Talk:British Empire

Map

Hi. Can someone add this map please; I suggest 900px. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywelyn2000 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 6 March 2016

Nice work. But the file has a mis-spelling in its name. Please fix that first. Also note that Newfoundland became independent in 1931 then gave up its independence in 1933 and didn't become finally independent of Britain until 1949. At which point it merged with Canada. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:47, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The map is inconsistent and inaccurate. It's missing Hong Kong, Malaysia, Singapore, Bangladesh, Borneo, Uganda, Somaliland and a few others. Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon; Myanmar was known as Burma (and the label is over China). Likewise the Sudan label is in the wrong place and using modern borders in that area is misleading. Similarly the USA did not occupy the space shown on your map when it declared independence. Some other countries did not really 'gain' independence as such, but were a part of the Empire for a time; some are labelled, some are not. I don't think we need to add this map in its current state. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:38, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Not to be argumentative (well that is a fib), but how about we date them by years conquered to? Juan Riley (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

With perhaps a question mark hanging over Scotland? Juan Riley (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed. In principle, it may be useful to have a map along these lines, but this map is not it - as well as being over-simplistic and inaccurate, it is extremely unattractive. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that the citizens of Belize should be told they live in the Yucatan asap. Juan Riley (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

One would think that they already know this. And the map is right in that respect. Your point? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

My error. No excuse. Juan Riley (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Rockall

I believe the British claim is disputed by several parties for example Ireland claim ownership of the rock http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irish-navy-renews-claims-to-atlantic-island-of-rockall-in-flag-showing-ceremony-174089061-237533371.html while the other parties claim no ownership claim can be made on the rock but I maybe incorrect on this area Gnevin (talk) 10:46, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I was wrong about that. However, I think that whole parenthetical comment about Rockall should be taken out. There are no colonists on Rockall, it isn't non-self-governing or a colony or even an island, and none of the sources say anything about its decolonisation or lack of it. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, just removing it would be easier Gnevin (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Rockall was claimed some time in IIRC the 1970s due to the EU fishing and potential oil rights surrounding the outcrop, and IIARC, an ex-SAS soldier or ex-Royal Marine camped on the rock for a period, thus establishing 'residence' for Britain. ISTR that he sent mail out from his 'residence' collected via helicopter, so he effectively established a 'post office' on the rock, but I may be wrong on that.

IIARC, this was only done because Ireland or Iceland had started to talk about claiming it for themselves. It may have been influenced by the Cod wars where Iceland had staked claims to fishing rights in waters that British fishermen had been using for at least a century, and which were subsequently denied to them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.114 (talk) 10:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent Reverts

[1] I reverted Alfie Gandon as I didn't see the alleged WP:NPOV issue he indicated was the reason for his edit. In addition, as I indicated I didn't see a material improvement in his contribution. He has since reverted with the comment Not all were granted independence; some won it. I'm not aware of a war of independence in the former British Empire that resulted in the defeat of the British but that aside the edit in question is "in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire" (emphasis added). One of the things that distinguishes the dissolution of the British Empire is that is was by and large peaceful with the granting of independence rather than dissolving through wars of independence as happened in the empires of her European neighbours. Hence, once again I don't see the proposed edit improves the article and is actually removing relevant information. Bringing it to talk for further discussion. WCM_email 15:24, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Well obviously the US would claim to have "won" independence, but that's not within the time frame of the paragraph in question (i.e. post-war). The single exception I can think of is Rhodesia. In any case, the exceptions are covered by "most", so no need for the change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Defeating the British militarily was never a prerequisite of winning independence; British withdrawal was often dictated by economic and political considerations that weren't always tied to their military dominance or lack of it. With enough political will, the British could certainly have subdued first the Americans and later the Irish, two territories that didn't wait to be granted anything. That aside, the current wording is ambiguous; "India, Britain's most valuable and populous possession, achieved independence as part of a larger decolonisation movement in which Britain granted independence to most territories of the empire." (emphasis added). This implies that the decolonisation movement was driven by Britain rather than, for example, the thousands who endured the British repression of India's mass civil disobedience movement. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It was either driven by the British or not opposed by them. To imply that it was "won" suggests that it was in some way forced through (cf. France and Vietnam). That is not what happened in most cases. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

"Not opposed" is an unusual way to characterise the British attitude to the Indian civil disobedience and other pro-independence movements for most of their histories, and not all victories are military. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Everything is relative. Decolonisation in the British Empire has to be considered in the context of changes in other empires in the same time period. Since political opposition to change is typically characterised by violence historians will naturally make contrasts with (for example), the following events in the post-war period: the Congo Crisis, Portuguese Colonial War, First Indochina War, Algerian War, Malagasy Uprising. "Civil disobedience" rather pales in comparison. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The period under discussion is post-war, India's independence movement predated WW2 and even back in the 1930s Indian independence was being discussed in the 1947 timeframe. You make the point that Britain had the military capability to suppress many of the independence movements; exactly as the French, Portuguese and Spanish tried to do. Except history shows that Britain didn't, it chose its own path that avoided costly wars of independence. Decolonisation was both in response to local independence movements and it was also encouraged by the British themselves seeking to hand power to stable local government. Independence was granted by a process of mutual consent, the pen not the sword. So as I said you're removing relevant information and presenting a somewhat skewed picture with your edit Alfie. And I don't see in your responses anything other than personal opinion, wikipedia works by reflecting what sources say. WCM_email 11:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

There are a lot of dead American and Irish people that indicate that Britain's 'own path' was somewhat tortuous. That Britain 'granted' independence is your personal opinion and presents a somewhat skewed picture; more neutral wording would be something like 'became independent'. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

And we're talking about a postwar period here, really the tangential hyperbole does you no favours. Do you have a point or did you just feel like a spot of soapboxing? WCM_email 21:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

We're talking about a path in the post-WWII period that began long before that war, so I don't agree that referring to the rest of the path is tangential; were someone without knowledge of these events to read your summary, they might well come away with the belief that the post-WWII approach had always been Britain's path. If you consider that hyperbolic, then perhaps we have different definitions of the term. I suggested a neutral alternative wording; why do you refer to this as soapboxing? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

A "path"? What path is this? Are you asserting that the article is presenting some sort of Whiggish historical narrative? And asserting that the events of the 1780s somehow had direct impact on the 1950s and 1960s is an opinion; I don't think you'd find many historians supporting you. As for Ireland, without wishing to belittle those who died on either side in first half of the 20th century, it was relatively small scale, maybe 1% of the deaths caused by the Algerian War in the second half of the 20th century. Obviously that experience was relevant to British politicians of the day, and influenced how they approached events after the Second World War (contrast with France, Belgium etc).

Your "neutral alternative wording" would iron out a deliberate choice of language which highlights the different approaches to decolonisation. That's not to say the British Empire declined without conflict, but it was far less "tortuous" than in other empires. "Granted independence" indicates that is was driven by Britain; "most" is the caveat which indicates that this statement does not apply to all cases. The detail is in the body of the article and those which it links to. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I haven't asked Wee Curry Monster about their assessment of the article's Whiggishness; they introduced that term yesterday at 11am. I made no claims about the size of the conflict in Ireland, and I'm glad we agree the British experience there was relevant to later British politicians. While we also agree that the British approach was different to that of the other European empires, I'm not sure that allows the use of the POV term 'granted' to describe something that, it could reasonably be argued, was not Britain's to grant. 'Conceded' would be more accurate in many cases. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

POV would be using loaded/inaccurate terminology that historians don't use - that is why WCM is talking about soapboxes. "Conceded" might be appropriate for the American Revolution and indeed there are sources using that term for that episode. However, with one notable exception (OHBE on India), historians tend to use "granted" when talking about post-war decolonisation in other parts of the world. Consequently, WP does too. If you think they're all wrong then take it up with them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Let's call it a slight POV. That's an interesting point you made about historians. I've come across historians who say these countries 'became independent', so barring an exceptional reason not to, I'll alter the text to reflect this. If you think they're all wrong, you know what to do. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion might be getting closer to one of historiography. I.e., "granted" is NOT the words some historians (and folks of the countries involved) use. And then again some historians might. Thus it is not, in my opinion, neutral. Juan Riley (talk) 23:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Given up on "conceded" and now want to change the goal posts with a different form of words? Logically all colonies "became independent", regardless of how they got there. However, this is imprecise - it didn't just happen - independence is either won or granted (again, exception being Rhodesia). In the context of previous examples cited in the introductory text, and of decolonisation as a concept, a reader would likely conclude that it always involved major insurrection and or war. This is obviously misleading - it's not what happened - and there is a contrast to be made with other empires and with previous episodes in the British Empire (like the US and Ireland). Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Wiki-Ed, I didn't advocate 'conceded', I used it as a counter-example to demonstrate to you and WCM how slanted 'granted' is. It's obvious you have a strong desire to highlight the differences between Britain's approach to its colonies after WWII and those of other European empires; I suggest to you that this desire is more appropriately indulged in in the body of the article. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The introduction should reflect the content in the body of the article, which is what the consensus version does... Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted to the previous wording, having read through this discussion I find myself in agreement that it is useful to note the way the British Empire dissolved after the second-world war, in many cases with notable UK domestic support. I think the article covers this well and the lead summaries it. CMD (talk) 20:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I've no problem with noting that; my problem is with the term 'granted', which you've re-instated. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Reverting again without concensus was clearly unhelpful, I have left the discussion for others to comment but its pretty clear there wasn't a concensus for your proposed edit. Support Chipmunkdavis's revert wholeheartedly. People are disagreeing with what you're changing and we've pointed out that this is the language historians use. Lets stick to what neutral academics use. WCM_email 22:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

It's clear there's no consensus for the inclusion of the POV and people are disagreeing with your support of it. Your commitment to what neutral academics say seems to be a little arbitrary, WCM; a small bit of research would show you they also say 'became independent' but that doesn't seem to have you rushing to their defence as you might when they use the less neutral terms terms you prefer. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

We've discussed "became independent" above. It will always apply so it's misleading because it suggests there might be a balance between 'won' and 'granted'. If there was a scale: 'won' to 'became' to 'granted' then historians would be sitting on (or between) 'became' and 'granted'; that tilts the balance of RS towards 'granted' and away from 'won'. Given what you've said previously, despite subsequent attempts to wriggle away from it, it seems you want to push a POV that suggests independence was (often?) 'won' and that a neutral position would more accurately reflect this. It is clear (a) that historians don't agree and (b) there is no consensus within the community for your proposal. Therefore we stick with the long-established version of the text. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Your logic seems a little convoluted, and I'm not impressed by your accusations of wriggling, which don't stand up to scrutiny. It is quite clear that (a) historians do agree with my wording that the countries involved 'became independent'; that's why they use the phrase so often, and (b) there is no consensus for using a POV term when we have a neutral alternative. Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to go down the route of joining you in making personal remarks, as far as I'm concerned that's a sign you've lost the argument. POV is being bandied around a lot, this isn't a POV term, its one used by neutral academics. I agree, given there is no consensus to change it, we stick with the established text. WCM_email 08:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

What personal remarks? Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

There is no point stating something - which everyone can see - then coming out with something different and pretending you have a consistent line. Nor is there any point in ignoring arguments and restating a case that others have disproved. If you can establish that the majority of RS use "became independent" deliberately in preference to "granted" when discussing British Empire post-war decolonisation then there might be a case. You have failed to do so and the consensus here is to retain the stable version. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Beg pardon Wiki-Ed, I'd like to deal with WCM's charge first and I'll get to you then. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, WCM has not availed of the opportunity to highlight the 'personal remarks' they referred to. Pity. Wiki-Ed, you seem to be under the impression that the argument I'm making now is different from one I've made before, but that's not an impression that will withstand scrutiny. You admitted above at 23:35 on the 17th that 'granted' is less neutral than 'became', and the justification given for doing so is that Britain's withdrawal was more peaceful than its rivals. Having recently been reminded of the vicious wars it prosecuted against nationalists in Malaya and Kenya, I'm not sure your POV is helpful or accurate. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

We've already discussed why 'became' is unhelpful and inaccurate. Countries did not become independent for no reason and explaining the reason does not mean the article lacks neutrality. Also, I think you'll find that the war in Malaya was against Communists, not nationalists. Kenya is more complex, but portraying the Mau Mau uprising as the (sole) reason for independence would be simplistic and inaccurate.

More broadly, it is clear from what you've said that you have your own point of view, and that you want the wording to more closely reflect that. As with so many things, it is possible to show that there are RS that support your POV, but the question is whether they account for the majority - that is the essence of WP:NPOV - and whether you can show that they do. Since you're focusing on a single phrase which could be read in different ways you're going to find that difficult. People who want to denigrate the British Empire don't like this article; people who want to celebrate it don't like it either. That's where it should be - in the neutral ground. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Whoa. Saying these countries 'became independent' is inaccurate? How, exactly? Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Try reading the rest of the sentence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I already had done (please credit me with at least a little patience); the rest of your sentence doesn't say how it's inaccurate (it's not), it presumes that my wording implies that these countries became independent for no reason, a presumption I dispute. The reasons are in the body; if you're really insistent, we can put some in the lede as well, which to me would be preferable to using POV language. And why on earth would you believe that being a communist precludes one from being a nationalist? Do you think the Malayans wanted a communist protectorate within the British Empire? Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious, you were aware that the Malayan Emergency started after independence? WCM_email 19:42, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That's not quite right. The 'Emergency' began in the late 1940s, ten years before independence. However, Alfie Gandon is not right to suggest that the Communist and primarily ethnic Chinese MNLA were fighting a nationalist struggle on behalf of the ethnic Malay population (who generally opposed them).

As for the main point of the discussion - this is going around in circles - "became" suggests it happened without reason or that the reason is implicit in the text. The previous references in the intro text are to the US (won by war) and India (achieved by long-term political activity). Neither of these examples accurately summarise how most of the other countries in the empire became independent, so using that term simplifies to the point of inaccuracy. But at the end of the day it comes down to your "presumption" that there need to be a change; you don't have consensus for that and you don't have a valid argument under WP policy. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes you're correct, they were protectorates with local autonomy. My point, badly made, was they were already proceeding toward independence before the Emergency started. And the Communist Guerilla's in the Malayan Emergency did not enjoy the support of the Malay people. WCM_email 22:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

What personal remarks were you referring to above, WCM? It's not very helpful to make a charge like that, walk away for a bit, and then ignore it when you come back. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Not helpful at all. I made no claims for anyone fighting on the behalf of ethnic Malays, Wiki-Ed; I asked you did you believe they were fighting for a communist protectorate within the British Empire. I don't believe you do. Using the term 'became' simplifies nothing if it's followed by an explanation of how this process differed somewhat from the other European empires, as I already suggested, thus avoiding the POV 'granted'. All of this comes from your presumption that 'became' is more confusing (even if more neutral) than 'granted', a presumption I disagree with but am prepared to humour given your strong feeling on the matter. I'm not sure which is worse; changing your position on the neutrality of 'became' or doing so and then accusing me of changing my position, which I haven't done. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The mostly-Chinese rebels were not fighting for a communist protectorate within the British Empire, but they were not granted independence. The British handed the country over to a Malay-dominated body, which remains in power today. Six years later they handed over more territories to Malaya, which weren't involved in the previous rebellion. CMD (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

"I made no claims for anyone fighting on the behalf of ethnic Malays, Wiki-Ed; I asked you did you believe they were fighting for a communist protectorate within the British Empire." - No, you asked "Do you think the Malayans wanted a communist protectorate within the British Empire?"

"Using the term 'became' simplifies nothing if it's followed by an explanation of how this process differed somewhat from the other European empires, as I already suggested" - Remind me, where did you suggest this? Certainly not your original edit. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

At 11:20 on the 22nd. You seem to be confusing Malayans and Malays; they're not the same thing. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:43, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not confusing them at all. You said you had "been reminded of the vicious wars it prosecuted against nationalists in Malaya and Kenya". There was a campaign against communist Chinese Malayans and those who supported them, but there wasn't a campaign against nationalist Malays, who were, of course, granted an independent country.

Inserting an explanation/caveat shouldn't be necessary if there is an alternative form of words which accurately summarises the process. That's what we have at the moment. You still don't have a good argument nor consensus for change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You obviously confused them, and I never said there was a campaign against Malay nationalists. Let's just say we agree that the communists didn't want a protectorate. You're right when you say "Inserting an explanation/caveat shouldn't be necessary if there is an alternative form of words which accurately summarises the process." Seeing as we don't have that (otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion), we need a change, which you still don't have a good argument against. Alfie Gandon (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if you're trolling. Whether you meant to or not, you stated - as quoted above - that the war in Malaya was against nationalists. It wasn't. That is why three editors have felt the need to correct you.

Obviously the form of words that we have accurately summarises post-war events in the British Empire. You are the only one who thinks we need a change. You don't have an argument to alter the status quo, therefore we retain the wording we have. Any further attempts to make a change which goes against the consensus version will just be reverted as vandalism. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Nationalists, separatists, whatever you want to call them, I don't believe you're seriously proposing that they wanted to remain in the British Empire when they wanted an economic system that that empire very much opposed. And the empire' war was very much against them. I'm not the only one who thinks the current wording is POV, and if you'd been paying attention to this discussion you'd know that. You don't have an argument to maintain the status quo. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

" ... against nationalists in Malaya" - the 'nationalists' were actually ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants who weren't even Malay citizens, i.e., British subjects, and who consequently had no legal right even to be in the country, never mind any right to change the government of it. The Malayan Emergency was won by the legal government in large measure due to the widespread support given to it by the Malay and other indigenous people, i.e. the people who actually lived there and whose country it was, and who had so recently supported loyally their other British colleagues in the fight against the Japanese.

... and the Mau Mau mostly consisted of disgruntled males who practised a native form of black magic akin to voodoo and carried out inter-tribal warfare and horribly killed and mutilated their victims - sometimes not in that order - both black, and white, while 'stoned' on natural intoxicants after having been expelled from their own tribes and communities, who were quite justly terrified of them.

And to the best of my (albeit limited) knowledge, Malaysia isn't today a communist country, and Kenya today isn't run by the Mau Mau, so neither 'nationalist's could have been that popular with those countries inhabitants. Neither could the British have been that unpopular, as both countries are today members of the Commonwealth of Nations.

And after independence the new governments didn't throw all the native people off their own land and put them into reservations either.

A very unWikipedian aura of mystery

I'm told that something was discussed at some point or points in 2006, 2007 and 2008, that pertains to an edit I made recently. For some reason, I'm not being told what was discussed, nor exactly when, nor am I given any idea exactly what part of my relatively wide-ranging edit is pertinent to this eight-, nine-, and/or ten-year-old discussion. I don't believe editing Wikipedia is supposed to be this frustrating, and I'm disgusted that apparently experienced editors gesture vaguely at three years worth of archives and then snigger up their sleeves. I'd like the editors involved in reverting my edits to stop playing silly buggers and explain themselves. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You see the little star symbol at the top right of the article that says it's a featured article? There are about 5000 of them. The structure, content, and language have been assessed as among the best on this site. That doesn't mean they're perfect, but they certainly don't need major editing. So, instead of wading in and making "wide-ranging" edits you could perhaps try improving one of the ~5,219,000 other articles.

In this case you've tried to do four things

1. Added a wiki link. Fine, but unnecessary.
2. You've asserted that all the people who helped establish the plantations in Ireland were wealthy and justified that by stating that the stub on the West Country Men says they were wealthy. That might be true, but the sentence in this article doesn't say they were the only people involved (hence use of "particularly"). We can't say that about other people because they are not specified. Also, by inserting "wealthy" as a distinction it looks like you are saying more should be said about this, but it's not clear what.
3. You've asserted that settlement of Ireland was "mostly" by Protestants from England and Scotland. By extension you are, therefore, suggesting that some did not meet those criteria. Logically that's probably true, although it would need a citation since it could be challenged. Again, it looks like you're trying to make a point about something, but with no explanation of what or why.
4. And finally the contentious bit: the use of "overseas" was discussed at length in the archives. European countries had been colonising "outside Europe" for a very long time so this tell the reader nothing. We are using "overseas" to indicate distance from the mother country, which was a feature of the Age of Discovery. It was in this that England lagged.

If an "experienced editor" points you to specific talk page archives it might tell you that they've done you the favour of taking time to identify exactly where the issue has been discussed previously. You can return the favour by looking for discussions that relate to the edits you've made. Say, for example, discussions that involve "Ireland". On articles like this the discussions can be quite long and heated, and it may take time to get to a point. If you don't have the patience to read through then don't make changes. And finally, if you do want to make "wide ranging" edits to featured articles you may get an easier ride if test your proposals on the talk page before you make them.Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the FAreaks have claimed another victim. We can't have the unwashed masses sullying this inviolate article, now can we? 107.77.205.154 (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You missed the part where I added content, and referenced it. But the important lesson here is that both you and WCM have caused all this fuck-aboutery because you're neither able to conceive of a place beyond a sea as being overseas, nor to write non-cryptic edit summaries. You didn't point anywhere specific, Wiki-Ed; you mentioned archives that had scores of different discussions in them without feeling the need to let me know which one you were talking about. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can find a reference for anything. That's irrelevant. I'm not going to reopen the discussion on the meaning of 'overseas'. It has been used specifically to emphasise a particular point.

As for finding the relevant section of talk page: it takes all of 5 seconds to click on a hyperlink, scan down an index and identify discussions which are relevant. There are three discussions on Ireland in the fourth archive and one of them even includes some of the wording you decided to change. Not difficult. Stop whining. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. So you make a detailed list of almost everything I did in the edit, except the largest change , which for some reason is 'irrelevant', but you don't say why. Right. I actually did read the first discussion to do with Ireland, and found absolutely no relevance to any part of my edit. Despairing at your vagueness, I gave up. It wouldn't have been difficult to just tell me what the discussion had been about, but that's obviously not your way. I'll paraphrase the weird English. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So you didn't look hard enough. I've done enough hand-holding as it is. As for the colonial lab addition - I don't have strong feelings about that actually - but I know that might others do and one source might not be enough. They haven't chipped in as I expected so let's see if it sticks. I've reinstated your text, but can you fix the reference (my other objection) to conform with the citation style being used in this article. I'd do it myself but your link doesn't actually open the book so there's no way to check its veracity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the colonial lab addition, i don't see it adding any value to the article. It's one author's opinion not a fact of any value. WCM_email 10:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What a shock. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Removal of population figures from lede

I've noticed that TompaDompa has removed population figures from the lede. This has been done on the basis that it failed verification. However, I note that the source available on line does give population figures, albeit slightly lower than stated. See page 97 and others [2]. I'm wondering why he didn't just correct the figures/dates? WCM_email 13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I only looked at the pages specified in the footnote – 98 and 242 (instead of 97 and 241 – presumably a pdf page numbering error). I added the correct figures back. Thanks! TompaDompa (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it just struck me as strange so I thought I might be an error. WCM_email 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

How many people were killed?

I've read that nearly 2 billion people were killed by the British worldwide. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC))