Talk:British Empire

BOT map

As long as this page is being scrutinized (scrutinised?), I've just noticed that the map File:Location of the BOTs.svg shows the British Indian Ocean Territory located about 1,000 miles too far west, more or less where the Seychelles are. Pfly (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed this myself. The dot should be more or less correct. Pfly (talk) 06:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, except the fonts are now not quite the same and the thumbnail view less clear. I like the idea of SVG format but the practice of it still eludes me. I did nothing but move the dot and resave as SVG. Could it be because I'm on a Mac? I'll try to figure it out and improve the quality. Pfly (talk) 06:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I wonder if it is time for an RfC? we seem to have a coordinated effort to disrupt the article. --Snowded ^TALK 06:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, I was also thinking of asking an admin to lock this page from editing for awhile. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Fwiw, it appears that Yogesh has been blocked for 2 weeks. Pfly (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

You sure about that? Anyway, yes, I agree that it might be time for an RfC on the users. Given the volume of diatribe one would think there were huge problems with the article, but the end result is that we've tweaked the wording of two sentences (slightly). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank god for that (add his talk page to your watch list and you'll see it). Hopefully his 2 week block will give our newer friend User:Zuggernaut some food for thought too on what happens when you behave like this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a danger that we have some game playing here - part of the article's status is its stability. --Snowded ^TALK 06:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's "food for thought" comment as friendly advice and continue pursuing my recent WP:BOLD addition that was recently undone by user:Chipmunkdavis in a section below. As regards to the RfC, I think it's a waste of time to spend time in spaces other than article-space on Wikipedia for users who are genuinely committed to improving articles. However, if we must go there, I'm sure WP processes will be objective enough somewhere in the WP:DRR hierarchy for us to figure out what and if something went wrong. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson sources

Is [1] any good to replace cite 119? I dont mind looking for some of the sentences that need new refs, but i dont know if these other sources are even worse or if they are all covered in the other main books. So i wont add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And bottom of page 48 [2] for cite 107 BritishWatcher (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

And page 111 [3] for cite 84. Ill stop now incase none of these are helpful. BritishWatcher (talk) 04:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on a sec with Olson. That was just YellowMonkey's (very mistaken) opinion on the FA review page, which he's entitled to, but it doesn't mean that is something we must immediately jump to "fix" because he declares Olson to be a "clown" or a "joke". Imagine where we'd be if any Wikipedia editor could with the wave of a hand simply claim they saw a couple of "incorrect" facts in another publication by that author/editor and therefore everything that has ever been published by that author/editor is unreliable and Wikipedia can't use it! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater, without even being sure you should have thrown out the bathwater. (He also doesn't appear to be aware that Olson is the co-editor, not the author.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It wont take us long to change the sources, He dealt with the troll so he was right on that. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what the one has to do with the other? Anyway what's the difference between Zuggernaut declaring references "dated" with a wave of the hand and YellowMonkey declaring others to be written by "clowns"? Wikipedia has clear definitions of what constitutes a WP:RS. On point of principle (because I have dealt with many a POV warrior in the past who tries to dismiss references in this manner), I'm going to stand up for this reference. There are other, valid reasons for changing a reference, but YellowMonkey calling the editor a clown is not one of them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

ps I didnt mean that YellowMonkey is a POV warrior. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The difference is Zuggernaut is not one of the 3 editors listed at FAR responsible for the place. Im sure Yellow could give a more detailed reason if needed, if the source does need changing we may as well make a start. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

He's not a final arbiter or an expert in the field - he's a housekeeper appointed to help Raul654 make the process go smoothly, just like admins are there to help keep things running smoothly and are not arbiters of content disputes. Decisions relating to the FA-ness of articles are community decisions on the basis of our policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't seem to access Olson Lloyd on Google Books, so I'm not sure about one point, which may be relevant - the fact that source 119 references a sentence about both the position of Australia and NZ and also the neutrality of Ireland. Your source, for example BW, does not discuss the Ireland dimension. Setting aside the obvious trolling and silliness above, there is always a case for reviewing how sources are used in an article and how what they say measures up to the sentence in question. I can't tell if Olson Lloyd on that page talks about both Anzac and Ireland. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Totally agree it's a worthy discussion to have, if it's prompted by justified objections. I have a copy at home of both volumes. Do you need me to paste in exactly what it says? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

While I don't dispute that Olson and Ferguson are reliable sources for WP purposes, I do think they pop up a little bit too frequently. It might look better if we used a wider range of sources to provide additional support for certain statements. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice to have wider sourcing. Thanks for the offer of pasting the relevant sections of those Olson books in Red Hat (is your shortform "Red Hat", "Pat Ferrick" or some other combination?), that would be interesting, if not too time consuming. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cite number 119 is T.O. Lloyd's book, not the Olson dictionary - which are we talking about here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

|I am sorry, in my rush I said Olson - I meant Lloyd. It isn't searchable on Google Books. [4] Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Is Dalrymple (The Last Mughal) acceptable as a source? Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Which source number are you discussing please Fainites. I can't see either mentioned in the article text or ref list? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, you meant to add it as a source. It was a well-received book [5] and I would have thought mention of the end of the Mughals would be a worthwile addition. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it because it was raised in the course of the argument about whether the 1857 Uprising/Mutiny (whatever) was primarily religiously inspired. It's an interesting book based on extensive sourcing though it very much revolves around Dehli. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

My recent WP:BOLD addition [6] was undone and the edit summary said "Rv undue weight and misleading alterations". This is the content I attempted to add:

“ The English language is also a legacy in India where it is the second or third language of millions of people. However, the British Empire is not looked upon favourably in India due to several injustices including the deceit and treachery of the East India Company, the Amritsar massacre of 1919 and the Bengal famine. India's share of global income was more or less equal to that of Europe at about 23% in 1700 but it declined to 3.8% under British rule. Despite the negative impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Britons and Indians has been relaxed or benign since Indian independence. ”

This addition was based on the following sources:

• Singh, Manmohan (2005), In acceptance of an Honorary Degree from Oxford University on 8 July, 2005, The Hindu, retrieved September 28, 2010
• Heaven, Will (2010), The history of British India will serve David Cameron well – as long as he doesn't go on about it, The Telegraph, retrieved September 28, 2010

I understand that "deceit and treachery" are probably not the right terms to use but perhaps someone can help replacing them with "more neutral" words.

If you object to the entire edit, please state your reason (could be a WP policy or could be as simple as you don't like it) for keeping such content out. This is an attempt to gauge if content that's critical can be added back to the article. I will respond to comments that refute the content directly. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The section concerned issues of language and system so it was and inappropriate addition at that point Neither are your two references substantive when compared with others used in the article. While India is critical to a history of the British Empire, the title of this article is not "The British Empire and India" so WP:Weight will exclude some material anyway. --Snowded ^TALK 06:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we give two sentences to India given that the following has been said of the British Empire:

• The British Empire is an Empire only because of India.
• India - the brightest jewel that now remained in his Majesty's crown.
• India was the most prized and prestigious colonial possession of the British Empire.

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There are several sentences on India which are appropriate --Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

You mean in the context of size/significance to British Empire, i.e, are you saying there are reliable sources stating that India was not significant to the existence of BE? Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no rational reading of my comment that could be interpreted that way. To make it crystal clear, India is already covered in the article with well referenced material. You can't legitimately argue that your recent addition should stand due to a paucity of material. If you raise a valid argument I will respond, but easily avoidable misinterpretations do not justify the effort. Assume no consent to the addition unless it is explicitly given. --Snowded ^TALK 07:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, certainly, I cannot add per WP:BRD but I appreciate your reminder. India receives a total of 1.13 KB out of 61 KB coverage or 1.8% of the total article (approximately). I do not think that's adequate coverage given the statements provided above. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that the Empire included at various stages North America, Australasia and a large part of Africa I think its fairly balanced. I don't know how you calculated those particular figures, but a quick review says that the sub-continent is treated proportionately. You can always propose specific changes, but just adding in material with poor references in an inappropriate section is not the way forward. --Snowded ^TALK 07:43, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The references are from top publications with best-in-class editorial oversight and fit WP:RS requirements as far as I know. The statement was placed in the 'Legacy' section which I think is as appropriate as it can get but I am open to add in a different location. Since this addition will require consensus, I will wait for reaction from other interested editors before we carry this discussion forward. Signing off for this session. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Since India is by far the most populous part of what was the empire--and a country that is rapidly becoming more important in the world--it might be worth a little more proportional space. I don't think the full quote Zuggernaut added is needed or appropriate. But perhaps something combining the first and last parts: "The English language is also a legacy in India where it is the second or third language of millions of people. However, the [history of the rule of the] British Empire is not looked upon favourably in India... Despite the negative impact of colonial rule, the relationship between individual Britons and Indians has been relaxed or benign since Indian independence." Obviously this exact wording is not very good, and its location in the article may not be right. But perhaps something could be said about how modern India does not view the British Empire favourably, yet there is a "relaxed or benign" feeling between individual Britons and Indians today (given it can be well sourced). It is obviously a complicated subject, and as an outside observer generally ignorant about British-Indian relations, I can say something like this might help people like me understand, if only slightly, the complex relation between Britain and India today. It strikes me as odd that there could be a bad feeling in India about the British Empire yet a benign feeling about Britons--and I assume Britain itself--today. If this is true it might be worth explaining, for non-British non-Indians like me. Pfly (talk) 08:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its an article about a historical entity that no longer exists. Current relationships between India and the UK and their causes belong elsewhere. I am sure the article can be improved in respect of India but not with the sort of speculative comments proposed above supported by a newspaper article about a current political situation and degree acceptance speech from 2005. --Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded (!). This is a historical article. India is not a major ally or a major opponent (economically, militarily etc) of the UK today. I doubt that many modern Britons think about India very much (apart from food of the same name), certainly not compared to somewhere like the US with whom we share many economic, military and cultural ties. If there are important legacy issues in India then perhaps they could be covered in an India-related article, but from this perspective the relationship with India is very similar to most of the other parts of what was the British Empire... and this is already covered. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed is quite right. "The Empire" not something the British give much thought to one way or the other these days apart from a degree of black humour over the fact that they all thrash us at cricket.Fainites ^barleyscribs 12:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

As always Zuggernaut attempts to insert POV material. I oppose his suggestions. What makes me laugh is he said ""deceit and treachery" are probably not the right terms to use" yet decided to add them to the article anyway then gets unhappy when an editor removes his POV addition. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I would go there BW. Deceit and treachery were a characteristic of the Empire (as for all Empires). Z's material may have a place in other articles, or here in much modified form if we pick up the atrocities section for which I think there is a case (but have had no time to work on). --Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One could say they were characteristic of all human experience I'm sure. I personally feel that the overview given in this article is sufficient, detail about times when deceit and treachery were used no doubt belong in more specific articles, which deals with those events. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Atrocities... Yikes. That would be a Pandora's Box. Atrocities, deceit, treachery, were all par for the course for most of the existence of the British Empire. What of the Native American Indians who slaughtered English women and children, or the Africans who captured and sold their brothers' bodies to British slave traders, or the Indian rulers who made pacts with British allowing this handful of massively outnumbered white men to rule a whole sub-continent? This is such a complicated issue, complicated even more by the fact that ideas of right and wrong have changed throughout time (judging past actions on today's morals is always difficult - read about God's atrocities in the Old Testament for "God's" sake), with such a wide variety of viewpoints, it's as I say a Pandora's box. Throw in your POV warriors from former British colonies, not to mention countries still eyeing British Overseas Territories, who want (insert their favorite bad thing the British did) and this will be a constant battleground. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool it Red Hat. No one would dispute that most human societies in some way or another do bad things (even by the standards of their age) and Empires are no exception. The British Empire has some notable ones, such as the concentration camps in South Africa to take one example of many. Any balanced article needs to show both the good and the bad. I'm not sure if its a section, or some minor alterations to legacy or possibly a new article. As to your little tirade against POV warriors; well the article is not exempt from that at the moment and their are POV warriors who are pro-Empire as well. --Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Just as an aside, watching the welcome ceremony for the Commonwealth Games in India just now and England got a big cheer from the crowd. So evidently we are forgiven, at least to some extent. :) I suggest though that we all try to stick as far as we can to sourcable facts and reasoned comparisons. Yes, there was deceit, unpleasant behaviour, oppressive action, etc. There were also good sides to it. Imperial colonialism is (we all hope) a thing of the past, so let's treat this as history and not something going on now. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 14:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets hope they do not boooo the Prince of Wales as the Queen isnt attending. lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

• Questions about the reliability of sources have been asked. Are newspapers in the league of The New York times poor sources?
• It looks like there's some support to add a modified version of the statements somewhere else in the article. Is there consensus on this? Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not from me. We can not mention every single British colony and its relationship with the UK following independence or peoples point of view about imperial rule. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nor from me your proposal currently stands. --Snowded ^TALK 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I do think the article doesn't quite have enough material about the Indian Raj at present - it has stuff about the early days of the East India Company, etc, plus some about WW2 and the independence struggle. Parts of Zuggernaut's suggested add I don't disagree with, but we probably don't need too big an addition in what is already a very long article. A little more would be useful. The effect of empire on India's econonomic structure and world relationships is I think quite important. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

No agreement from me either - in fact it seems more like there is consensus to reject Zuggernaut's proposal. As for Jamesinderbyshire's comments - the "effects of empire" on India might be important in an article on India and might deserve significant coverage there, but there is sufficient material in this article already (which broadly reflects the proportion in reliable sources). This is not a forum for discussing perceived rights and wrongs of past events. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nobody was suggesting it is a forum. If the sources say there were some notable negative effects of the Empire on countries, then that is worth including and that doesn't make it a forum! You haven't addressed the point I was making, which was that there is rather a gap in the article between the earliest days of empire in India and the end of it. Given that India was always by far the most important imperial possession, this matters. It also does matter that there currently isn't much about the effects of empire - the effects are relevant. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that all makes sense to me; and there is a prominent link to the British Raj page. Sometimes one can forget that the British Empire is historical and no more. In contrast the US never had an "official" empire, so speaking of a present-day "American Empire" does not sound anachronistic. The fact that there was a real British Empire makes it easier to look at present Britain as "non-imperial", despite a few obvious counter-example BOTs. "...black humour over the fact that they all thrash us at cricket" made me laugh. Pfly (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

One final thought. For legacy issues continuing to the present day, perhaps a link to Foreign relations of the United Kingdom would be useful. India – United Kingdom relations seems like the right place for a lot of what's been discussed here, and its prominently listed on the Foreign relations of the United Kingdom page. Pfly (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Spoken?

Is this article stable enough to do a Spoken version, or should we wait a bit? I've noticed proposals like the one above may rapidly change the article and spoken version may be quickly out-of-date, and I'd hate to have to do this one twice. I thought I'd just ask.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 12:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Its currently undergoing a FA review, so is probably best to wait for all the problems from that to be dealt with and passed. Although it mostly is concern about a source and maps/images by the looks of it. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Any idea how look it go on for? I'd like to start writing the script.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 13:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

It does seem that the FA review is concerning itself with references and images as BW says. Does the spoken version include mention of those? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, from the scripts I've written - I don't include descriptions of the sources (like reading them out) - I simply say "a detailed list of sources are available on the written version of this article". So I suppose the references aren't a factor in a future spoken. Images on the other-hand are sometimes included, if they define a certain point or section, for example - the world map that you created File:The British Empire.png defines the size-
"An image is displayed next to the Introduction on the written version of this article – its caption reads "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire. Current British overseas territories are underlined in red.""
Other than that; I'd include (with their captions) - File:British Colonies in North America c1750 v2.png, File:Captainjamescookportrait.jpg,File:BritishEmpire1815.png, File:British Empire 1897.jpg, File:BritishEmpire1919.png, File:Eden, Anthony.jpg, File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png and File:Location of the BOTs.svg. Mostly due to their captions - they include information that independently makes sense and are somewhat of a condense version of the section. They're not vital to the quality of the Spoken version, but are a nice addition.
May I ask what the image problem is? I'd look, but I'm rather against squabbles and rather bored by reading replies and that.
Thanks
--George2001hi (Discussion) 15:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Current FA problems mainly revolving around licensing and other complicated legal stuff. Nothing really to worry about in terms of content. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? I thought it'd be the amount of images or something else simple. Anyway they're all free - either by age or author. Strange. Thank you for informing me.
--George2001hi (Discussion) 15:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Negative economic impact - new proposition

Based on the feedback, here's a much shortened alternative version of the proposed addition:

“ India's share of global income slipped from 22.6% in 1700, nearly equal to that of Europe's of 23.4%, to 3.8% by the time of Indian independence. Despite the negative economic impact of the Empire, Britons and Indians have enjoyed a benign relationship since independence. ”

Same sources apply. Feedback is welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is the paragraph is very misleading. Indias wealth increased, it did not decrease. The difference is the rest of the worlds wealth increased more. So in 1700 before the USA was a country to 1940s when the USA had become an economic superpower clearly that has an impact on Indias global wealth in proportion to the rest of the world, yet the whole paragraph is aimed at blaming it on the Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to Zuggernaut's point, it's a pretty big fall to be entirely attributable to global growth. Actually, a great many economic historians hold similar views, including right-wing British ones like Niall Ferguson. There could be plenty of sourcing to support such a statement, although we could argue over the precise wording, context, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be sources talking about its decline in proportion to global wealth, but it can not be attributed in such a way as though it was completely down to Empire. There is also a problem of why just India? We can not talk in detail about the impact of empire on each nation, there are specific articles covering these things. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, i do not know how "share of global income" is calculated especially from 300 years ago, do we have figures for what it is today since empire? For example Indias GDP today is just 2.1% of global GDP. If that was higher prior to independence (i dont know if it was because im unsure of how the calculation was done), should we say since independence Indias share of global GDP has declined to 2.1%? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have a source per WP:RS and I don't think we'll have a problem with other WP policies for this statement. The environment of this article is more evolved and mature as compared to some of the other articles so stability/edit warring won't be issues if we are able to form a consensus. The question is whether criticism can be handled in this FA. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources have to be credible and the figures well worked out. Calculations of national and global income, especially variations "caused" by events, are notoriously controversial. Still, if well-sourced, it might be worth a mention. A number of economic historians have made this particular speculation trendy in recent years. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is quoting Angus Maddison. Do we really need to get in to doing the math ourselves when we have a reliable source? Zuggernaut (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The right place for in depth discussion of what happened in India is British Raj. Picking out one country out of the 50? 60? countries of the world that were once in whole or part British territories and then picking out one specific topic (economic impact and relations between the two countries) is just a very odd tangent for the Legacy section to suddenly embark on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Timeline of the economy of India

"1952 - India's economy had a 3.8% share of world income."

"1973 - India's economy was $494.8 billion, which accounted for a 3.1% share of world income."

So for 20 years following independence, India's share of world income declined. It also says..

"India's economy is $3,815.6 billion (purchasing power parity) which accounts for a 6.3% share of world income, the fourth largest in the world in terms of real GDP."

However, i notice purchasing power parity is used rather than nominal GDP. The two things are different and i dont know what calculation Maddison based his original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming very tiresome. There are three core policies on Wikipedia. Zuggernaut appears to have tenuous understanding of one of them - verifiability, but that's not enough. We also have no original research which guards against editors, for example, coming in and synthesising revisionist history. We also have, most importantly, WP:NPOV which governs what sort of verifiable information appears in an article (i.e. in proportion to its relative weighting in the sources). To balance (i.e. NPOV) what he wants to include we would need far more information for India and all the other colonies/dominions, much of which would be speculative counterfactual OR. Such an analysis would take up a vast amount of space in a historical article just to satisfy his desire to communicate a controversial and sensationalist concept. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Wiki-Ed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut may not have the correct sentence, but it isn't OR if there are good, verifiable sources that say it is so. It isn't irrelevant because India was the most important part of the BE. For that reason there wouldn't be a need to "counter-balance" it by reference to other specific parts of the empire. By all means argue about the notability of the sentence, but don't say something is "tiresome" just because you don't happen to agree with it's inclusion. In fact, the only OR above is coming from BW. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for anything ive posted here to be included in the article. His proposal however does seem a bit like WP:Synthesis though. A source saying Indias proportion of global income declined is one thing, but then to follow that statement by "Despite the negative economic impact of the Empire" is clearly a problem. It is suggesting that without the Empire Indias proportion of global income would not have "declined" which is highly questionable. Its obvious as Europe rose up from the ashes of the dark ages and its colonies expanded all over the globe, Indias proportion of income would have fallen. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For people's interest, Niall Ferguson on the subject [7]: "I did a simple calculation to show the ratio of British per capita income to Indian per capita income over the very long run. It reached its maximum extent in 1979. And in the case of more or less all of Britain’s African colonies, income and equality between Britain and the African countries has vastly increased since independence. You could conclude that if the British had really wanted to impoverish people in developing countries, they would have given them their independence long before, because nothing has impoverished people in sub-Saharan Africa quite like political independence." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but India was a rich, old country in the first place, though in bits. However, simple comparison is probably facile as between 1700 and 1900 Britain had firstly an agricultural revolution and secondly, the worlds first Industrial Revolution. Then the USA and other European countris caught up and overtook. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no "India" per se, but that aside, I don't understand why Jamesinderbyshire has cited that particular paragraph. It undermines his previous comment - if reliable sources are analysing this in depth (generally they're not - it's counterfactual and most historians avoid that - but let's assume they are) then we would have to represent views such as Ferguson's on sub-Saharan Africa to give it proper weighting. I see no reason why India should be singled out. Some may say it was the most important part of the Empire, but others would identify the US as being the most important - and certainly to-date it has had the most significant effect. And yes it is tiresome - he's effectively trolling - successively setting us up to argue on pointless debates about tweaks to the article. This article was stable for a long time - the talk page was quiet. Now look at it. There's so much more to be done on WP than tinker with FA to appease those who don't understand neutrality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't citing it to support a POV. You may or may not believe me Wiki-Ed, but I don't have a strong POV on this issue - just trying to get an interesting article. Ferguson is interesting because he is a "right-wing" view on this topic, which has a lot of "left-wing" authors abounding, saying that it was all ghastly and Britain undermined poor old India. I thought other editors here might be interested in a wider scope. Some of this discussion makes me think that there are simplistic POVs around that think we can "prove" something about how bad the BE was. None of which means that India wasn't central. The US really isn't a valid comparison, although it's interesting, because it never had the population, scale or economy to compare with India during British rule. India was a quarter of the imperial population. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate you often bring a neutral view to these discussions.

As for Ferguson I had not perceived him to be particularly right wing, but I don't read the Guardian (found reviews via Google) so no surprise there. His perspective is neither David Irving nor Eric Hobsbawn... and I don't believe we should seek to balance the article by including contrasting views (for example of those two authors) when there are plenty of reliable sources - like Ferguson - sitting in the relative centre of the political spectrum and providing consistent and comparatively neutral analysis.

As for the importance of India or the US - the latter was at least as important to the "First British Empire" as the former was to the second. However, the latter has had a more significant and lasting effect on world affairs. The effect of the Empire's legacy on the US is much more important (i.e. notable) for an encyclopedia with a global audience. However, it doesn't get proportionately more coverage than India. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RHPF - British Raj is the right place for a detailed discussion of this but a summary statement should be alright in BE. Jamesinderbyshire - I don't know what right-wing Fergusonian politics is about but his numbers do make sense given that it takes time to change or even overturn policies for a large country like India. Also, the virtual elimination of large scale famines in post-independent India, the improved health-care and reduced mortality caused the population to boom in that period. Population of Britain was more or less stable by then so I'm not sure what to make of the per-capita comparison. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I agree with Zuggernaut. It is fairly well established that the economic effects of the empire were negative and that the economies of the colonial nations were organized to serve British economic interests rather than local ones. All this has a long term legacy that needs to be included in the article and it is surprising that the article makes no mention of any economic effects. And, focusing on India is not out of kilter because India was Britain's main colony (it wasn't referred to as the jewel in the crown for nothing). However, that said, I agree that a comparison between India in 1700 and India in 1947 is misleading because of several reasons. For one, by the early 1700s, the Mughal Empire was beginning its long decline (for independent reasons) and one doesn't have to be a student of history to see what the decline of an empire does to the economy. Secondly, British economic policy is mostly confined to the 1800s when it consolidated its rule over India so attributing the entire decline of India's global income share to its past as a colony is not correct. And, finally, as many comments above assert, the rest of the world changed, at the least it became much larger. Bottom line, the article should include something about the economic effects of the empire but perhaps not in a manner as definitive as zuggernaut's proposed text implies. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But surely then it should be a more even-handed view. Whilst it may be true that the economics of empire were organised at a macro level to serve Britain; there is also the view that economic organisation on a micro level improved the standard of living for colonial subjects. I mean, it is extremely complicated. To be simplistic, the vast rail network erected in India directly contributed to an increase in internal market effects on "colonial" Indians, even though the railway network was established not with that motive in mind. So, does one therefore just represent the view of what was intended, or what actually happened. It is also very tricky in "legacy" subject matter to disentangle facts from the post-colonial environment. Personally, by going down this route I think people will be opening up a huge can of worms. The only alternative may be to create a specific article on the economics of empire and then be able to note viewpoints whilst referring to that for greater clarification. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this further.... the alternative may be to include an "imperial/empire" caveat. AS in, "Like other economic networks established by empires in history, the colonial territories of Britain were economically subservient, as in India where....." I mean, the way things get phrased is very interesting. In histories of Rome there is very rarely any element of criticism in the economic setup of the empire - at least, in terms of Rome "using" its empire. I think that is what people object too... not the reality of what happened with India (or anywhere else) but the direct criticism that is often implied or even directly stated. As far as I'm concerned, anything about the legacy of the British empire should be written in the same tone as if one were writing about the Roman or Persian or Chinese. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well beware of that because absence makes the heart grow fonder where empires are concerned. An empire within living memory is an Evil Empire, responsible for all ills. An ancient empire is a wonderful exmple of human endeavour and a lost Golden Age (Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mughals).Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is generally accepted that the net economic effect of colonization on the colonies is negative. Obviously, this comes with some uncertainty because no one can ever know what would have happened if these countries had not been colonized. (That works both ways though. Would there have been railways in India without the British? Probably, yes. Because railways everywhere were built in those centuries.) However, as I say above, definitive statements of the sort that zuggernaut is proposing are not a good idea. And, any statement should be rooted in a reliable, generally accepted view of empire. The comparison with Rome and Greece is not germane because they don't have the same recency as the colonial empires and are not viewed in a manner similar to the Eurpoean empires of the 18th - 20th centuries by historians. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely my point regarding the empires of Rome or Persia.... the past isn't periodised, humans do that in their conceptions. There is an increasing move among historians to move away from the "period" thinking. Of course, this may be besides the point, but the legacy of Rome directly continues today in language, civics, and roadworking. A number of histories are increasingly looking at this integrated view of the past. If this article is supposed to represent historical viewpoints - what historical viewpoints is it representing? I see no reason why one view of history (which privileges highly critical assessments of colonial empires) should prevail over others. IMO the best historians to source for this type of "legacy" content would be those that write world histories. Anyway, I'm getting off the point here. Recency should really have no bearing upon objectivity and the way the past is approached - and if it does, then obviously it is for subjective reasons. I know of many histories that treat the British Empire in the same way as other empires throughout history. So not "all" historians have a postcolonial viewpoint. And whilst it is true that railways were built during this period all over the world - guess who built them. The construction of railways in Europe and the US during the early to mid 1800s was funded by British money and British investment. In America, Russia, and Northern Europe in particular the British were the ones who funded the construction of railways, just as they did in the empire. Is that a positive economic reflection of empire then? I am also unsure as to what a "generally accepted" viewpoint is in the contemporary world. I dare say there are sufficient histories written that would require a qualification to any statement about the negative economic affects of empire. Remember, we are also talking about a long period of time. The American colonies were generally regarded as immensely successful economically. They come from an earlier period, and India a later - but why should one be previleged over the other? The British Empire is a very different case to something like the French or Spanish - it lasted longer, was larger, and incorporated a far greater variety of economic units, economic management styles, and economic histories. ✽ Juniper§ Liege ^(TALK) 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Removal Candidate

The review of this article has now moved onto the next stage with some wanting to remove its featured article status. Wikipedia:Featured_article_review#FARC_commentary_4. The main issue that some of the editors are raising there is use of the Oslon source, so i have created Talk:British Empire/Olson which lists its use throughout the article. There are sadly a lot which is part of the problem, so over the weekend ill make a start looking for some other sources to back up some of the sentences as id rather we try to replace some of these sources than it be delisted because of peoples dislike of Olson based on his other works which are not related to the sources used in this article. I think it would be helpful if we try to list the sources there, so they can be checked over, there is little point replacing a source if its still not deemed reliable enough and it seems rather difficult to know what is or is not acceptable. Changing this source may not change the result of the FARC but it could have an impact so if others want to help try over the next couple of weeks that would be great thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Olson is over-relied on, so this is likely to be useful work, thanks for doing it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I replaced a number of Olson refs before seeing this message, so check to make sure you're not scrambling to find a source for a statement already otherwise referenced. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

A side-line to the above: there are two N Ferguson (2004) references in the bibliography, and the footnotes don't tell us which reference is to which book. Sorry... hamiltonstone (talk) 04:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing some of the refs, will mark those ones off on the page i created and others if they are added. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:49, 15 October 2010 (UTC)