Wikipedia:Featured article review/British Empire/archive2

British Empire

British Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/British Empire

• Featured article review/British Empire/archive1
• Featured article review/British Empire/archive2

Notified: Chipmunkdavis, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Wiki-Ed, Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Buidhe, Slatersteven, MilborneOne WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject British Overseas Territories, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject WikiProject Colonialism

Review section

This article was promoted in 2009. It has inconsistently formatted citations. The article also violates MOS:SANDWICH quite heavily, with images on both sides of the text in several places. It also fails to be comprehensive, well-researched, or have a neutral point of view because of it doesn't cover the British Empire's negative aspects properly. Perhaps the most glaring example is that the article doesn't discuss the British Empire's relationship with indigenous people (the phrases aborigine and native american are never mentioned) and doesn't mention the word genocide. Every article about a state should cover genocides the state has been accused of by at least a significant minority of scholars.

The Genocide debate section of the History Wars article is a good example of the kind of discussion that should be in the British Empire article, but isn't. A lot of the information in that article should be in this one. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, considered the Tasmanian genocide perpetrated by the British Empire to be an example of genocide. The Autralian Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide. Other editors have argued that such a tiny number of scholars support the idea of the British Empire perpetrating genocide that it should not even be mentioned. That is clearly an unsustainable view.

There are other examples of this article not being comprehensive in its coverage of the Empire's negative aspects. For example, it devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. It blames the famines on crop failures, neglecting to mention scholars such as Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen who argued that the undemocratic nature of the Empire was the most important cause of these famines. One author went as far as calling these famines the Late Victorian Holocausts. This is a clear WP:UNDUE problem.

In the talk page discussion, Wiki-Ed argued that the article already included all the facts, and my suggested insertions are simply moral judgements by historians that are not necessary. But the article actually omits many important facts about the negative aspects of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: here is the March 2020 talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Quality posts here, could you please notify the other WikiProjects listed on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have now notified all of the WikiProjects listed except version 1.0.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I have serious concerns this is a bad faith nomination. See [1], there is evidence that this is a sock puppet of the long term disruptive editor [Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter|HarveyCarter] who has long targeted the British Empire page. The claim it was "easier" to pass promotion in 2009 is demonstrably false. As regards neutrality the article is clearly treating the subject in a neutral manner mentioning topics such as the opium wars, the slave trade and topics such as the Indian famines. So the basis of this nomination is clearly to disrupt rather than improve the article. WCM_email 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying issues and addressing them. Also, please note that SPI issues are raised at the proper forum, not at FAR, where our focus is on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Why are we wasting time on a bad faith nomination that isn't focused on content but is in reality about imposing the opinion of the OP. Having failed to force his changes into the article it has been nominated for delisting out of spite. It's a waste of time, if you wish to indulge a disruptive editor fine but I won't be wasting my time on this. WCM_email 15:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Where have I been disruptive?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to all. This type of discussion does not belong here. If anyone has credible evidence that the nominator is a sock, please take that to SPI; other potential behavioural concerns should also be addressed elsewhere. Please focus comments in this review on the article and how it does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D

This article needs very considerable amounts of work to retain FA status. Some comments on the sections I'm most familiar with:

• The article seems weighted towards the last period of the Empire, with the section on 'Britain's imperial century' being shorter than that on 'Decolonisation and decline'
• Language like "In 1770 James Cook discovered the eastern coast of Australia" needs to be replaced - the European explorers were venturing into populated lands, not "discovering" areas previously unknown to humanity
• The section on the Second World War more or less ends in early 1942. The reconstitution of the Imperial forces and their successful campaigns are worth covering - this included genuinely Imperial efforts like the Empire Air Training Scheme (which underpinned the RAF), the Eighth Army in Italy, the Burma Campaign and the British Pacific Fleet.
• " on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal,[186] which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact" - totally false. The UK doubled down on much of its remaining empire during the late 1940s and 1950s, for instance by taking a serious interest in West Africa for the first time given it could produce valuable exports and encouraging Whites to move to the East African colonies. The UK also fought to hang onto its Empire when threatened in the 1950s and early 60s (e.g. Suez, Kenya, Cyprus and Aden). This material repeats a now-discredited myth, and acts to obscure the fact that like France the UK also fought dirty wars to try to stop independence movements.
• The statement that the UK handed over to "stable" governments is also false as it implies that this was a tidy and successful process - the British in general did very little to prepare their colonies for independence, and most have been plagued by instability or single party rule since independence. Many of the African countries had only a handful of university graduates at the time of independence, for instance.
• "The pro-decolonisation Labour government" - very simplistic. While Labour wanted to get out of India and was more sceptical of imperialism, it didn't oppose the Empire per-se.
• " while New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986 (effective 1 January 1987) reformed the constitution of New Zealand to sever its constitutional link with Britain." - NZ only recently replaced appeals to the British Privy Council with its own court system.
• The decolonisation and legacy sections don't describe or discuss the formal and informal arrangements which replaced the formal empire. For instance, UK companies continued to be very important in the economies of ex-colonies for decades, there are political links, and informal and formal diplomatic and military alliances.
• More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way. The Roman Empire article's structure might be a good model.
• I agree with the nomination statement here that there isn't enough on the impact of empire on the populations which had it inflicted on them.
• The article is missing a discussion of the historiography of the Empire, with historians views on whether it was a good or bad thing evolving over time and continuing to differ.
• If the nominator is potentially a sock puppet, especially of a notorious ban evader, this needs to be reported for an SPI ASAP. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You actually commented on the SPI back in 2017, here. Alfie Gandon has since been banned as the sockpuppet of a different long term abuser, not Harvey Carter. But I haven't been.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Note to all. This type of discussion does not belong here. If anyone has credible evidence that the nominator is a sock, please take that to SPI; other potential behavioural concerns should also be addressed elsewhere. Please focus comments in this review on the article and how it does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Buidhe

• Regardless of whether the nominator is a sockpuppet and/or a POV pusher, I do not think that the article meets the FA criteria, per Nick-D's comments above. (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wiki-Ed

User:QualityPostsHere has been banging this drum for some time and has consistently failed to make a persuasive argument on the talk page.

• Inconsistently formatted citations: I'm sure that's easily fixed. UserQPH could have done that in his/her spare time instead of writing the blurb above;
• Too many pictures: Yes. But easily fixed. As above. I see someone has already adddressed that;
• "fails to be comprehensive..." It covers a period of 500 years and geographically most of the world - there's a limit to how 'comprehensive' it can be - and generally speaking it reflects the way historians approach the topic. It is also written from the perspective of the central entity, not the other state/non-state entities which it interacted with, which is partly why moden perspectives (e.g. from India) are not a major feature.
• "fails to be... well-researched..." It draws on at least 80 separate sources for the 262 in-line citations. Comparable articles have a similar amount (e.g. Spanish Empire). Other empires (e.g. Roman Empire) have more, but often multiple references for the same statement, so not sure that counts.
• "fails to... have a neutral point of view" Which is actually what User:QPH is trying to get to - opinions. His argument seems to boil down to he just doesn't like it and wants the article to become a value-laden opinion piece focused primarily on genocide, famine and the relationship between Britain and indigenous peoples. In the past he has supported this argument with a small number of hand-picked sources -not necessarily reliable mind - to demonstrate that some people have views on this particular subject, but is unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire. And arguably there is a case that analysis and opinion belongs in the separate (but linked) article on the Historiography of the British Empire, not the timeline-structured article we have here. To see the 'quality' - I use the word very loosely - of the language he would like to inflict on this article, one only has to look at the (now deleted) contents of the user's page.

User:NickD's comments are worthy of more considered discussion.

• Without going through each one individually, I note he is challenging sourced statements with his own opinions. That's not a good enough reason to change the text - in particular I'm not sure NickD's analysis of 'Winds of Change' is correct, so maybe we shouldn't be jumping to change things. However, if the sources don't represent the majority of reliable sources then that's a different matter. And if they synthesise incorrectly then they need to be corrected. This should have been raised on the talk page before now.
• Points of detail (Labour views; NZ constitution; role of companies) might deserve a mention - maybe half a sentence given relative important to topic itself. FA does not mean set in stone so User:NickD could have made these changes himself previously if he saw a gap.
• Nuances in wording: Maybe a tendency to cherry pick rather than read the whole paragraph in context. For example, "In 1770 James Cook discovered..." - the previous line includes the relevant caveat ("discovered for Europeans"). And lines like "Britain adopted a policy" (of peaceful decolonisation) does not mean it succeeded in executing said policy or carrying it through successive political cycles/leaders;
• Balance: No one is ever going to be entirely happy with this. User:NickD says in one line that 'Decolonisation' and 'Legacy' are too long compared to the section on 'Britain's Imperial Century', then in another line wants to add yet more content to them. The Second World War gets a few paragraphs, which is considerably more than the Seven Years War - a few lines - for a far, far more important episode (in my view!). Generally speaking I think it makes sense for more recent history to be recounted in more detail because it has more of an impact on the present, but it's a difficult balance to find. Again, I think this could be discussed on a talk page rather than FAR - it's something that can be addressed with comparatively small tweaks - condensing some sections and expanding others.

That brings me to his final point, that "the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire" (drawing a comparison to the article on the Roman Empire). Like the articles on the French and Spanish Empires, this article is deliberately structured as a historical timeline, not an analysis of how 'it' (bearing in mind that 'it' in itself is contentious) functioned, nor is it a review of the historiography. A departure from this approach would be a major undertaking and would likely invite a huge amount of edit warring - something we have mostly resolved here after many years of argument. I note, also that the Roman Empire article is so thin in places that it has attracted 'misleading content' tags, so I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire" - Are there more seminal scholars in their fields than Raphael Lemkin and Amartya Sen? Would the Australian Museum take a fringe position that is not at least a minority among scholars? What process do you suggest for establishing whether an idea is a majority among scholars, a minority, or fringe?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard of either of them and, it seems, neither have the authors of the books sitting on my bookshelf. They - (genuinely) seminal works about the British Empire - do not cite either of those two people. Establishing whether a view is held by a majority, by a minority or by a fringe was explained by Jimbo Wales himself. You can find his guidelines on the Neutral Point of View page under Undue Weight. In practical terms I think he means a source should be cited frequently by a large number of reliable sources (who themselves are cited frequently) on the topic in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Let's discuss the bit of WP:DUE you are citing then. We agree the article ought to discuss the views which are held both majorities and significant minorities of scholars, only excluding fringe ideas with little support. Wales' claimed "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Aren't the creator of the term genocide, a winner of the nobel memorial prize in economics, and the Australian Museum prominent adherents? Isn't the debate now whether these sources present views held by a majority or significant minority, rather than whether they present views which are fringe?

The article has a responsibility to represent views that are not mentioned in the books so far cited, if they are at least significant minority views in the academic literature.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You may have missed the bit I italicised: on the topic in question. From the WP page on Reliable Sources: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" [for the subject of the article]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Amartya Sen doesn't mention the Indian famines in passing. He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance. He argues the famines were not natural phenomena. The second paragraph is the most important one to look at.

Nor does Raphael Lemkin consider the Tasmanian genocide in passing. He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.

The Australian Museum devotes an entire article arguing the Aborigines were the victims of genocide here. Can you really argue they mention this only in passing, given it the main argument of an entire article?--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)--Quality posts here (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to say that I find this response to my comments really troubling - to dismiss them more or less outright and to attack uninvolved reviewers as being biased is very bad form (I studied the British Empire at university, and have since read fairly widely on the topic). I suspect that we'll be moving to a FARC discussion sooner rather than later if there's no interest in improving the article, and I'd certainly support delisting if the article isn't considerably improved from its current state. @Quality posts here: I presume that you started this FAR as you were seeking external opinions, and continuing your disagreement with the other editor above is also very unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have neither dismissed your comments outright nor attacked you personally. I've questioned your analysis where I don't agree with the substance, and I've questioned why you've raised these points here, now, rather than on the talk page previously. A FAR seems like an unusually formal way to raise a concern. The exception is your last line - that is an interesting challenge to involved editors and worthy of further discussion. Again I would argue that a proposition could have been put forward on the talk page, but apologies if my response seemed dismissive - not intended (although I have firm views on it and have expresssed them). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reviewed this article as an uninvolved reviewer in response to this FAR. Please read up on the process here - this isn't a continuation of talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Point taken.--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Wes Sirius

Forgive me for my inexperience, but wouldn't the information on the impact on the subject peoples belong on the relevant pages of those groups? WesSirius (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, that would result in a main article with no "bad news." It would be all army, navy, generals serenely becoming Viceroys and then if you dug very deep oh horrors very, very bad things happened! Indeed that is what noted historian Barbara Tuchman found, see quote above. Germsteel (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia report "bad" news (or "good" news)? It isn't a soapbox. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. You can't write about, say, the British Empire in Australia without covering the dispossession and large scale deaths of Indigenous Australians which resulted. However, this article doesn't seem to even mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It's an article about the British Empire as a whole, not the British-in-Australia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Transfer of Tribute and the Balance of Payments in the Cambridge Economic History of India vol. 2

Was it really the case that the British came to India to build railways and telegraph, stimulate economic growth through their demand for primary commodities (which, we are told, it was in India's interest to specialise in given her factor endowments), initiate large scale industry, promote a reduction in land concentration, and withdraw gracefully, after incurring sterling debts which were of benefit to India?

Utsa Patnaik, Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 12 (Dec., 1984), pp. 43-55

Comments by Germsteel

Could people interested in this page take a look at: British_Raj#Economic_impact and offer any suggestions?

There are better pages: History_of_the_British_Raj#Finances, Economic_history_of_India#British_rule or Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

WP Ownership?

Germsteel (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure User:NickD will be rushing in to tell you this doesn't belong here and you should follow the procedures. (The correct place would be the talk page, as with the entirety of the discussion above). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by SandyGeorgia

To the original issues:

• I do not see any MOS:SANDWICH.
• See also could be pruned.
• Ditto External links.
• The Spoken Wikipedia link is six years old; should it be moved to talk, or is it still close enough?
• Could we please have a clear and simple bullet list of what sources the original poster wants to see included? I am seeing some requests to use museum websites, but I may have missed a piece.
• The Further reading section contains all harvref errors, so something is off there. And why such an extensive Further reading list; does it need pruning? Oh, turns out that Further reading is supposed to be the source list, so there is a problem there with MOS:APPENDIX naming, and a problem with the citation linking.

Note: since I promoted this article, and there is controversy, I won't be entering any declaration-- just listing things to fix. With a reminder that this article averages 6,000 views per day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the sandwiching a few days ago and have now pruned the See Also and External Links. On your point about Further Reading could you clarify where the harvref errors are? I can't seem to see any and no-one has made any changes to the article since you posted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Harvrefs are still a mystery to me. DrKay could you explain why simply doing this made all the red Harvref error links go away ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, no. I don't see any red error links on the previous revision. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep, they are gone now ... as if the software did not recognize refbegin and refend before my edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• WP:MOSNUM review needed, sample, British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... switches from digits to spelling out digits mid-sentence. Sample only, pls check all.
• MOS:DATERANGE, pick a style, all four digits is preferred ... 1904–05 also limited its threat to the British ... but later all four digits ... the South African Republic or Transvaal Republic (1852–77; 1881–1902) and the Orange Free State (1854–1902).[125] In 1902 Britain occupied both republics, concluding a treaty with the two Boer Republics following the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

• • I've fixed the daterange issues I saw. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Georgethedragonslayer

I agree with the nom that the article has deliberately omitted all of the negative aspects of the empire despite the global condemnation of colonization, genocide and exploitation. It needs to be speedily delisted as FA. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

I note that in the decade since the last FAR (version), the article has expanded about 20% (past the WP:SIZE guidelines) and gained a few short sections. "Transformation into British Empire" in particular, stands out as something that should probably be removed outright, especially given it only has a primary source. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delist I agree with Nick-D's analysis in that the article is not comprehensive of all aspects of British rule. Focusing on political and military aspects leads to neglect of economy, society, and other important topics: "More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way." (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist The article is clearly not of featured standard, as it fails to adequately cover its topic, and the editors most involved with the article seem to have no interest at all in improving it. Nick-D (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist assuming noone (Wiki-Ed?) will be implementing changes detailed above in the near future.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep The comments made by Nick-D and SandyGeorgia could have easily been dealt with on the talk page of the article. They certainly do not justify delisting. Other comments on the article are not relevant and are classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This also does not justify delisting. Finally, the lack of significant outside commentary here is indicative that the article continues to meet FA criteria. WCM_email 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• It would be grand if someone would deal with them, because we should be saving this star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" which of the four sources I paraphrase does your criticism apply to?

• Raphael Lemkin
• Australian Museum
• Amartya Sen
• Late Victorian Holocausts

Taking a glance at FAR, this one has more people commenting in the review section (10) than any other open FAR, and I only recognize 3 from the talk page.--Quality posts here (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)