File talk:The British Empire.png

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)

Oregon Territory

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)

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" [1] 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 antartica 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)

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. [2] 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)

Oregon/Columbia

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)

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)

Oregon Country

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)

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)