Talk:British Empire

The empire still exists.

I'd like to make my point that the empire has not ended. We still control the overseas territories, which make up a very small empire. I plead you not to keep reverting my entirely correct changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.162.226 (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Its not an Empire any more, there are no 3rd party references that describe it as such. Stop edit waring please --Snowded ^TALK 17:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

79.98.162.226: Do you have reliable sources (in the WP:RELY sense) explicitly supporting your stance? If so, can you share them with us? Gabbe (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The last major colony was Hong Kong and that was lost in 1997. As Snowded says, no one describes it as such now. The dependant territories left are not really an empire!--BSTemple (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You all say no-one describes it as an empire, the last major colony was given independance; but we do still have colonies, and thus an empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.98.162.226 (talk) 17:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Find a reference, learn to indent your edits. I'd also read up on wikipedia in general, you talk page is littered with warnings which generally means a block is not far away--Snowded ^TALK 17:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia: "Politically, an empire is a geographically extensive group of states and peoples (ethnic groups) united and ruled either by a monarch (emperor, empress) or an oligarchy." The United Kingdom is ruled by a hereditary monarch and is a union of the Kingdom of England, the Kingdom of Scotland, the country of Wales and the country of Northern Ireland. British overseas territories incorporate other ethnic groups. Thus it is accurate to say that it has never ceased to be an empire. I do not see why something this self-evident requires a source, for the same reason that you do not require a source to claim that the United Kingdom is a sovereign state.94.173.12.152 (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Find a current reference that calls it an empire and you might be taken seriously --Snowded ^TALK 12:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that, And I use that as a reference - found one, done. Don't be so disagreeable, snowed, and face the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 11:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree as well. Now you have your 'general consensus, and can accept, please, that the British Empire still exists. (And hopefully always will.) -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 12:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(Patiently) You need to find a reference that says the British Empire still exists. Taking a Wikipedia set of phrases and throwing them together is Original Research. There is no evidence that the British Empire exists, there is no consensus. If asking for normal WIkipedia use of citations is being disagreeable then so be it. --Snowded ^TALK 12:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence is the colonies. Colonies make up an empire. How hard is that to understand? If the quotations we have put in are incorrect, then why haven't the pages that have those quotations had them edited out? Explain that. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 12:25, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

With no reliable sources (other wikipedia articles are not acceptable) the edit added to the article by 81.154.5.71 and Willdasmiffking and is clearly original research. I don't think will be many sources which would still describe the overseas territories as an "empire". Barret (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry. My point (AS CLEAR AS CAN BE:)

Colonies = Empire. No sources needed, its bloody obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I did some formatting - please use colons to indent your comments. Personally I think its obvious that a couple of islands does not an empire make and most of the literature backs me up - the UK is not talked about as an Empire anymore. If you can find a citation then fine, but otherwise you are carrying out original research. --Snowded ^TALK 12:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

a.) No-one cares about your personal opinion b.) No one does talk about it, and even if they do and not call it an empire, IT HAS COLONIES AND THUS AN EMPIRE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.5.71 (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Completely agreed. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willdasmiffking (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Then kindly source it, otherwise I will fully protect this article until a source is provided. Your own ideas are inappropriate here. Rodhullandemu 15:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously there is more to an 'empire' than a collection of dependencies. The 'Empire' was a concept, a mind-set, just as much as a real political and geographical entity. Russia has dependencies. But we no longer speak of the 'Russian empire', except in purely symbolic terms. We did speak of the 'Soviet empire' though, because Western attitudes enhanced Russia in that manner. Denmark has dependencies. So does France. So does Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and any number of nations. But that does not make them empires. The 'British Empire'belongs to a time when it was believed it was Europe's mission to civilise the world. There was also a french empire, an Italian empire, a Dutch empire, a Belgian empire, a German overseas empire.That age has passed (though I have my doubts sometimes).There are of course, some Brits who haven't realised the Empire is gone; they think it's been misplaced somewhere and General Gordon will rise from the dead and lead the Redcoats to glory.--Gazzster (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

True points here, although not what it was or even what someone would suggest an Empire to be, colonies do make up an empire, and that seems to be what we have here, a British Empire. MrTranscript (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Seemingly incorrect statistic

"The English language is the primary language of over 300 million people" Seems a bit faux to me given the USA alone has a population in excess of 300 million, Britain ~55, Canada ~30, Australia ~20 and still others with large populations.--Senor Freebie (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

An underestimate, perhaps, but not incorrect, given the presence of the word "over". While the primary language of many in these countries is not English (e.g. Spanish in the USA), I'm sure noone would disagree if you find an up to date reference and update the article accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In this case, is it considered rough / incorrect to use a collation of sources? Eg. adding up the numbers in a few census's. Or would that breach the original research rules?--Senor Freebie (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. There might be Wikipedia policy on this somewhere, but you might have to do some digging to find it (or a precedent). As far as I know what you suggest would be synthesising. For example, the article on the English language has tables showing primary language speakers. Each row (i.e. a country) is referenced by census-type data, but adding the figures in a column would be original research (and rightly so because some of the data in that table is demonstrably incompatible with other data for comparative purposes). What you'd need here is a single source which has done the arithmetic itself and can be cited in the normal way. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed. These estimates are all over the place anyway - as can be seen in the reference I linked to yesterday (you can see the relevant page on Amazon.com's "look inside" feature). The author who collated them said as much, and ended up giving his own sort of average across all of them at the foot of the table. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps putting "primary language of well over 300 million" for now would help solve the situation. It would take 300 million as the absolute possible minimum it could be while accepting that it is probably quite a bit higher.--Willski72 (talk) 09:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

UK Not

The great majority of RS prefer the term "Great Britain" or "Britain" for historical topics instead of variations on UK, as a quick look at the bibliography and footnotes will demonstrate. There was of course never a country named "United Kingdom". Rjensen (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

"Britain" would be OK, but not "Great Britain". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

...or perhaps "The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates, and other territories under British rule or administration...." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Broadly agree with both, except Rjensen's assertion that there was never a country named "United Kingdom". Mooretwin (talk) 16:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What do the sources say? The article should reflect the preponderance of terms used in the literature. Justin talk 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

the main histories prefer "Great Britain" and "Britain" by a wide margin--I would guess something like 80-90% prefer it rather than variations on UK/United Kingdom. For example in vol 4 of the The Oxford History of the British Empire (1999) with chapters by 30 leading scholars, and which is online at Questia.com, you can do a word search. I counted approximately 50 pages that used "United Kingdom" or "UK" and 360 pages that used "Great Britain" or "Britain", or 88% preference among current scholars. Rjensen (talk) 17:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

We had a rather lengthy discussion on this back in 2008. [1] I think I still hold the view that "Britain" is best, but given that whether we say UK or Britain offers zero benefit to the reader- it doesn't help them understand the BE any differently - I'd suggest we don't give this more air than it deserves. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:12, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

In terms of helping our readers, it is a disservice to give them non-standard terminology. After all, we might as well follow the reliable sources, as required by Wiki rules. (yes yes, I've heard that "Britannia waives the rules" but should not do so here.) Rjensen (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The correct adjective is "British" certainly, but given that terminology relating to "Britain" causes much gnashing of teeth in certain quarters on Wikipedia it's important we take more care with the name of the country than some of the sources we're citing for individual statements. I don't think many would argue that the correct name of the parent state was the United Kingdom during the period the Empire was at its height (i.e. the 19th century), and it's certainly the correct name now, which might help totally uninformed readers to make the connection. While we should use sources to support the writing of articles, we are not writing for the same audience and should not be driven by their vernacular usageof certain words. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

the correct name of the country was never "United Kingdom"--that's merely a shortening of the full name ("United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland"), and "Great Britain" is also a shortening. This article is required by Wikipedia rules to follow the reliable sources, which at the 80+% level use Britain/GB in historical work. Sorry, but reliance on unnamed, unsourced silent people with gnashed teeth violates Wiki policy regarding reliable sources. Rjensen (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is required to use reliable sources; it doesn't have to be written the way they are (and that's probably for the best). The problem with "Great Britain" is that it is inexact - it was a shortening of the official name (though not used so frequently any more), but it is still the name of an island. To avoid confusion between geographic and political entities it is better to make this distinction in the intro. Reliable sources might not need to do this, but they are not structured like Wikipedia articles and don't need to align to a wide range of other topics where terminology is disputed (try looking through the 30 archives for the "British Isles" discussion page to get an idea where I'm coming from). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I prefer UK, I think I said so back in 2008, however there is more than one way to do this. We could simply explain that the name of the state responsible for the British Empire changed at least three times but that we refer to UK consistently for the purposes of the article. As it keeps coming up, simply dismissing it is not a solution IMHO. We either follow the sources putting personal preference to one side or we explain it better to our readers. Justin talk 20:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Britain is the obvious label - it matches the references and its not confusing. UK means different things in different periods and the modern use does not match that of the dominant period of Empire, it also comes into use after the Empire has initiated. --Snowded ^TALK 23:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I support either the 'British' idea, which would relate to both periods of time. Or the current 'United Kingdom' wording, as that is the countries' current name (or part of it), it was the countries' name during the hight of empire and through most of it to date and 'United' was used prior to 1801 (although not often). I personally prefer the latter. MrTranscript (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Legacy Edit

I reverted this [2] for the second time. My major problem with this edit is that this is a section on the legacy of the British Empire - ie the state of the world now, not the history of the English language - it suffices to say that a legacy of the BE is the spread of the English language. On a side note, I fail to see where the source makes the claim that the edit does (so this strikes me as synthesis). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur its not significant --Snowded ^TALK 01:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Decolonialisation in the intro

Regarding this edit: [3]

I believe that this sentence should be removed, it not only implies that the handover of Hong Kong was an official end of Empire, but also that there are no more territories that could gain independence (or be decolonialised, as the sentence puts it). The intro is long as it is, I don't feel that this sentence adds any value. MrTranscript (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't imply anything official: - there was no official empire, no official start, no official end. However, historians, including a number of those cited frequently in this article, use the handover as Hong Kong as a convenient end to their narrative. We've done the same thing here.

As for other territories that could become independent, yes, in theory, but the next largest BOT is 100 times smaller (in terms of population), so in the grand scheme of things it's unlikely to have the same historical significance. Of course if it happened and if reliable sources decided it was significant then we would need to change the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Image

This rather nice image was added today [4] but unfortunately it breaks the manual of style (the following of which is a requirement to reach FA status) because text is now sandwiched between two images. I'd say having two antique style maps from 1897 and 1898 is too much - which should we keep? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm... the original. It's centred on the mother country and has more detail. And looks nicer. And is a map not a stamp. Was that a trick question? :) Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh... OK... just checking.  :-) I'm concious of myself reverting here too much based on the "ownership" feedback I got a while ago. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The deed has been done. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Papua was not a mandate

In http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/BritishEmpire1919.png/220px-BritishEmpire1919.png Papua is shown as a mandate. Only the former German colony of NG was a mandate. --Wendy.krieger (talk) 09:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

1815 map is wrong re Canada

for one thing, the label should not say "Canads", which referred only to what is now (lower) Ontario and Quebec, and as a term did not include Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, or Rupert's Land; maybe the term "British North America" should be used, although it wasn't current at the time but at least it is collective rather than inappropriate. Also the Rupert's Land boundary doesn't go anywhere near far enough west, i.e. to the Rockies. Whether to designate the North-Western Territory, Columbia District or New Caledonia is maybe moot, as those weren't formally incorporated as part of the Empire, though being active trading areas of the HBC (Rupert's Land was actually titular, which the other three were not). The 141st longitude boundary with Russian America was extant by then, though not formalized until 1825, though later Russian maps showed Russian claims extending to Great Slave Lake and beyond; but all those areas were "British claims" if not "British territories". And also, if added to the map, like Newfoundland and Nova Scotia they should not be labelled "Canada".`Skookum1 (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics

I wanna see a graph of HDI vs. time since the beginning of British colonization for each of the countries that were formerly part of the British empire.

Plantations of Ireland

Regarding this edit [5] phrases like "are seen as", "is seen to have" are a kind of unsupported attribution per WP:WEASEL. In the light of the "was Ireland a colony" debate which SGGH is concerned about representing both sides of, I changed that paragraph to remove the viewpoints entirely, so it now sticks to the facts of the matter - that (a) Englishmen were "settling" Ireland (no mention of "colonising") and that (b) some of these same Englishmen went on to colonise North America. This lets the reader make up their own mind as to whether Ireland was being "colonised". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems a fair way of balancing it. SGGH ^ping! 13:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

FLORIDA

Flordia should be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.148.142 (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It already is mentioned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

UN as the cause of decolonization

This edit [6] is not good in my view. First, it is synthesis to plonk tha reference in there to support the claim made. Second, it's not even true - for example, the leadup to decolonization in India started well before the UN even existed. And it was the Vietnamese who precipitated the withdrawal of the French, not the UN. I think the original text should be restored. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we should give him a chance to find a proper reference which claims what he asserts. A whole subsection of the UN website is not specific enough, but I can imagine that somewhere it might make a claim of that sort, whether it's true or not. (Which it isn't of course...) Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The onus is on the person adding material to provide references so I'm reverting this change and letting him know about it on his talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

User:MrTranscript - this Britannica article [7] is as good as any explaining why decolonization occurred: (1) opposition to colonialism by the USA and USSR; (2) independence movements in the colonies themselves; (3) lack of domestic support for maintaining empires. Sure, the UN was, as part of its charter, opposed to colonialism [8] and there is a Special Committee on Decolonization, but to imply that the British Empire or indeed any other empire ended due to "UN pressure" is completely wrong. The UN is toothless as far as decolonization goes, as, for example, Gibraltar's continuing presence on the United Nations list of Non-Self-Governing Territories attests to. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I will have a look for sources. I just feel that the sentence implies that decolonisation ended with Hong Kong, when in fact it didn't. Also, dispite the odd exception as stated above, European nations did not want to completely decolonise, but the UN wanted them to. MrTranscript (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oman

There is a discussion on the Talk:Oman page regarding whether Oman was a part of the British Empire. 88.106.67.84 (talk) 01:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)