything is subject to constant scrutiny. A variety of objections are being expressed, such as from an Indian viewpoint, a German viewpoint, potentially an Irish viewpoint, etc. The article is biased and promotes a particular POV. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's hard to define what a 'foremost global power is'. I mean, how do you define it? It's even problematic to discuss the USA today as the 'foremost global power'. After all, its global influence is checked by such powers as China and Russia, and the EU.Gazzster (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It might be hard to define for people editing Wikipedia, but it's not so hard for the sources we're citing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In 1848 Australia was mainly still in the hands of Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherers, half of India "India princely" and Rupert's Land mainly full of snow. How can that be a "Global Power"? --IIIraute (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Compared to what exactly? German possessions in Africa in 1914? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Compared to the Russian Empire in 1848, that stretched from Prussia to the Russian Americas, for example; the Manchu Empire, or the Dutch territories. To be the foremost Global Power, so to be regarded bigger than one of the "Great Powers" one has to be able to execute Global Power and that on more than empty territories, the third world, or how we would say today: in the New Markets. The US or the USSR had the means to intervene into any affair, i.e. execute their power. The British Empire had no ability to intervene in continental european affairs; so they could not even execute their "foremost global power" in front of their own door.--IIIraute (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

...and please do not forget the German colonies in China and the Pacific. The development of the world economy (foreign investment in 1914) was the following: United Kingdom: 535 million $; Germany: 1050 million $. But, anyway, that is not the point. What 100+ years was the British Empire the foremost Global Power? In 1812 Spain held the Vice-Royalty of New Spain, basically the whole west of North America, basically the whole of Middle America, Florida, Cuba, large Parts of Haiti, Puerto Rico, the Vice-Royalty of New Granada (the whole of northern South America), the Vice-Royalty of Peru, the United Provinces of La Plata, The Falkland Islands, the Philippine Islands. At that time Britain had lost its colonies, Afrika consisted of the Cape Colonies and Sierra Lione, less than 1/4 of India, Jamaica, the Mosquito Coast, British Honduras, the Bahamas, New South Wales (a tiny fraction of Australia) and Rupert's land full of snow.--IIIraute (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a note that New South Wales back then was not the current area of NSW, it covered over half of modern Australia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong; in 1812 it covered a part of NSW, a small fraction of the south-east of Australia. Apart from that, Van Diemen's Land and the Bay of Islands, just next to the Maori chiefdoms were under british rule. I have a colonial map of 1812 right in front of me. The Blue Mountains were first crossed in 1813.--IIIraute (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

@Jamesinderbyshire:(1) "The Earth's land surface area roughly 149m sq. km. - therefore the BE's 33.7m sq. km is roughly 1/4 of the land mass." I gave excactly the same figures!, but: the BE's 33.7 sq. km include bays, great lakes, rivers, etc. Apart from that; 149 divided by 33,7 is as much "roughly" close to 1/4, than to 1/5 of the land mass (especially without the water terretorries that are included in the 33.7 sq.m.). (2.) By 1715 the Spanish had the largest overseas possessions; The Russian Empire was by far the biggest one. By 1783 the British Empire was reduced to Rupert's Land & Quebec, Novia Scotia, Labrador, Newfoundland, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Bengal and Bihar, Madras, Bombay and the Northern Circas. British possessions altogether, apart from the parts of what is now Canada, were probably the size of Madagascar. Nothing on the African continent, nothing in South America. Belize and the Mosquito Coast in Middle America, no Australia, Middle East, almost ZERO.... I really do not know where you take your figures from? What "Global Power" are we talking about? Napoleon once said, that you are always as powerful, as you make others believe you are. Well, your figures seem to live of that idea. Spanish possessions in 1783 consisted of 1/2 of North America, almost the whole of Middle America, more than 1/2 of South America, the Philippine Islands, the Falklands, Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.. and of course Portugal was in possession of the Vice-Royalty of Brasil, Portuguese Guinea, Delago Bay, Mozambique, Luanda, Goa, Timor. And there were vast overseas terretorries held by the French and the Dutch. So I actually do care to make alternative sourced suggestions; that's what I am trying to do here. --IIIraute (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just do not think that trivial phrases like "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" belong into a serious Encyclopedia. It comes as close to 1/4, that "only 3,6 million sq.k. are missing". That's almost the size of the European Union. It actually comes as close to 1/5 of the land mass; so I guess it's a matter of interest and interpretation. That is the reason why such "1/4" figures should not be given. To give the size in sq.k. is enough. The same goes for "for over a century, was the foremost global power." This phrase is too subjective and just not based on empirical data.

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and one of the foremost Great Powers." something like that would make more sense. Then, it could also be linked with the "Historical Powers" and "Great Power" section.--IIIraute (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "global power" gets regularly discussed and is cited in quite a lot of sources. You need sources and references to make points in Wikipedia articles. Generally these are avoided in the introductory section of articles (the "lede") and referenced further down in the main text. If you look at the Britain's Imperial Century section further down, there are a number of good references on the subject. You could propose rewrites to that but not unsourced ones, or you could challenge the relevance, notability or truthfulness of the existing sources and statements. The phrase is always controversial, but I think most historians would accept that the empire was paramount for an extended period - the difficulty is around exactly how long that was and the article should reflect any such controversies. There is also a seperate controversy as to what exactly was the Great Power - the empire, or just Britain itself? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the British claimed more in NSW than just the tiny colony your map apparently shows. Of course they hadn't actually settled the whole area, but they claimed a large amount of territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

That is what you might be thinking, but it is still wrong. (1.) In 1812 they only held a fraction of NSW, from ca. Botany Bay to Newcastle. (2.) I already did write before, that they had not crossed the Blue Mountains until 1813; so claim what? the Unknown?? (3.) The Map of 1812 is showing the British territorial claims of 1812.--IIIraute (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why, even though nobody seems to be able to give clear information on why and from what period it was the foremost "global power" for +100 years, it is not possible to rephrase the sentence to "the foremost colonial power", for example? At least that would be historically acceptable and not just be based on, in my opinion, biased sourcing.--IIIraute (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...by the way; what source is claiming this anyway? maybe a citation would be helpful.--IIIraute (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

In your opinion the sources are biased eh? You need to do better than that. There are lots of sources in the bibliography and a simple search of the term "foremost global power" on Google Books will return plenty of results. When you have your own sources that say that the British Empire was not the foremost global power please feel free to come back and restart this discussion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not just in my opinion, but as I have also given good evidence why this is doubtful. If you, on the other hand, do prefer to do your historical research by "search engine results", that's ok. Why then not google "British Empire foremost global power" on Google Books, with 566 results, while "British Empire foremost colonial power" leaves us with 4060 results.--IIIraute (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your empirical methods of reserch bring out even more interesting results on Google Books: British Empire Global Power, 62,500 results; British Empire Great Power, 1.510,000 results.--IIIraute (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(...and "Pete hates people quoting Google statistics to substantiate arguments" and then uses Google statistics to subsantiate his own ones? weird!)--IIIraute (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

What I dislike is editors doing exactly what you have just done to validate OR. Unlike you I did not quote nonsensical stats - I simply pointed you to Google Books (not Google) because it displays secondary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The global power is an interesting result, considering earlier you seemed to be arguing the British Empire was not even a global power. I am not too fussed if there is a slight wording change to that sentence so it does not say "foremost global power", but out of interest in the period stated who was? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

(1) ...that is exactly the problem, as there is no period made clear in that sentence; I have given enough evidence why that "100+ years" claim is quite doubtful. (2) just because of the fact that there are search engine results, does not make it the truth. (3) The Wikipedia itself separates former Empires in "Historical Powers" and "Great Powers". The term "Great Power" in the sentence is linked to "Great Powers"; so why not call it a Great Power or set the link towards "Colonial Power"--IIIraute (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC).

There are also thousands of results on Google Books, that claim Prussia (i.e. The German Empire) or the Russian Empire to have been a "Global Power", yet still within the Wikipedia they are listed as "Great Power". I quote:". The steady expansion of Prussia during the 19th century is a major dynamic of European history, but Prussia did not emerge as a major GLOBAL POWER until after the Unification of Germany under Prussia led by Otto von ..." Peter N. Stearns,William Leonard Langer, The Encyclopedia of world history, New York, 2001.--IIIraute (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Useful to have that pointed out - Prussia is obviously wrong, as by no stretch was it ever a global power. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well the period its mostly covering has its own section "Britains imperial century", although i agree at the moment it does not mention it in the sentence in the intro so it may cause confusion. No one is saying the British Empire was the only global power, or that there was such a distance between the BE and the next power like America has today in terms of its superpower status. The specific wording about being foremost global power for over a century was in the article when it got FA status and has been stable (apart from what to link global power to recently, when someone suggested it should go to superpower but it was opposed) for a couple of years. Without any doubt the British Empire was a global power. Its open to more debate if for a period of over a century it was the "foremost global power" but i do not know what other power in the period covered could be considered the foremost one. Theres nothing wrong with "global power" though and its pointless to say "Great power", considering the United Kingdom is still considered a great power today. Thats the reason for saying global rather than just great. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Generally historians have seen the period of British global power as lasting from the defeat of the Napoleonic navy through to 1914; that's roughly 100 years. It is true that the German navy rose to try to challenge it, but you won't find a lot of, for example, world military history books claiming that the German navy surpassed the Royal Navy - indeed, for much of World War I, the German Navy was restricted to home waters, whilst the RN covered the globe. It is also true that phrases like "global power" are ill-defined but Wikipidia would be the poorer for avoiding them because they are hard to bear down on scientifically. In the meantime, I suggest that unless IIIraute can come up with a suitably referenced alternate proposal, we consider this discussion closed, particularly because having this argument appears at present to be the sole aim. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I already made this proposal. (1). roughly 100 years, to be more specific "99 years" are not " for more than 100 years"; so this part has to go. The British would have lost Waterloo in 1815 without siding with the Prussians. (... after Austria, Prussia and Russia had already weakened France tremendously in Dresden, Leipzig and the Six Days Campaign earlier; this is where the Napoleonic armies really were defeated, on what historians very much agree). How come that as the "foremost global power" they could not defeat an already weakened army on their own? (2) I already made the proposal to rephrase the sentence to "foremost colonial power"; and I have more than 4000 sources on this one, while there are far less sources for calling it the "foremost global power".--IIIraute (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...by the way; the Spanish Wikipedia writes of "almost hundred years (1815-1914)", the German Wikipedia calls it the "foremost colonial power", the French Wikipedia also says "the foremost colonial empire"; the Dutch Wikipedia only from 1880-1910.--IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Other wikipedias are not reliable sources, I dont think I have seen a convincing argument to change the current wording or a consensus in this discussion to change it either. I suggest we leave it as the status quo. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

...how can that be not convincing? how can one ignore all the sources and facts I delivered? 1815-1914 is just not for "more than 100 years"! This is ignorant and revisionist jingoism.--IIIraute (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes most of what has been put forward could be seen as ignorant and revisionist jingoism which is probably why most people dont agree with you and are happy to leave the staus quo. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The sentence is still missing a citation; and one that proves, that it was the foremost global power for more than 100 years. It has to contain two facts: (1) The foremost Global Power? yes, maybe it was for a period, but NOT for more than 100 years and (2) for more than 100 years (what it maybe was, as foremost colonial power, but not as foremost global power during all this time). One cannot just combine one with the other!.--IIIraute (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne, you seem to execute your powers as administrator but you do not seem to bring any valid and valuable argument that proves mine wrong.--IIIraute (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I am just an editor in this context as far as I know I have not acted as an admin related to this article, I have no argument that it should be properly cited, remembering that the lead does not need citations as it should reflect the text in the main body. Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians, around 10,000,000 square miles (25,899,881 km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire has a reference. And at Though Britain and the Empire emerged victorious from the Second World War, the effects of the conflict were profound, both at home and abroad. Much of Europe, a continent that had dominated the world for several centuries, was now in ruins, and host to the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union, to whom the balance of global power had now shifted which also referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you are an entirely new user IIIraute? :) Anyway, to deal with the quotes issue. Why not quote from a US work to avoid allegations of British imperialism? We could start with Power and stability: British foreign policy, 1865-1965 By Erik Goldstein, B. J. C. McKercher. [14] This is absolutely replete with quotations about Britain being the "most powerful global empire", etc. Just one of dozens that could be brought forward. Almost not worth the effort though, given how obvious the trolling is here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am a new user to the English Wikipedia, what's the problem with that? Are you now trying to bully me out of this matter? What trolling are you talking about? I also do not see what this has to do with my argument. Your quote is talking about 1815-1914, so that is still not more than 100 years, is it? --IIIraute (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactely the reason why no serious publishing house would publish historical research that has been done by somebody without a proper education regarding the matter. What point are people not getting here? Global power, yes, but not for more than 100 years (1815-1914) even other users did agree to this. For more than 100 years, yes, also ok, but not as global- but as colonial power.--IIIraute (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It isn't just 1815-1914. It's also 1919-(c)1935 (and possibly - many historians think) 1941. Many books take the Fall of Singapore to be the end of the British Empire. I'm surprised a historian of your impressive credentials doesn't know this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps regular editors should then consider rephrasing the lead and "End of empire" section to indicate that the handover of Hong Kong was a symbolic end of the empire, the real end coming with the end of rule in Singapore. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, don't think so. The key sources we've used for this article cite Hong Kong and it makes a nice round 500-year period for this article to cover. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with James that it does seem like trolling, although I can't quite see the point of it. I'll bite for now and hope it goes away: We're associating the period in question with the Pax Britannica on the talk page here, but the article is also saying a bit more since declarations of war and of surrendering are not useful measures of economic or military power. Waterloo was an important battle insofar as it removed a threat to the Empire, but naval supremacy (i.e. what guaranteed its existence) was established in 1806. Likewise, 1914 is a nice convenient date, but it didn't mean the Empire was suddenly and instantaneously diminished (by 1916, however, it clearly was). Some might go further back and say that the Seven Years War was the point at which Britain surpassed France as the foremost global power. Either way it's more than a century. However, I think the key point is that 'foremost' does not mean 'omnipotent'. I don't think User:IIIraute understands this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I do give up; as it seems pointless to argue any further. Looking at previous arguments, suggestions, proposals and criticism made by others one can trace and follow a red line through this biased article, that seems protected and watched by a small clique of people (always the same 4-5, granting each other absolution) that must think of themselves of some kind of contemporary (over-) patriotic, almost nationalist, "defenders of the empire". Geographically, all of them come from the "British Empire", with some displaying their army medals, a union jack, the british anthem and "Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!" slogans. If that's the caliber one is arguing with, it just becomes pointless to go on. You must be so sad that your former Empire is reduced to rubble; with its debt only being surpassed by the USA, being reduced to number 6 by GDP, placed 6th on imports, 9th on exports, 147th by industrial production growth, to always have to go home early in Football, to bring home only one medal from Vancouver, as well as in the 2010 citymayors Quality of life study (http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html) having the first british city ranked 39th, that it is maybe better to glorify the past. What has happened? I thought the world's foremost global power did win both wars. How come they now rate second in everything towards Germany? What can one say? That really is depressing. --IIIraute (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Having revealed your true colours perhaps you should say no more... Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE WIki-Ed, new editor does not know the rules here. Illraute, you need to learn to address content issues and not the motivations of other editors. If you check back over the history you will find a fair amount of disputes over various issues and many of us are very firmly not in a British Nationalist or Defenders of Empire category. Less polemic, more focus on content please. --Snowded ^TALK 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

User:IIIraute might not know the subject and it might be a new account on the English Wikipedia, but I think he's been around long enough [15] to know not to troll. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Having revealed my true colours? The same goes for all of you, but I guess they were never hidden. I am a new member to the English Wikipeda, and yes I have already written several new articles for the German Wikipedia that have been given a very good reception, as they still stand how I did write them. Discourse there is different; I'd say more academic and less stubborn bullying! .--IIIraute (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets be very clear here. If you continue with these long tirades against other editors and make stupid accusations like "stubborn bullying" then its only a matter of time before you get blocked. Address content issues with specific proposals and I'm sure you can make a valuable contribution. --Snowded ^TALK 14:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

My hernia bigger than your hernia.

Having a colony is the manifestation of a disease. Fighting over who had the biggest colony is like squabbling over whose father had a bigger hernia. Another thing is that isn't the map original research, that is what it - the information given with the file says. Please take it off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't first notice it was a FA. H#@y s*&t! A FA with suspicious graphics. I am going to send a SOS from my discussion page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I just do not think that trivial phrases like "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" belong into a serious Encyclopedia. It comes as close to 1/4, that "only 3,6 million sq.k. are missing". That's almost the size of the European Union. It actually comes as close to 1/5 of the land mass; so I guess it's a matter of interest. That is the reason why such "1/4" figures should not be given. To give the size in sq.k. is enough. The same goes for "for over a century, was the foremost global power." This phrase is too subjective and just not based on empirical data.

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and one of the foremost Great Powers." something like that would make more sense. Then, it could also be linked with the "Historical Powers" and "Great Power" section.--IIIraute (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

On the map, I'm not clear which map you (Yogesh) are talking about and what the problem is exactly with it? Can you say more? On the size of the land-mass, figures like 1/4 and 1/5th are intended to be - exactly what they are - generalisations. there's no reason why the Russian Empire (which by the way included lots of very big lakes - much bigger than any in the British Empire!) at 23.7m sq km in 1866 can't be said to have covered 1/6th of the world's land surface area at the time. Similarly there's no reason why an approximate, easy-to-read figure can't be given for the British Empire. 149/5 = 30 (roughly) and 149/4 = 37 (roughly), so yes, on that point I agree it should be 1/5th and have changed the text. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted this. The cited source uses the same wording we use and since it is a widely accepted approximation we could find lots of other sources if needed. NB the reason it's widely accepted is because the percentage is closer to a quarter than to a fifth (22.6%). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, it should probably say "almost a quarter" then. The actual percentage by the way is 22.61%, just to be picky. It is slightly misleading at the moment, although granted it is intended as a generalisation. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 22.61% is just closer to 1/4 than to 1/5, almost is probably applicable. It probably should stay at 1/4, as that is the only fraction I actually ever remember seeing anywhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with approximately being changed to almost which is more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Woops i see its already been done lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

British Antarctic Territory; Map displayed??

Is the Antarctic Territory included in the 33,7 million sq.m.; i.e the "biggest Empire of all time"? The Antarctic Treaty, signed by all relevant regional claimants, does not in itself either recognise or dispute any territorial claims, leaving this matter to individual signatories. Most of the world's countries do not recognise any national claims to Antarctica. Britain, France, Norway, New Zealand and Australia, all of whom have territorial claims on the continent, mutually recognise each other's claims. Argentina and Chile dispute the British claim, and make their own counter-claims that overlap both Britain's and each other's (see Argentine Antarctica and Antártica Chilena Province).IIIraute (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The Antarctic Treaty did not come into effect until 1959. By that time the Empire had already shrunk in size considerably. So the Treaty is basically irrelevant to the "largest empire" claim. If you want to discuss the effect on the claim, you really need to investigate Antarctica's legal status before 1947 when India became independent. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There's an interesting (and accurate - I've checked quite a few bits of data in it) table here [16] showing the "entry" and "exit" dates for all British colonies - the table does not include Antarctica and I've never heard of Antarctica being discussed as a "British colony" or as part of the "empire". There are more scholarly tables than this one of course but I just present it as a quick guide. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

...which would suggest that Antarctica doesn't affect the "largest empire" claim either way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The British Antarctic territory had been claimed (and disputed by others) by the British for long time before the Antarctic Treaty and was known for a long time as part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Taking a look at some sources, the UK has had a claim on Antarctica since at least 1841, when the first claim was laid on the land that would become the Australian Antarctic Territory and Ross Dependency. The British claim to what was to become the British Antarctic Territory is normally dated to letters patent of 1908, when the area was organised as FI dependencies (for administrative convenience) - though those letters patent included territories that had first been claimed as far back as 1775. The BAT itself came into being in response to the Antarctic Treaty in 1962.

For balance, Chile's claims are based on the Treaty of Torsedillas, and Argentina first expressed a claim in 1925 based on continuous occupation since 1904.

You can read more in this source. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but has it typically been cited as part of the calculations for the land surface area of the Empire, for example, in 1924? Which is the issue at odds here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The 33.7m is referenced (see List of largest empires) which is all that is required wikipedia rules dont demand that it is true! just reliably referenced.MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

A minute ago you just wrote, and I quote you here: "Other wikipedias are not reliable sources...". Now you give the Wikipedia as a reference and you are writing that its "rules dont demand it to be true"? What can I add to this. That is so, so sad. Who cares about the truth as long one can try to build some jingoist virtual Empires!--IIIraute (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

MilborneOne meant it is referenced at that article. Next? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Drake and England's "First Territorial Claims"

As important as Drake's voyage was, I reverted this edit [17] (and added a dubious tag to the same editor's edit at New Albion) on the grounds that this is not the "mainstream" view of how the BE began. Yes, Drake claimed a few places for Her Maj, but these were never followed up and were not the beginnings of the Empire in the way that Newfoundland or Virginia were. I cannot see what Sugden wrote, because I do not have a copy of his book, but in all the books I have read (see the References section of this article) I have never seen it stated that the BE began with Drake's voyage. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most authors put him in the context of Britain's defence against the then much more powerful Spanish Empire and as a self-enriching privateer. Most sources put the start of Britain's rise to World naval power under Cromwell's Commonwealth. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Although no English settlements were established in the New World before Newfoundland, it should be noted that there were several early English territorial claims:

• Meta Incognita, Baffin Island, around Frobisher Bay, claimed by Martin Frobisher in 1577. Frobisher's 1578 voyage was originally planned to establish a settlement here.
• "West England," a part of Greenland claimed by Frobisher in June 1578
• Elizabeth Island in the Straits of Magellan, claimed by Drake on August 24, 1578
• Elizabeth Island near Cape Horn, claimed by Drake in September 1578
• New Albion on the west coast of North America, claimed by Drake in June 1579

Goustien (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories created by User:Zuggernaut

If anyone is interested in contributing to the discussions on Zuggernaut's new categories relating to the British Empire:

• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_22#Category:Resistance_to_the_British_Empire
• Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_21#Category:Famines_in_British_Empire The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Map original research

Isn't the map under the Union Jack original research? That is what information available with the file informs. Such graphics should not be there on a FA. Please take them off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The map is useful. There are a huge number of maps on many wikipedia articles. Many are created by editors, it is not original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Either the caption needs to be changed or different color coding needs to be used. All the claimed areas were never a part of the British Empire at the same time. There are OR or SYN violations in the map as it exists. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The caption says "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire."/. That means at some point in history they have been a British territory. It is not meant to mean they were all part of the empire at one time. I disagree that there is a problem with the map, however ive no problem supporting the caption being reworded to be more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd sort of prefer using the 1919 map as the main one, and having a separate map for the British Empire in 1763 somewhere in the article. One big issue I have with the map is that it's basically just "the British Empire in 1919" + "the Eastern half of the United States." There's a couple of tiny exceptions (Heligoland, the Ionian Islands), but that's the gist, and I think it's kind of misleading. But I generally don't like anachronistic maps. john k (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well i do not think its misleading, provided the caption is clear and i accept that could be reworded to make it very clear this is a map of every territory of the BE at different points in time. I think an image covering everything is more helpful than the empire at a specific point in time, i also think its a better graphical map which provides more detail than that 1919 one. If others think the 1919 one is better, then ive no major problem with it being changed. But i dont believe it is original research, and it was the map used when the article got FA status i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if the caption were modified, minor changes would still be required to indicate the parts of India that weren't under British control or perhaps that too can be pointed out in the caption? Zuggernaut (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it the same on the 1919 map? If there are errors in the current one and the 1919 one is accurate, then i dont mind it being switched. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I vote to keep both maps where they are in their respective positions. The headline map gives an overview of all territories ever part of the Empire, while the 1919 map gives the state of affairs in the section relating to that time period. An anachronistic map like the one we have also lends itself to showing the current 14 BOTs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As was already pointed out, Burma was a part of the Raj until 1936-7 [18] but Goodlad was cited as a source and the {{cn}} removed. [19] Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a misleading use of the "fact" tag. If you add it to the end of that sentence, it appears that you are suggesting that specific claim (that the BE reached its greatest extent in 1919) requires a citation. So I duly added one, Goodlad. If you have a problem with the map, take it to the map's talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the {{Editnotices/Namespace/File talk}} at File_talk:BritishEmpire1919.png and File talk:The British Empire.png, we need to discuss this here. Please see the section below for details. Zuggernaut (talk)

The map is was created carefully using sources cited on its main page. The caption and legend are quite clear. POV-warriors ought to remembed that this article reached FA status and if they have serious objections to the content they will need to provide serious, verifiable arguments to support their case for change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, in case the confusion about "OR" is the fact that this map was created by a Wikipedian (me), per WP:OI, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." What argument or idea is this map introducing which constitutes OR or SYN? Please explain in full, rather than simply bandying around "OR" or "SYN". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the map is OR, I just don't think it's ideal to use anachronistic historical maps. Another option would be to use a different color to distinguish the areas lost in 1783. john k (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the maps

Several issues have been pointed out by several different editors for both the maps in question over the last few months. Many of these questions are repetitive (such as the the one about Goa I brought up) and many have been unanswered for several months. I am copy-pasting all of them below. The original questions can be found at the respective talk pages.[20] [21] Per the template {{Editnotices/Namespace/File talk}} found on those talk pages, the questions need to be discussed here. Since the issues are many and long standing, I'm taking off the maps from the article. I would request editors not to add them back until the issues have been resolved for this FA. Goa, Daman and Diu might be hard to mark on the map - my solution for this would be to include all exceptions in the caption but the caption might then get too long. There's a solution for this too - perhaps a quote box can be used right below the map and the two can be made a template. If you have solutions, please feel free to respond here. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I have added them back. A lot of those discussions just petered out, failed to produce evidence or just were unable to get to consensus. Also dumping that amount of material without a summary of some type is not helpful. If you want to pursue this then I suggest a brief summary of the changes you want with some justification (which could be a diff to the prior discussion). --Snowded ^TALK 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've pointed this out on multiple occasions: Burma is shown as a separate colony in 1919 - that' not true until 1936-37. Goa, Daman, Diu and Puducherry are shown or implied to be part of the British Empire. That's original research as pointed out by User:Yogesh Khandke. Oman falls in the same category. The factually incorrect maps should be removed until either the captions or the maps are updated. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you do us all a favour and create two separate subthreads, one for each map, and detail your separate concerns for each of them under those? Just to make everything easier! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And one liners please. Also please review your claims. As far as I can see there is no time stamp on Burma, the capture relates to entities which were at some stage a part of the Empire. In the meantime I see no reason why the maps should not stand, these seem minor issues --Snowded ^TALK 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed for convenience

The British Empire.png Cuba and Manila Cuba was captured by the British from the Spanish in 1762 after battle of Havana, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Havana_(1762) Manila was also captured that year but the British were unable to gain control of all of Philippines. The next year it was traded for Florida in Treaty of Paris, Manila was traded in same treaty for Minorca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.55.49 (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Oregon Territory/the western US Didn't the British let beaver trappers and fur traders into the western US territories? Me6620 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Yes you're correct, the British were present yet failed to taken hold in the Oregon Territory, a former colonial claim of British North America from the late 1700's to 1846 when the US officially annexed Oregon to become a state in 1859, while the northern half became Washington (state) in 1889. The British kept land claims north of the 49 N Parallel to become the Canadian province of British Columbia to this day. + Mike D 26 (talk) 05:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Where is the Oregon Territory that was shared between the United States of America and the British Empire which caused quite a lot of struggle. The Oregon County and Boundry Dispute. Does this ring a bell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 14:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC) The British claimed all of the Oregon Country in western North America. Shouldn't that be colo(u)red on the map? Rreagan007 (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't the Oregon Country be part of this map? It was a part of the British Empire; the northern half is still part of the British Commonwealth... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canationalist (talk • contribs) I agree, that should be highlighted HawkShark (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC) It is not shown on maps of the B.E. in any of the listed references in the British Empire. Per WP:NOR, therefore, it is not shown on the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) It is, however, listed as part of the British Empire in innumerable references, and images are exempt from OR rules, so if you'd like, it would be perfectly acceptable to add the remainder of the Oregon Country. Its absence struck me immediately upon seeing the image. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 15:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC) So what are these references then? List them. The graphics may be exempt from OR rules but not the claims that the images make. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC) If the Thirteen Colonies are mentioned then surely Oregon should be mentioned?--Abc26324 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC) The Philippines Wasn't the Philippines at one time part of the British Empire in the 18th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar vin kaiser (talk • contribs) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, briefly held in 1763, at the end of the Seven Years War (1756-63). It is reported that the British just occupied Manila and had little influence elswehere. Louisiana, Senegal, and Cuba were also occupied at the same time. Not sure how long they have to be occupied to be part of the Empire. 07:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs) Bahrain mistake Bahrain is the little island next to Qatar, not the Omani enclave in the UAE at the tip of the Arabian peninsula on the strait of Hormuz, so the map is wrong.--90.218.44.26 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC) British India "British India" refers specifically to the directly administered provinces of India, as opposed to the princely states. Since the princely states were also part of the British Empire, and are included in the map without distinction, this ought to just say "India" or "Indian Empire." john k (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Fair enough, will change it. I think "India" is better than "Indian Empire" though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC) I would agree. john k (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC) British Antarctic Territory Is there a specific reason that the British Antarctic Territory is not shown on the map? Darkieboy236 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Because Wikipedia's "currently preferred blank map" [22] does not show Antarctica. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Okay, how about Zanzibar? Is this not shown because it was a protectorate? Was Egypt not a protectorate also?Darkieboy236 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I think Antarctica is shown.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC) When I posted that response it was not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC) The map currently only shows the modern British Antarctic Territory - if the map is supposed to show the areas which were once part of the British Empire then it should also include Australian Antarctic Territory and New Zealand Antarctic Territory, which were originally part of British Antarctic Territory. Eggybacon (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC) Eggybacon is perfectly correct; the New Zealand and Australian sectors should also be marked as part of the Empire. --APRCooper (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC) So provide a source that states they were "part of the Empire". Note, the BAT is included as a British Overseas Territory. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Well, the Wikipedia entries for both Australian Antarctic Territory and the Ross Dependency give clear evidence of their being British possessions prior to their transfer to Australia and New Zealand. Further independent evidence at Ross dependency and Australian Antarctic Territory. --APRCooper (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. That would be circular. You need to show a reliable source that explicitly states these were/are considered part of the British Empire. I'm not saying they aren't. It's just that I haven't seen such a claim myself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Please check the other links I gave. These are taken from the official gazetteers of AAT and the Ross Dependency, and are definitive. This is not even a slightly contentious issue for AAT and the Ross dependency. --APRCooper (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC) That is not answering my question. Reference, and page number please. Not link to other Wikipedia article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Please read what I wrote. The links I gave (Ross dependency and Australian Antarctic Territory) are NOT to Wikipedia, but to the official Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica, endorsed by both the Australian Antarctic Division (it is hosted by them) and by the New Zealand government. This is as definitive a link as you will find. I also don't know how to put this, but I am a well known person in the Antarctic mapping community. --APRCooper (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Apologies, I saw the first links to the articles and missed the second. But having now read them, my point remains the same: these references do not make the claim that these slices of Antarctica were ever part of the "British Empire", do they? You are engaging in synthesis if your reasoning is: (a) New Zealand was part of the British Empire (b) the Ross Dependency was transferred by Britain to NZ administration therefore (c) the Ross Dependency was part of the British Empire. From WP:SYN, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." If that sounds like I'm being pedantic, think about this: it is frequently stated in reliable sources that the British Empire covered a quarter of the world's surface. Does that include the relevant slices of Antarctica? I don't know, I haven't done the math. But what I do know is that I haven't seen it stated anywhere, explicitly, that the British Empire ever included these parts of Antarctica. (What follows is my own personal view, but even today claims to Antarctica are not universally recognised, and we are also talking about a time when these claims were purely nominal. Similarly, Spain and Portugal claimed that all as-yet-undiscovered-to-Europeans lands were theirs, dividing the world into two. That does not mean that the entire undiscovered world was part of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The point is that prior to their being annexed to Australia and to New Zealand, the AAT and Ross Dependency were held to be British possessions by right of discovery. Note also that no nation disputes these territorial claims, though they are not acknowledged by some nations (BAT is another matter). The Gazetteer notes that both were transferred FROM British control, specifying the legal instruments that transferred control; no-one since then has disputed Britain's right to transfer that control to Australia and New Zealand. James Clark Ross claimed the Ross Sea sector on behalf of Britain in 1842 (from memory, but a perfectly acceptable reference would be Ross' account of his expedition(Ross, J. C. (1847). A voyage of discovery and research in the southern and Antarctic regions during the years 1839-1843. London, John Murray)). Of course, you will find few explicit mentions of the sovereignty of Antarctica, because it was uninhabited and uninhabitable territory, and those who went there tended to be concerned with survival and mutual support. But there is absolutely no doubt that the Ross dependency and the Australian Antarctic territory were regarded as British possessions and hence as part of the British Empire. --APRCooper (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Regarding Ross Depenency: Settlements Act, 1887 This link clearly states that the Ross Dependency was a British settlement. Regarding Australian Antarctica: Antarctica and international law: a collection of inter-state and national documents, Volumen 2. pp. 143. Autor: W. M. Bush. Editor: Oceana Publications, 1982. ISBN 0379203219, 9780379203219 This reference refers to south of 60° S and between meridians 160° E and 45° E except Adélie Land being handed over from Britain to Australia in 1933. (Adélie Land is French). Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933 refers to the territory becoming part of the Commonwealth of Australia. Therefore I suggest the map should be amended, as previously discussed in this thread, to show both the current Australian Antarctic Territory and the Ross Dependency as former British territories. Mjb1981 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC) If you can provide a reference that explicitly states that these were part of the British Empire, then they can be added. The references you provided do not state that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC) Ross Dependency: The Order in Council Under the British Settlements Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict c 54), Providing for the Government of the Ross Dependency states that the Ross Dependency as of 1923 is "part of His Majesty’s Dominions in the Antarctic Seas, which comprises all the islands and territories between the 160th degree of East Longitude and the 150th degree of West Longitude which are situated south of the 60th degree of South Latitude". Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 states that British Empire is a "name now loosely given to the whole aggregate of territory, the inhabitants of which, under various forms of government, ultimately look to the British crown as the supreme head". Therefore part of His Majesty’s Dominions in the Antarctic Seas means part of the British Empire. Australian Antarctic Territory: [23] states that the 1907-1909 expedition took "possession of Victoria Land for the British Empire" [24] states "Sir Douglas Mawson ... landed at Proclamation Island on the same day, where he proclaimed Enderby Land for the British Crown" I have yet to find a reference regarding Wilkes Land, which is the only remaining part of the current Australian territory. Mjb1981 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC) I opened up the debate on the British Empire talk page. Let's see what others have to say (there is more traffic there than here) and of course please add your own thoughts there if you wish. I'm still opposed to this for the reasons I list there, but if there is consensus for it then I'd go with it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC) I see no discussion of this matter on that page. If you are not including them because there are no permanent residents then the BAT should also be removed as well as south shetlands. If you accept that they were Australian and New Zealand territories prior to WWII then the only way they could not be part of the British empire was if NZ and aus left the empire prior to WWII??? If your definition of British Empire is places ruled officially directly from London, I find the definition too narrow, it would preclude all territories given to the dominions by the league of nations, north half of eastern papua and namibia to name two obvious ones. As well as the thirteen colonies, areas of borneo, Eygpt and possibly parts of the raj. On balance I think should be included, but if not BAT needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.179.163 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Heligoland This island that now belongs to Germany is lacking in the map Lefairh (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC) OK, will add.... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Missing Countries If the map consists of all the countries that have been under British (or English or Scottish prior to unification) rule or are under British rule then the following should be added: France (When the crown of the Kingdom of England inherited the Valois claim to the French throne sparking the hundred years war). Afghanistan (on and off 1839-1919). Hawaii (February ~ July 1843). Germany (Lower Saxony Hamburg North Rhine-Westphalia Schleswig-Holstein during the Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1949 and the West Berlin boroughs of Charlottenburg Tiergarten Wilmersdorf Spandau). Austria (the British Allied occupation zones of Austria and Vienna 1945-1955). Pleas could someone add them Thank you --Lemonade100 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (GMT) None of those territories are considered part of the British Empire, per the sources listed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Hawaii is. It still contais the Union Flag in its flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC) You can read why that is the case here. [25] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Afghanistan? What about Afghanistan which was formerly granted independence in 1919? Again, no map that I have seen in the numerous reliable sources that I have in my collection state or show that Afghanistan was part of the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC) I said that it had been under British rule ON and OFF according the Wikipedia page on the History of Afghanistan that it gained full independence in 1919 when a certain king came to the Afghan Throne and the British lost their influence of Afghanistan. Yes, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:V. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Then why are you here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.25.28 (talk • contribs) Actually I have found a souce on the Afghanistan page of the CIA World Factbook it is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC) That does not state Afghanistan was part of the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Britain claimed a protectorate over Afghanistan in 1907, as a part of a dividing up spheres of influence in Asia with Russia. In 1919 the Emir of Afghanistan fought a war to establish independence. It may have been subject to the Indian Office, but falls into a category of "foreign territories under British protection", such as the Arab Gulf states which were not "part of the Empire" but states whose sovereignty in terms of foreign afairs, defence and economy were subject to Britain. You can't have it both ways: if a country is not an indpendent sovereign nation then it must be subject to someone else's power. 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs) I believe the user proposing Afghanistan is correct. It was at one point part of the British Empire, not only during their wars their but officially.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC) I also agree. Afghanistan should be included per above arguments. Outback the koala (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC) So, as I'm sure all of you understand our policies on what constitutes original research somebody please provide a source stating explicitly that Afghanistan was part of the British Empire, or provide a map of the Empire which shades in Afghanistan. To repeat for the umpteenth time, this map is drawn from the sources specified. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Colouring The colours on this map aren't terribly friendly to colourblind folk like myself. Is there any chance someone could redo the map with contrasting colours...I know pink / red for the British possessions is standard on imperial maps, but it isn't sufficiently different from the grey for me to be able to see it properly without concentrating hard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.14.131 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC) Havana? Wasn't Havana in British control for a brief period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.201.26 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, but it was a military occupation during a time of war and is not considered to have been part of the British Empire per se. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Parts of Saudi Arabia Weren't some western parts of Saudi Arabia under British control after the First World War and were then given to the King of Saudi Arabia some years later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc26324 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Britain claimed a sphere of influence in Arabia in 1913. This was part of a deal with the Ottoman Turkish Empire where they drew a line from Aden to Qatar and the Turks recognised British claims to the area south and west of the line. Britain had control over most of the coast areas, but the interior was just a claim. Then with the Turkish surrender in October 1918 Britain was responsible for accepting the surrender in the Hedjaz (now western Saudi Arabia) and also Yemen. This included the Holy City of Medina, so that Britain had to find Moslem officers from the Egyptian and Indian Army to lead the force to accept the Turkish surrender. (Arab nationalist had already taken Mecca). The Sherif of Mecca who became King of the Hedjaz hoped for a British protectorate but this was not granted. In 1926 Ibn Saud who ruled the Nejd conquered the Hedjaz and incoroprated it into Saudi Arabia 1932. It was more of a sort of client state. 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs) Queen Charlotte Islands and Alaskan Panhandle The Queen Charlotte Islands, just off of western Canada are not coloured in. As well at one point parts of the Alaskan panhandle were claimed and controlled by the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.32.195 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC) The Netherlands East-Indies Large parts of the Netherlands East-Indies were British (And Irish) colonies. --82.134.154.25 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC) What about the British army occupation in French Indochina (the current nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) from the end of WWII to 1954 when they departed with the French colonial rulers? You could mention the British occupational government in Libya until the former Italian colony's independence in 1956. The British also assisted the establishment of Somalia in 1960, also a former Italian colony. But, the legal jurisdictionary ruler in pre-independent Libya and Somalia was post-fascist Italy. + Mike D 26 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC) The Netherlands East Indies were occupied twice during the Napoleonic Wars 1799-1803, and 1806-15. At the stage Dutch rule did not extend to all of Indonesia. Then in 1945 Britain was responsible for accepting the Japanese surrender in the East Indies, similarly southern Indochina - Cambodia and Vietnam south of the 16th parallel. They handed over to the French in 1946. China accepted the surrender in Laos and North Vietnam. Britiain was also responsible for the surrender in Thailand. The Italian colonies were more long term. Not all Libya, but Tripolitania and Cyrenacia were under British administration until independence in 1951. France administered Fezzan in the interior. Eritrea was under British admin until 1952, and Somalia until 1949, with an Italian Truesteeship established 1950. Ethiopia was also occupied 1941-46. At the time the details were not public because there was a war on, but although Emperor Haile Selassie was restored to this throne in 1942, Britain retained responsibility for railways and essential services. In 1946 the occupation forces were replaced by a military mission. Some areas such as the Ogaden were reportedly handed over in 1949. Sources include the 1952 Statesmans Yearbook, and 1949 Britannica Yearbook. British forces also occupied southern Iran 1941-45. 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs) Hanover? What about Hanover which was a royal domain between 1714 & 1837? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.192.167 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Cameroon ..is not highlighted on the map and was part of the British Empire. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Also the Australian and NZ Antarctic territory is missing. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC) There is a whole section on that above, and another discussion at Talk:British_Empire#Australian_and_New_Zealand_Claimed_Antarctica_on_Map which you are welcome to contribute to. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC) I had noticed that, I'll take a look. But what about Cameroon? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Don't fancy doing anything about it? Flosssock1 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC) Goa It's easy to overlook Goa - hadn't I studied the subject in the Uni I still would think the British got whole India. Therefore I think this map really needs a white spot where Goa is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorent (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Goa was never a British possession. It was captured by the Portuguese in 1510 and annexed by India in 1961. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Oh sorry, I see what you mean - you mean it was not British and therefore should not be coloured pink. I guess the same goes for French India. The problem is that it's a bit difficult on a map of this scale to show this. (It's one thing to mark British outposts otherwise too small to see with squares, but to do this for non-British colonies would be a bit odd) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC) I would have thought goa was big enough to be seen at this scale, the other portugese and french colonies I would agree were too small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.179.163 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Eritrea and other territories Eritrea is missing, and also territory in the USA which is shown here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Anachronous_map_of_the_British_Empire.png is missing. Flosssock1 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The maps this was generated from showed neither (see source information in the image page). Eritrea was an Italian colony and a British mandate (note Libya isn't shown either), the Oregon Territory was merely a claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The Antarctic territory is a claim, and that is shown. And in the first sentence if the British Empire article it states the the British Empire comprised mandates, so shouldn't the map show these mandates? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The bottom line is that the sources used to construct this map did not show those territories. In other words, the map is verifiable. The Antarctic territory is shown because it is a BOT ("BOTs are underlined in red"). Eritrea was a UN mandate (not a League of Nations Mandate). The LoN mandates were generally considered to have been colonies in all but name and you'll see them coloured pink on maps. Now, if you can put forward some sources that explicitly states Eritrea was part of the British Empire, or implies that it was by including it on a map of the BE, then we have a discussion. Maps that other people have drawn and uploaded to Wikipedia are not reliable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC) Papau New Guinea Correct me if I'm wrong, but Papau New Guinea was a German colony until World War one, when it was conquered by Australia (which by then was theoretically independent of Britain). From World War One until the 1970's it was an Australian protectorate, due to a League of Nations and later United Nations ruling. So it is perhaps slightly dubious to say that it was British, even if Britain ran Australia's foreign affairs until 1941.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Wei Hei Wei This was a part of the Empire from 1898 - 1930. Primarily used by the Royal Navy as a base, but it was a 'leased' territory under terms similar to other territories coloured pink here. Shouldn't it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjccuk (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC) A further note, I have in my office a map of the British Empire from 1920 and it has Wei Hei Wei coloured pink just as Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Singapore etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjccuk (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC) Completely correct about Wei Hei Wei. Every British and world map of this era show this. It was no different than Hong Kong. But of course that is just one of many many many mistakes on the map anyways.Camelbinky (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC) OK, so put forward a reliable source which either has a map showing this as part of the Empire, or it explicitly states it was. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Here's one quick source showing the flag ... http://chinarhyming.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html and here's the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.193.89 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC) So will it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.114.233 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC) To repeat - please "put forward a reliable source which either has a map showing this as part of the Empire, or it explicitly states it was". Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself and extrapolating from the fact that the flag looks a certain way to the conclusion that it is considered by historians to be part of the "British Empire" is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Come on Pat F. We don't need an RS unless someone is challenging the material. In an ideal world everything would be cited, but we all know thats not the case... Outback the koala (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The map is referenced and appears in a featured article (the British Empire). As Weihai is not mentioned in the supplied references, we need a RS in order to add Weihai. I'm not disagreeing with it, I'm just asking you to provide a source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC) The British In Flordia I think That the area that covered Spanish Florida should be included on the map because it is one of the territories handed to Britain during the 7 years war.It should be labled just like other territiores handed over to Britain after the war, Like the rest of Canada and India. I also think that the 13 colonies territorie should be expanded, thanks- Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.183.123 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC) What do you mean - it is shown on the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC) O sorry id din't realise it was coulored. BTW i admire your empire knowlegde greatly, thanks. speaking of missing areas, i also agree that Afghanistan Should Be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.148.142 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC) Wehei & Chinese Concessions Wehei should deffinatly be shown, and i also believe that the Chinese Concession should be shown I Also pledge my support to Afghanistan and The Hawaain Islands being shown-Dan Ireland and India Is there a reason Northern Ireland on the map as part of Britain and not Ireland while Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka are all part of India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.215.43 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC) As the author of the map, I tried to show the territories/borders as they were immediately prior to independence. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is not shown as part of India - it is separate. The borders of "India" reflect the "Indian Empire" [26], save for Burma which achieved independence separately to India and Pakistan. Ireland became independent minus Northern Ireland. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Florida Someone needs to remove Florida, that was a Spanish Colony, not British —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.192.101 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC) Where is the southern part of British Columbia? The territory as far south as the 42 parallel across to the Columbia River in present day Washington state. The territory was claimed as part of the British Empire until the Oregon boundary dispute with the USA was settled in 1846. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.232 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC) BritishEmpire1919.png Walvis Bay Great map, but I think Walvis Bay was part of the dominion of South Africa, not a mandate as shown on the map. ϢereSpielChequers 23:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) Ireland Shouldn't the whole of Ireland be in blue as it was formerly integrated into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (until 1922) and was not a colony (although it is undeniable that the Victorians often treated it like one). I second that motion. The partition wasn't until 1922. I agree, it was not until 1922. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.60.128 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Gibraltar Gibraltar isn't as big as Jamaica. Neither is Hong Kong. Please, correct it. Accuracy matters! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.59.120 (talk • contribs) The places that are too small to otherwise be visible are marked with squares. Use of not-to-scale markers is a standard tool in maps (see [27]: the dot for Manchester shows its location, it is not meant to mean that Manchester occupies an area that is a perfect circle, or that London is a star). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC) Then use a circle as in the case of 2 tiny islands on the same map (which are bigger than Gibraltar, anyway)... Tibet? The British also took control of Tibet from the Manchu Empire, this map should be fixed. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2009 (UTC) In maps of the British Empire in reliable sources, Tibet is not shown as part of the BE. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Tibet#20th century covers this, there was a British raid which reached Lhasa in 1904. But it wasn't a conquest of the whole country and Tibet remained an independant state for decades afterwards. ϢereSpielChequers 11:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC) So it was an area of control with out formal incorperation/admministration like Southern Iran, and Afganistan.--J intela (talk) 23:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Map borders This map claims to represent the British territories and dependencies in 1919, after the Treaty of Versailles yet the map borders for the countries are wrong on every continent except possibly Africa. This map should be reconstructed against the proper blank map (that has the actual borders of 1919). Thanks! Scooter20 (talk) 10:59, 30 May 2009 (UTC) Go for it then. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC) It's your map, not mine! Scooter20 (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC) File:BritishEmpire1919.PNG is such map. Kahkonen (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC) British Cameroon There's a mistake in your map concerning British Cameroon. As you probably know, Cameroon was a German colony till the end of WWI. Then (at the Conference of Versailles) it was divided in 2 mandates which were to be administered by Britain and France. In 1960, when French Cameroon and Nigeria became independent, a referendum was held in British Cameroon (which, apparently, was deemed to small to constitute a state on its own) to determine whether it should be become part of Nigeria or the Republic of Cameroon. The northern part of Britisch Cameroon voted to join Nigeria, and so became part of that country, while the south, which today is known as the Southern Cameroons, joined the Republic of Cameroon. Now, what you've done on this map is show the only Southern Cameroons as a mandate, while showing the northern part of British Cameroon as part of the colony of Nigeria, which it wasn't in 1919. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.230.65 (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Palestine/West Bank There is a little wedge between Israel and Jordan representing the West Bank (usually on Wikipedia maps it stands for "Palestine" or the PNA). This should also be colored with the same mandate red that Israel and Jordan are colored with, as it was part of the Palestine Mandate. --Jfruh (talk) 03:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC) New Guinea Only the northern half of today's Papua New Guinea -- the half corresponding to the Territory of New Guinea -- should get the mandate coloring. The southern half was a crown colony. --Jfruh (talk) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Burma Wasn't Burma part of the Raj in 1919?--84.111.117.111 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Burma and the Aden Protectorate (south yemen) were part of the Raj until 1937. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.179.163 (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC) Bhutan Bhutan was never a colony, although could be said to be part of the Raj with Nepal.--86.18.179.163 (talk) 00:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Ceylon Ceylon was a Crown Colony in 1919 not part of the Raj.--86.18.179.163 (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC) Hong Kong I think Hong Kong was part of the British Empire in 1919. Any chance of marking it on the map? ϢereSpielChequers 10:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC) Mistakes As has already been noted, Burma and Aden should be colored as the "British Raj," not as colonies. I'd also suggest that the label "colonies" should be changed to "colonies and protectorates." Certainly Oman, for instance, was never a British colony. john k (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I agree with all of these points. I would also add that all of India was not under British control. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC) What do you mean? Are you referring to the princely states? They weren't under direct British control, but they were certainly under effective British control. john k (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC) I was referring to the Goa, Daman and Diu which were under Portuguese control. Puducherry was under French control as well. Zuggernaut (talk) 23:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)