Talk:British Empire

Genocidies of British Empire:

What happens with this... AND OTHER GENOCIDIES...

Bengal famine of 1943 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943 Mau Mau Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mau_Mau_Uprising https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_revolt_against_the_British

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India#Resettlement_of_refugees_in_India:_1947%E2%80%931957

How about... NOTHING. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

What are you asking?Slatersteven (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Revisionism - there is no evidence that there was planned genocide. You are attempting to distort history to fit the new Neo-Liberal/Progressive view that the West is/was evil.

Blatent Whataboutism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism Rather than tackle the blatent genocide in the Middle-East or past genocide in the Balkans or Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.174.229 (talk) 11:43, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Just tell then to get a dictionary. They might then discover the true meaning of a word instead of just spreading it around willy-nilly.

BTW, the Bengal Famine occurred in the middle of the greatest war the world has ever known, why would Britain deliberately cause or allow a famine to occur in a area that was an essential part of the British war effort, vis, the Indian Army. BTW, see; Bangladesh famine of 1974.

The 'Mau Mau' were a quasi-religious group who practised a tribal form of black magic which so scared their own tribes-people such that many of the Mau Mau, who were mostly young adult males, were unable to get wives - a wife being an important signifier of a man's social standing within the local culture. The Mau Mau then resorted to murdering white settlers and their families, often in gruesome and barbaric ways, as was demanded by the religious practices of the cult. Many of the victims, including children, were still alive when they were being hacked about, as was evident from the Kenyan CID crime scene photographs taken shortly after the killings.

At the time Iraq was not part of the British Empire but was being administered by Britain under a mandate from the League of Nations after the fall of Ottoman rule, as was also Palestine. The deaths on both sides in Iraq were the result of an armed revolt. The Mandate was awarded to Britain BTW so that neither Shiite nor Sunni Moslem would be favoured over the other by the administration.

The post-partition events happened after Britain left India.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 10:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

BTW, upon hearing of the outbreak of famine in Bengal Mountbatten ordered half of his entire SEAC shipping allocation to be made available for fighting the famine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.130 (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

So ordering something to be made available means what actual action again? And sending even more people into an area where there is a critical shortage of food was going to help how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The famine was a result of failure of the rice crop brought about by periodic climatic conditions which still occur today and by some people hoarding excessive quantities of rice for their own use, while the civilian merchant shipping that would normally have been used to bring in much-needed rice from elsewhere was otherwise occupied with military work. In addition, several of the rice-producing regions from which rice could normally have been imported were then under Japanese Occupation. Mountbatten therefore released half of SEAC's ships to bring in rice from elsewhere. The authorities in India also developed the "Bengal Famine Mixture" to give to the people most seriously malnourished, and this food mixture was also initially given to the survivors of Bergen-Belsen upon its liberation. BTW, there was also a Dutch famine of 1944–45. There was a war on and things that would not have occured in peacetime sometimes do occur despite the best efforts of the people involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

All areas etc map

The map showing all areas of the world which were ever part of the British empire, seems to have some omissions:

E.g.:

- Tangiers (1661 - 1684) - Immediate post WW1 areas of western Egypt & eastern Kenya, sold / ceded to Italy in the 1920s & still reflected in modern national borders - arguably Cyrenaica, which was briefly under British civil administration following WW2 (I'm assuming here the map deliberately excludes military occupation or wartime occupation, which would include many other territories) - Australian & NZ Antarctic territories (assuming Statute of Westminster is taken as Australian & NZ independence)

Is someone able to add these?

Wdcarter2 (talk) 22:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

No. The map reflects the sources. We do not include something that was "arguably" part of the Empire. Either the sources say that it was or they do not. I am currently trying to persuade the admins on Wikimedia Commons to protect the map from constant vandalism by editors who don't seem to understand that simple principle. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Seems a bit aggressive. Happy to provide sources and nothing above is contentious. I said "arguably" because it depends on the definition of British territory being used - which I'd assumed was agreed somewhere else. I see the map has been updated since yesterday. I'd request two further updates:

1. Tangiers in modern Morocco (see Wikipedia article titled "Tangier") 2. Bencoolen in modern Indonesia (see Wikipedia article titled "British Bencoolen").

There are sources for the other inclusions; happy to provide if helpful.[User:Wdcarter2|Wdcarter2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdcarter2 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the British Empire had no formal existence or definition, we cannot look at the facts of any territory but only at what sources include or exclude, which is based on opinions from the time, which may apply inconsistent criteria and change over time. TFD (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks TFD - so, for my understanding, I have to provide contemporary sources describing these places (Tangiers & Bencoolen) as part of the British empire? Just trying to be clear on what we mean by "sources" so I know the threshold that has to be passed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdcarter2 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, sources! :) :

For British Bencoolen being part of the British Empire, & added to the map, see: Olson JS, Shadle R, editors, Historical Dictionary of the British Empire, vol 2., p1074 (at entry for Sumatra) Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996, ISBN9780313293672

For Tangiers being part of the British Empire, & added to the map, see: Dr John Wregslworth: Tangier, England's Forgotten Colony (1661 - 1684) https://web.archive.org/web/20080905061419/http://www.elsewhereonline.com.au/Members/ChristopherWood/resources/by-country/morocco/tangier-england2019s-forgotten-colony-1661-1684

Is that sufficient?

First please can you indent your contributions so it's easier to read (using colons). Secondly - apologies if I came across as aggressive - I'm trying to deal with some muppets on Wikimedia who have been adding countries seemingly arbitrarily - hence (a) little patience and (b) the map constantly changing from the consensus sourced version to the fantasy version they're peddling.

As to the substance of your query: the references have to be quite specific (i.e. to the effect that X was a part of the British Empire), ideally point to books rather than websites, and you may find you'll need quite a few if it's an unusual claim (by which I mean others might not have heard of it). So on - Tangiers - I think that's quite well known and I wonder if it's simply a case of the map author unintentionally obscuring the small pink blob of Tangier with a large pink square of Gibraltar. Bencoolen - I have to admit I hadn't heard of that - the main source should be good if it actually says the place was part of the British Empire as opposed to a possession of the East India Company; the others (listed on that page) don't meet the specificity/reliability criteria under WP:V.

The other places you mentioned in your first post - I don't think military protectorates are usually included by historians. Consistency would demand that we include, for example, parts of post-war Germany, which would be a bit silly, and any other country that Britain temporarily controlled during its many wars Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Wdcarter2, I would look for a textbook about the Empire, possibly a legal textbook that explains what the Empire was and what countries were considered part of it and which countries that it influenced were not. The fact that one writer or another considered a country to be part of the Empire is not good enough, because it is merely their opinion. The new suggestions differ from the countries that were considered part of the Empire. Oregon and Antarctica were merely disputed claims. None of them had actual British subjects living there. And the source on Tangier is talking about a period before Great Britain even existed. But again, arguments are pointless because what was or was not part of the Empire does not have follow any rational method. TFD (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I agree with this up to your last sentence. I would assume that most historians will follow a rational method. It's the difference between those methods which may appear random. So we have to assess what the majority have come up with using their respective methods and that's how we shape the article's scope.Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Certainly historians use rational methods, which in this case is determining what people meant by the British Empire. But the people using the term did not necessarily have consistent reasons for including or excluding territory, hence no rational method which provided objective criteria for membership. So why does the map include British Antarctica but not the Australian or NZ claims, which were first taken out by the UK in the 19th century? TFD (talk) 03:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

That's a good question and it had occurred to me. My understanding of the historiography - very generally - is that claims, protected states and other areas within an imperial sphere of influence should not be included. (The Spanish and Portugese empire maps look ridiculous because they include areas the Spanish didn't even explore or know about, let alone control.) So, I wonder if there was something that Red Hat picked up from one of the sources which suggested the British wedge of Antarctica was more than just a claim (perhaps because it was occupied/administered) whereas the Aus/NZ wedges were just claims? Supposition - I don't know - he'd have to answer that himself. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

My point is that there was no constitution saying what was part of the Empire and there were no legal consequences for being part or not part. It was whatever people thought it was and no one to resolve any differences of opinions. It's similar to the concept of the 100 greatest novels. Experts mostly agree on what should or should not be on the list, but not every list will be exactly the same. TFD (talk) 00:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I'm not sure that analogy entirely works. I wouldn't expect to see much commonality between the top 100 crime books and the top 100 science fiction books. Two lists of crime novels maybe, but again, you could easily mess that up by specifying English language or French language. There isn't so much disagreement in reliable sources as to what constituted the British Empire. I accept, of course, that there is some variation, but Wikipedia's rules guide editors in a particular way so we end up with an article which reflects a broad consensus view of the historical literature. It is relatively easy, therefore, to spot anomalies because the majority of sources don't support them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the 100 greatest novels, not the 100 greatest scifi or crime novels, although it would apply to them too. If you think there is no disagreement about membership, can you tell me the date New Zealand ceased to be a part? TFD (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The link you provided includes both - but that was a cheap point on my part. I should have focused on the subjectivity of any list entitled "greatest". With this topic I think most historians would agree that the opening line of this article provides some objective criteria by which to judge the content, whereas the criteria for a "greatest list" are redefined each time someone wants to publish one. I don't think you can do that with historiography - authors are constrained by previous authors and (arguably) by facts, not opinions.

I wonder if you have maybe deliberately picked a difficult case with NZ - ostensibly straightforward because we have a legal trail, but perhaps still open to interpretation? By the standards of 1947, the 25th of November 1947 could be taken as the point at which NZ became a part of the Commonwealth rather than the Empire, but by the standards of 1986 that Statute was not sufficient - it left some ambiguity as to whether the UK Parliament could still "rule" or "administer" in NZ - so we could say 1 Jan 1987.

But I'm not sure that's relevant. The question isn't about precisely when a country joined/left - it's more about whether they were (or were not) ever ruled or administered by the UK during the period. New Zealand definitely was; Afghanistan was not. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

You cannot always decide when a country joined or left the Empire because there are no objective criteria for determining membership. That's because it was not a legal entity, but a number of countries linked to the UK in various ways. Some sources say that the Empire ceased to exist with the independence of India (15 Aug 1947) so NZ could not have been a part of the Empire after than date, and neither could any of the UK's colonies. OTOH, some say it ended with the Suez Crisis, the Battle of Creater City or the transfer of Hong Kong to China.

Incidentally the Statute of Westminster merely acknowledged in legislation what had already been acknowledged in the Balfour Declaration. NZ had already been recognized as an independent country as early as 1920, when it became a founding member of the League of Nations.

TFD (talk) 15:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the British (later Australian) Antarctic claims are a result of the Ross, Nimrod and Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expeditions which first explored the area. That is why the other original claimant was Norway, due to Amundsen's exploits. The other South American claimants came later, IIARC, after WW II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.173 (talk) 09:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

IIRC, the British claims in Antarctica were not made until after WW II when the possibility of exploiting Antarctica's natural resources such as coal and oil became apparent. The South American post-WW II claims were made based on this factor, forcing the UK to re-state its own claims. Prior to this neither Britain nor Norway had made any official territorial claims in the area.

Clarity

The article starts out with the premise that the British Empire is a former entity ("comprised.."), and therefore it needs some start and finish dates delivered at the very front of the article. The section "End of Empire" also is vaguely written, and the idea that the term British Empire is retired, needs clarification, particularly when the United Kingdom and the British Empire are the same thing (overlapping periods), and that the term "commonwealth" is coinage without much in the way of meaningful distinction from "empire." -Inowen (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Since the Empire had no legal or formal existence, it is not possible to date its beginning or end. It's like asking when the psychedelic era ended. For some people, it never did. The term Commonwealth was adopted to recognize that the Empire had changed if not ended. TFD (talk) 12:08, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

And this information is provided if you bother to read part the first line.Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Hover Over Map

If you hover over a link to British Empire you get a Union Jack flag that is cut off at the top. The top left hand corner of the map should be the dividing line between the red and large white diagonal.Nicolas.hammond (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2018

An editor has recently put in at the British Empires description at the right that it ended in 1945, and its last Monarch was King George VI. This is untrue, and there has been arguments over this sort of thing before on whither it ended in 1997 or is still present today, which technically it is. Therefore its only wise that the dates be removed and that Queen Elizabeth II be headed as the present Leader.

There is no actual fact to say the British Empire has ended, its only a saying by the media during the time. Her Majesty still retain the 'Order of the British Empire', hence its backed up that the Empires still in existence. The editing of the date to 1945 is ludicrous, and has no claim to 'End of Empire' as there were still a massive amount of British territories at the time.

Thank you,

TheBritishImperial TheBritishImperial (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Danski454 (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

So the "debate" over if and when the "British Empire" ceased to be an "empire" means countless "reliable sources" and "experts" have to be wrong. Correct? Do you have sources for YOUR "correction"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

See BIOT, BAT, BOT, Gibraltar, The Falkland Islands, Diego Garcia, Bermuda, St Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension Island, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.189 (talk) 10:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Since the Empire was never a formal institution, it is not clear when it began or ended. The term however mostly ceased to be used in formal documents, although it is retained in the some institutions such as the Order of the British Empire. TFD (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Where are these countless sources that claim the British Empire still exists today? If you (not TFD) find any they will need to be compared with other sources that claim the Empire has ended, and a weighting debate will follow. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)