Talk:British Empire

Definition of "Empire"

I think it needs to be made clearer that the British Empire was not an empire in the same sense as the Roman or other unitary empires - most notably, it was not a state. Here is a suggestion for a paragraph in the opening section.

"The term "British Empire" was widely used but was never formally defined. This was because the British Empire was never a state, or a constitutional or legal entity of any kind. In this it contrasts with other empires such as the Roman Empire or the Russian Empire, which were unitary states ruled by an emperor. The British Empire was an aggregation of territories which had a wide variety of relationships to the British Crown and/or United Kingdom. Some, such as the Princely States in India, were technically independent. Others, such as Egypt and Hong Kong, were technically possessions of other empires. Others, such as Papua, were administered on Britain's behalf by the settlement colonies. The Empire had no head of state,* no imperial government or legislature, no imperial legal code, no imperial armed forces and no imperial currency. Attempts to make the Empire a genuine federation or a free trade zone, or to create an imperial legislature, were successfully resisted by the self-governing colonies and the colonial governors. The British Parliament and Cabinet did not directly govern the Empire. Imperial rule was carried out governors who enjoyed considerable autonomy. In India, the Viceroy acted virtually as an independent sovereign - even imposing tariffs on British imports. The settlement colonies such as Canada and Australia soon acquired their own legislatures and internal self-government. The British Army and Royal Navy were deployed as needed to various parts of the Empire but were funded by British taxpayers and were always controlled by British ministers. Virtually the only Empire-wide institution was the court system, which in most parts of the Empire applied English common law alongside local law codes and allowed appeals to the Privy Council.

* The British monarch held the title Emperor of India from 1876 to 1948, but this was not a title applying to the Empire as a whole."

Constant Pedant (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a source that states this? Otherwise it rather looks like WP:OR. WCM_email 08:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

A source that states what, exactly? Most of my paragraph is statements of the negative, and few negative assertions have sources. Constant Pedant (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I admire your effort and you raise some points that would be interesting topics of discussion around the coffee table. What I see, though, is yet another well meaning attempt to pin a strict definition to something that cannot be strictly defined. Wikipedia is full of these black and white definitions and all they do is give rise to endless circular debates and edit wars. The British Empire is what reliable sources say it is, or was. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 09:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am saying that there was no strict definition of the Empire, indeed no definition at all. But it's clear that it was not a unitary empire like the Roman Empire, and that needs to be stated. Constant Pedant (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Not sure why it has to be mentioned, it pasts the duck test if it looks like an Empire it probably is. I dont think anybody had ever called the empire a state you also need to remember in English Common Law lots of stuff doesnt get written down but runs on precedence so they would never be any formal definitions or codes. MilborneOne (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

"it was not a unitary empire like the Roman Empire" What makes you think it was a unitary state? There were numerous Roman client rulers and subordinate states with their own legal systems, religions, and dynasties. There were "free cities" like Athens with partial autonomy and their own political systems. There were senatorial provinces where the governors were appointed by the Roman Senate, and imperial provinces where they were appointed by the emperors; (and they had various administrative and military differences because of their status). There were a varying number of foederati nations and military personnel, who were called on to assist the empire. Dimadick (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that is clear from the first sentence. It might be helpful though to have a section explaining how the empire functioned. MilborneOne is correct that this normally was determined by English common law. Essentially the empire was all the states that were under the jurisdiction of the the King or Queen of the UK. In practice the sovereign's powers were exercised by the UK government and parliament and colonial assemblies were given some powers. Outside the Empire were states that owed allegiance to the monarch as king or queen of states acquired through inheritance, such as Hanover, and dependent states, such as Afghanistan. The judicial committee of the Privy Council is not actually a court, but was established to advise the monarch on appeals made to her by her subjects, which was allowed by common law.

English statute law recognized the monarch as an emperor and Victoria was declared Empress of India, but there was no emperor of the British Empire.

TFD (talk) 23:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that's an article in itself. What you say may be true, but it varied over time so generalising would be inaccurate and I suspect it would be difficult to summarise in a section, let alone the introduction. And in any case, I think we should maintain principled resistance to the approach taken by some editors to try and pigeonhole everything under the sun. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

The basic principles have not changed over time. They were identified in Calvin's Case 1608 and included in texts by Coke, Blackstone, Burge and Dicey . TFD (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not something I'm overly familiar with, but isn't that about subjects, not states? (And in any case this article covers a period before any such principles were agreed.) Not saying we shouldn't try to explain this somewhere, but I don't think it fits in the intro and we'd need to account for variations over time. Although proving a negative is difficult, I would think that at least some of the text proposed by User:Constant Pedant would be noted in sources. I'd have to reread his book, but I recall Ferguson musing over concepts like this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the previous empires were acquired through aggressive conquest of other states, the British Empire was unusual in that many of its territories were obtained through exploration and settlement, in many cases the colonists buying the land they wished to settle from the native occupants, or through inheriting other empire's territories via peace treaties after wars with the colonial rulers. In addition some parts were awarded British administration via the post-WWI League of Nations, e.g., the ex-Ottoman states in the Middle East. The British Empire also gradually introduced democracy as well as gradually increasing levels of independence to its colonies, which certainly no other Empire ever did, leading to the present-day Commonwealth of Nations. Hence the difficulty in defining the 'British Empire' as it depends on when and where you are considering.

The proper title for Victoria was "Queen-Empress" and for George V to George VI "King-Emperor" as they were Queen and King of the various states and dominions within the Empire, and Empress, or Emperor, of India, the latter due to the various Maharajahs of the Princely States who were the recognised rulers of these states.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually that was a shortened for of Empress of India, technically whilst Britain was not an Empire India was (its bizarre and silly but there we are).Slatersteven (talk) 10:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I should have written 'The proper short-form of the title'. Victoria and the subsequent Kings were usually referred-to as "the Queen-Empress" or "King-Emperor" when reported in newspapers etc.

There were actually good legal reason for this. The Maharajahs were recognised as legal rulers of already well-defined states, whereas no other ruler in the UK other than the crowned King or Queen had been recognised legally since possibly Cromwell. Generally local rules elsewhere were recognised when they had a reasonably modern (i.e., Medieval or later) well-defined state and at least some written history. Unfortunately this left out most of the tribal societies in places such as Africa, although some African Chiefs were recognised, usually when they remained peaceful, and did not start wars.

As regards the Empire, for much of the latter period of the Empire's existence Britain was a Parliamentary Democracy which meant that policies towards the empire varied over time, some governments favouring the-then status quo, others on the opposition side, favouring more self-government for the colonies. Hence nothing was set in stone as regards limiting the colonies and their future progress. Although there were a few in high places who thought some of the colonies 'would never be fit to govern themselves' this was not shared by everyone, and the more prevailing view was that the 'lesser developed people' should be responsibly led until they were ready to govern themselves, the usual criterion being when it was felt that they would be less likely to start wars amongst themselves, and others, as many had been doing previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.127 (talk) 11:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Infoboxes former country

British Empire
15th century–1997
Top: Flag of the United Kingdom (before 1801) Bottom: Flag of the British Empire Royal coat of arms
All areas of the world that were ever part of the British Empire. Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red.
Status	Colonial empire
Capital	London
• Upper house	Hanover Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Windsor
History
• Established	15th century
• Handover of Hong Kong	1997
Area
1920	35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi)
Currency	Pound and various other currencies
ISO 3166 code	GB
Succeeded by British Overseas Territories Crown dependencies

How about this? Is that good or needs improvements? RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 11:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Well for a start there is no agreement on when the British empire began or started.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The monarchy is not the Upper house (and also you have left out a few royal houses).Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It was not just based in western Europe, it was global.Slatersteven (talk) 11:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can edit this infobox if you want to? I think everyone should be involved in the debate if this one should be included or not. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 11:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure much of the information is that exact, many colonies had parliaments (especially by 1920). It it just to vague to have the kind of certainty we need for an info box.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Also the crown dependencies were never part of (or governed by) the British empire in any form, thus they co-exited with it, not succeed it.Slatersteven (talk) 11:54, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

You can try to edit this though. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Or I can say it is too complex an issue for his to be useful, which is what I am saying.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The League of Nations Mandate territories (Iraq, Palestine, Tanganyika etc) were not part of the British Empire. They were trust territories administered by Britain on behalf of the League. Also Hanover was not part of the British Empire. It was a sovereign state that happened to have the same monarch as the UK. One might just as well say that Britain was part of the Hanoverian Empire. I also think it's dubious to say that Kuwait, Oman and the Trucial States were part of the Empire. They were sovereign states in treaty alliance with the UK, although they were in practice protectorates. But then so were Afghanistan and Persia, yet they are not usually classed as part of the Empire. This of course underlines the difficulty in defining the Empire. There was legally very little difference between Persia, Kuwait, Hyderabad, Johore and Buganda, yet in practice they were very different, and the latter three are always classed as part of the Empire. And there was never a "flag of the British Empire." Constant Pedant (talk) 01:13, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

This has been the subject of numerous debates. Check the talk page archives. The infobox deliberately only contains the flag and the map. Anything else is contentious, meaningless, or so broad that it is misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Suez crisis and its aftermath

I don't know if you have read that section, in case you didn't, I will provide the link: British_Empire#Suez_and_its_aftermath. This is so that you see that nothing is invented or unsourced, everything has been already written, it's all right there in the very article.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Now the user AlbionJack has just reverted a completely sourced edition of mine, I request the help of the users Snowded, Dmol and Hzh.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The user AlbionJack has just deleted a message that was left in his talk page by the user Hzh, who said that AlbionJack was censoring Wikipedia.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted back to before all this started. I take no position on the edit but you should comment on content not editors. WCM_email 00:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Diablo seems to have a personal vendetta, you will see that Hzh enjoys to patrol certain articles of a certain agenda, I removed content as I saw fit but upon reflection simply clarified it better on the article in question, Hzh is very quick to try and intimidate and his comment was simply incorrect and hence the removal from my talk page. Perhaps Diablo some critical thinking would help.

Also note that USSR was heavily involved in the pressure of Suez and their mere pressure was hugely influential in the American's decision to side with the UN. That should remain in the article as well as the mention of the Falklands. Thanks.

You will also be careful to break Wikipedias rules on stalking and brigading when going to other users pages in reference to myself. See WP:STALKAlbionJack (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I was asked to put sources in my text and I complied. I gave the sources (which wasn't hard at all, since they are already there in the article). That is the proof that I never invented anything, nor put opinionated textes. Everything I wrote has been written already by someone else. Are there really any reasons to continue deleting the mention of the Suez crisis in the intro?--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

No, the article already explained what you were trying to cram in to the lede, it does not belong in the lede, you have literally just said that the sources were already in the article and yet are trying to cram them again into the lede, why? you admit yourself they are already there. Seems pretty conclusive.AlbionJack (talk) 01:28, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You know that in every article, the intro briefly mentions an issue, and then the body of the article explains in greater detail that issue, right? That is the case with the mention of the Suez crisis.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And in the body of the article it is well explained, hence why you were able to find your sources and exclaim "it was already there you just didn't look!" If you can do it, everyone can. It does not belong in the lede.AlbionJack (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Your conclusion is ridiculous. By your premise, we should then delete everything in the intro because the rest of the article explains all of those topics in greater detail. And what's more: we would have to delete all the intros in all the articles, because "they don't belong in there".--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not think you are understanding, the lede is fine how it is, it doesn't need the same exact information stated twice, all you are doing is cramming something in the lede that is already in the article and so well explained you have contradicted yourself multiple times. There is nothing to change and I am not sure this debate is even constructive.AlbionJack (talk) 02:32, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

If the article doesn't need the same information twice then let's delete all the mentions in the intro about the Age of Discovery, the Industrial Revolution, the independence movements... because the body of the article already has "so well explained" (like you say) info about those topics. And why stop there, why not delete the whole intro? After all, Hzh is right in that you are a censor in Wikipedia and you want to delete relevant topics.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK.Slatersteven (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Hzh is far from correct, I removed the word Muslim from one of his favourite articles due to no citation, and then opted to simply clarify if instead, not a censor at all you’ll find, not that this changed your lack of ability to critical think. The article has existed quite well even as a featured article without your needless addition, there is no need. But of course Diablo I don’t expect you to understand again what I said.AlbionJack (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that the article has been a featured article for some time doesn't mean that it isn't subject to changes and additions. In fact, in this very page it says at the top "British Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so." Moreover, the fact that the Suez crisis was a crucial milestone in the decline of British power (and, on the other hand, in the rise of USA and USSR as the 2 sole superpowers in the post-WWII scenario) makes it relevant enough to have a mention in the intro along with the other historical milestones.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

There already exists a significant portion of the decline of the Empire within the article, there is no need for it in the lede. The same standard apples to the Crimean war, a very large part of the empire's history and yet does not feature in the lede whatsoever, not even the word Russia or Crimean appears in the lede because it is unnecessary. The lede does not even mention Napoleon himself even though this victory directly led to the Imperial British century, because it has an entire section dedicated to it almost further in the article. If we are to do what you suggest and add everything again twice in the lede, then it defeats the very purpose of a short lede.AlbionJack (talk) 18:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The proposal would place undue emphasis on Suez relative to all the other ups and downs in the Empire's history. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

All the factors you mentioned were a continuation of a trend where Britain was already the leading power. With Suez, instead, it became clear that Britain was no longer the leading power in the world scene and that it would have to take the back seat, with USA and USSR in charge of world affairs. Until Suez, it wasn't so clear that after WWII Britain had entered a steep decline, that's why it shocked the international community when it happened.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And until defeating Napoleon Britain was not the sole superpower in the world which led to the Imperial century, and yet this is not in the lede either. You are fighting a losing battle on this one.AlbionJack (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You have made a crucial mistake. You have said that the Napoleonic wars, though important to explain the British rise in the global scene, are never mentioned in the intro. In fact, they're indeed properly mentioned there, it says: "After the defeat of France in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (1792–1815), Britain emerged as the principal naval and imperial power of the 19th century.[8] Unchallenged at sea, British dominance was later described as Pax Britannica ("British Peace")..." Besides, it would be a glaring omission if the intro indeed didn't mention such an important event.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I made no mistake, the mistake is in your reading comprehension, is English your first language? I said Napoleon himself is not mentioned anywhere in lede, the Napoleonic wars are mentioned by name but nothing of one of if not the greatest General Europe has ever seen. Such a momentous event should mention him by name no? by your logic he should be named stoically and explained why in the lede as well as repeating the exact same information within the article, and yet he is not. No mention of his personal defeat, the direct cause of the Imperial century, because there is no need. Just like there is no need for your addition, as others have also agreed with me. We are borderline beating a dead duck.AlbionJack (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Now you want to fix your mistakes by going into technicalities, but one should use common sense instead of getting lost in differences of forms that have the same meaning, and the truth is that the intro does say that Britain emerged as the leading power in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, or the defeat of Napoleon, which are one and the same. The fact is that Napoleon is referred tacitly by mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, after all the name of those wars refers to him and not Sun Tzu. So there's no need to mention the man himself after mentioning the Napoleonic Wars, it is redundant. Besides, is there any need to mention his deeds, or explain why he is important, in the intro of an article called "British Empire"? (how many of them would have to be mentioned, anyway?).--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

LOL What? What mistakes? you are utterly impossible to have a rational conversation with, you say that the mention of the napoleonic wars even without the specific mention of Napoleon himself is completely sufficient and no need for more as "they have the same meaning", and yet... the lede states that "Britain was no longer the world's pre-eminent industrial or military power" and "the United States had begun to challenge Britain's economic lead" so by your very own logic, there is no need to mention Suez specifically as it is featured later in the article and a mention of it "would be redundant". So your basically saying "rules for thee but not for me", your contradictions and glaring and have been non stop. Which frankly isn't worth my time debating.AlbionJack (talk) 01:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Those 2 phrases you mention refer to the context in the early 20th century when the first symptoms of the end of the British monopoly certainly started to be showing, yet Britain still wasn't completely phased out as a superpower. After Suez, though, the process was completed; it was exposed to the whole world that drastic changes in the balance of power had happened and that the USA and the USSR had become the only 2 superpowers.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Really? I didn't know, it's a good job the rest of the article explains it in further detail then isn't it.AlbionJack (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah I also noticed that you didn't know.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you guys think this bitching session is helpful, I notice you've ignored the outside comment from other editors. You either stop now and focus on content not each other, or I will be heading off to ANI and request your conduct is reviewed by admin. If you continue in the same vein I wouldn't be surprised if you were both topic banned. WCM_email 08:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Focusing on content is what I've been doing since the start.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

AlbionJack has been blocked as a sock. His edits may be removed for that. I would however suggest only a brief mention in the lede (and please don't overcite), and see if other editors object to that. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken into account your suggestions, now tell me what do you think about this:

"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's limitations to assert its dominance in the post-World War II scene, and that the United States and the Soviet Union had taken the leading roles in global affairs as the sole two superpowers."

As you can see, it is brief and I reduced the citations.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Where is this intended to go? The lede should summarise the article and usually doesn't require citations at all. WCM_email 16:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well you say that intros usually don't require citations, yet they are almost mandatory (almost all articles in Wikipedia have citations in their intros). In fact I counted and this article has 20 citations in its intro.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADCITE for Wikipedia MOS - in short, cites in lede are generally unnecessary for uncontroversial topic, and the need for cites can be determined on a case-by-case basis for more complex cases (which I suspect British Empire is one). The four cites on the sentence on Hong Kong is excessive. Hzh (talk) 17:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

An article called "British Empire" is bound to be controversial and arise debates (like this), so it needs to have citations.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

IN the body of the article yes, but not the lede. This conversation is going nowhere - I see no support to change things at the moment and I suggest we close this off. And Diablo - please learn to indent conversations -----Snowded ^TALK 17:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Well when I first put my additions the first objection you had was that it was unsourced, now that you have the references you are saying that they aren't necessary?--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

You made too many unsourced changes - please check before you make assertions. Otherwise my point stands there is no consensus here to change the lede. Time to close the conversation (and you are still not intending your comments) -----Snowded ^TALK 17:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Slatersteven said "It would seem to me a brief mention in the lede is OK." on 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC); and Hzh said "I would however suggest only a brief mention in the lede (and please don't overcite)". That means there's support for my additions.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Brief, I.E. about a line.Slatersteven (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

"The aftermath of the Suez crisis exposed Britain's decline in the post-World War II scene with USA and USSR now as the only two superpowers."

Is it ok?--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yep.Slatersteven (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks OK to me too. Hzh (talk) 18:20, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

No. I still don't think you have consensus. I count three editors opposed and three for, not counting the sock. That said, if we're going down that route the wording above isn't right either. It was the crisis which exposed the issue. And the language about 'super powers' is not supported by the sources cited in the article (which should be reviewed), so we should not employ it in the introduction either. A less debatable formulation would be something like: "The Suez Crisis confirmed Britain's decline as a global power." (assuming you're proposing to place this between the sentences on India and Hong Kong). Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Wiki-Ed, in terms of WP:WEIGHT it seems to be attributing more importance to this event that say WW2 or Indian independence. The phrase superpower is a modern one and one never applied to the British Empire. If you want a smaller sentence per Wiki-Ed I may agree but the longer sentence above I find problematic for the reasons stated. WCM_email 17:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The use of "superpower" (reffering to Britain) is correct and as a term it isn't modern at all, it has been used for nearly 80 years. The article Superpower says: "The term in its current political meaning was coined by Dutch-American geostrategist Nicholas Spykman in a series of lectures in 1943 about the potential shape of a new post-war world order. (...) A year later, in 1944, William T. R. Fox, an American foreign policy professor, elaborated on the concept in the book «The Superpowers: The United States, Britain and the Soviet Union — Their Responsibility for Peace» (...) According to him, there were (at that moment) three states that were superpowers: the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union". And about WP:WEIGHT, there's plenty of historians and authors that attribute great importance to the Suez crisis, with plenty of references to support it as you can see in the article, otherwhise the part in the Suez crisis section that says "The Suez Crisis very publicly exposed Britain's limitations to the world and confirmed Britain's decline on the world stage and its end as a superpower[200][201][202], demonstrating that henceforth it could no longer act without at least the acquiescence, if not the full support, of the United States.[203][204][205]" would have been eliminated long ago.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

80 years is modern, historically. As I said above, two of the three sources supporting the sentence on Suez that you've quoted do not link the British Empire with the term super power, so it is misleading to imply otherwise. Moreover, you're implying this is a consensus view among historians when clearly it is not. To support your case you've selectively quoted from another article focusing on the beliefs of authors writing during the Second World War - which were quickly proven to be outdated. While some later authors may have tried retrospectively to shoe horn countries into their concept of 'super power', it is clear from the definitions they've used that the British Empire does not fit. For example, it was never self-sufficient and always had at least some dependence on international intercourse/trade, even at its height, nor was it was able to compel all nations in every other part of the world to undertake actions they would not otherwise undertake. This has been debated before ad nauseam (see archive 16). You may wish to take note of the results of the RfC there. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

80 years is not modern at all, plenty of things have happened, entire borders changed, some countries ceased to exist, others have been born. And your definitions of what a superpower is or isn't are original research, while everything I affirm is supported by references.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per Wiki-Ed and WCM - this is an unnecessary storm in a tea cup -----Snowded ^TALK 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you don't want to debate you can refrain from doing it, Snowded. You have been repeatedly making comments that show your lack of interest in having a debate. We are following the course of Wikipedia's policies regarding dispute resolutions. Let those who are indeed interested in having a debate continue doing it.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 03:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you comment on content not editors. [1] We have had numerous discussions on the use of Superpower to describe the British Empire. Consensus has always been not to use it, it is not a consensus view among historians to retrospectively apply it. @Nick-D: would you mind taking a look at the contributions of this editor, I'm detecting the signature of another editor you might recognise. WCM_email 08:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Still original research, not a single source by an author, historian or political analyst has been given. PS: I am I, stop confusing me with other people.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Cobblers, this has been gone over repeatedly and people are tired of it. DR does not require editors to abandon common sense and have to go over the same ground again and again every time someone with a bee in their bonnet brings it up again. I've pointed you at the previous discussion, I suggest you look at it. To be clear I oppose the addition of your proposed sentence to the lede. People have suggested a compromise of a shorter sentence, if this isn't acceptable to you either then we stick with the current consensus view of the article. WCM_email 15:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If you are tired and say this is repetitive then why are you in this debate? This debate should be for the ones interested in discussing the topic. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution says: "Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution. Sustained discussion between the parties, even if not immediately successful, demonstrates your good faith and shows you are trying to reach a consensus (...) Wikipedia is written through collaboration, and assuming that the efforts of others are in good faith is therefore vital. (...) Most situations are not actually urgent; there are no deadlines on Wikipedia, and perfection is not required. At all stages during discussion, consider whether you should take a break from the dispute."--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If it's not urgent then you'll find time to read through the talk page archives and understand why your argument is flawed. And just to reiterate, for the avoidance of any doubt, the argument you're making is one that we've heard before. The source (singular - it is actually just one and a few repeat references) that you're using has been shown to be unreliable, so don't start talking about verifiability or original research. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting for the sources for your original research.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:10, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

No one is interesting and I'm starting to think you're a sock as well-----Snowded ^TALK 05:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

When things don't go your way you toss aside Wikipedia's principles of dialogue, consensus and good faith, and use force to eliminate dissent, right? I never tried to silence you, even if you gave lots of flawed and contradicting arguments (the unsourced-overcited contradiction one of the most glaring examples of bureaucracy gone mad), and by an illegal user (sock) nonetheless. That's because I believe in Wikipedia's policies and I've been contributing on the site for more than 10 years. Save your efforts, you won't find anything, because I'm not a sock, I'm a legit user.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There has already been an extensive dialogue on this topic and there is no contradiction about how that was resolved. Snowded and WCM are correctly arguing that we do not need to have it again. The onus is on you, as the proposer, to familiarise yourself with that discussion and come up with a new/different argument. You have failed to do so. Also, telling other users that their argument is based on original research when your own argument ignores other core principles (neutrality/weighted and reliability of sources) is somewhat arrogant.

And as a supposedly experienced editor you really ought to have learnt how to indent your contributions to talk pages by now. Not doing so makes it difficult for others to contribute... so one might think that it is actually you who is deliberately trying to discourage discussion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Your arguments essentially say that the whole Superpower article is wrong, every single of their references is moot and potentially it should be eliminated from Wikipedia. Curiously, there's no objections on that article's talk page about the uses of superpower, something that validates my position. Anyway, let's say you want to delete that article because you think it misuses the definition of "superpower", you would need to back up those arguments with references that argue against it. You haven't presented even a single one of them. And even if you presented one, per WP:NPOV all the differents points of view and approaches towards a topic would be included. So, in any case the use of "superpower" to refer to Britain is always valid and will always be included in Wikipedia.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

When you have something new to say bring it here - and please learn to indent your comments. Wikipedia talk pages are not the place to indulge solitary editors who won't check on previous discussions and persist with the same arguments against other experienced editors without any back up or support -----Snowded ^TALK 07:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of backup and support I presented in my affirmations, where are yours? The fact is the pot calls the kettle black, you've failed to provide a single one reference. Why don't you object to the article "superpower"? The fact is the article stands to this day, so your objections don't have any grounds. If Wikipedia isn't a place for indulgence of solitary editors, why do you lurk in the shadows, waiting to boycott contributions of other users, twisting Wikipedia's policies in a contradictory way like I showed with the unsourced-overcited argument? Why do you object to additions with topic-relevant, brief and sourced content? The fact is that two or three persons with a bee in their bonnet can't disrupt Wikipedia's normal course of flowing ideas, knowledge and contributions.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

See my previous comment -----Snowded ^TALK 20:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You know, there's an ironic thing about this. A couple of comments ago you Snowded said "this is an unnecessary storm in a tea cup". Well, you're the ones that are making a storm out of a tea cup. If you didn't object to my contribution in the first place, everything would had run smooth, it would have been another of the millions of ordinary edits in Wikipedia, and we would have skipped all this argument. You are the ones that made this more complicated and dragged the thing to the Talk section but, alas, once you are in the Talk section you don't endure the Talk procedural and groan with comments like "No one is interesting". Which makes me wonder why do you lurk zealously in this article anyway. If you can't stand a discussion whenever there's a content-dispute why are you here in the first place.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It is a curious but noticeable fact that you don't seem to get these sort of disputes on any other talk pages other than British-related ones.

... still, I suppose it's nice to know people care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.230 (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

SPI

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harvey Carter Editors on this page may wish to comment on this SPI filed today. WCM_email 12:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:British_Empire#Suez_crisis_and_its_aftermath The case was brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard.--Diablo del Oeste (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Egypt, Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan in British Empire

I have two questions: 1. Have Afghanistan, Nepal and Bhutan been a British protectorate? 2. Was Egypt independent of the United Kingdom from 1922 to 1952? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

LoN mandates

Are the LoN mandates part of the British Empire? (e.g., Palestine, Transjordan, Iraq.) --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

"The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom ..." I hope that this quote answers your question. Ruslik_Zero 20:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

But were the mandates not directly administered by the League of Nations? --Davi Gamer 2017 (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)