Talk:British Empire

Deaths caused by the British rule

Hi there. As you may see, there is no mention to the deaths - directly or indirectly - caused by the British Empire in the article. I want to add this to the article in a new section, but I need help. Can anyone help me? I need good sources. Thank you. Aryzad (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

If you read the article they are mentioned not sure we need to make any more emphasis due to WP:WEIGHT. MilborneOne (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a list of Wikipedia's articles about this. [1]. Definitely a new section is needed. Aryzad (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a difference between no mention and not being mentioned with more emphasis. You stated by asking for them to be mentioned, wd do.Slatersteven (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

You are right, there are some little mentions to some of these, but a new section is still needed. Aryzad (talk) 17:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Why?Slatersteven (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia's job, after all. Aryzad (talk) 21:54, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it? I didn't know of any such policy. Maybe you can proivide a link?-----Snowded ^TALK 22:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedias job is to provide information, we do.Slatersteven (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Snowded, it's an encyclopedia. I don't think any link is needed; Slatersteven, that's why I asked for "good sources". Look here: Nazi_Germany#Racial_policy_and_eugenics, same thing is needed for this article too. Aryzad (talk) 10:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Why, how are they similar?Slatersteven (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Aryzad:, some good sources: -- Tobby72 (talk) 00:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Would be best to get academic sources ...no need for news crap on a topic of this nature that has many academic publications.--13:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

And there is the problem straight away 12 million, 29 million Indians 35 million Indians due to famines. So no it is not the same a systematic extermination (for example). Ohh (and again) we do mention deaths, even famines.Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Presumably for balance we should also have similar entries for every other state entitry throughout the ages, e.g., how many people did the Ottoman Empire 'kill', the Moghul Empire, the Roman Empire, etc.

BTW, the Indian subcontinent is prone to occasional famines, and they have had famines before, and since, the arrival, and departure, of the British. And the 1943 famine happened in the middle of a world war when alternative sources of rice were unavailable due to the Japanese occupations of Malaya and Burma. In addition, most of the shipping that would have been used to transport rice if it had been available elsewhere, was already allocated to military purposes. Mountbatten once informed of the seriousness of the famine in fact allocated 10% of this shipping to helping relieve that famine. As for the accusers, I suspect you will find they are the same sort of people who try and blame the British for the millions of deaths that occurred after the Partition of India, when in most cases, it was they themselves who wanted partition in the first place.

As for the 'biological warfare' accusations alleged by our friends in the antipodes, I should perhaps point out that until the work of Louis Pasteur and Edward Jenner no-one had any idea what Smallpox was, how it was spread, or how to prevent it, and no-one in their right mind was going to mess around near a known smallpox outbreak, much less try and spread it to indigenous populations. Smallpox was greatly feared and most people were frightened of getting it. Such warfare only became possible once a cure or prevention became available, otherwise one risked it affecting one's own population and even then is not something a sane man would even consider.

... and I should point out that if one is in a foreign country and the locals, or a proportion of the locals, suddenly turn around and start attempting to kill you, you are not going to just stand there and do nothing. In many of these countries there was little or no such thing as a modern day 'rule of law', and no such thing as a police force to protect you. In some cases, alleged 'British massacres' were the result of a preceding massacre of British nationals, sometimes including women and children, who were often mutilated before being horribly killed. This is what the Mau Mau were notorious for, BTW. Most of these victims were unarmed farmers and their families.

If any such accusations of a deliberate official policy towards 'native peoples' are true then documents relating to any such orders, communications, etc., would likely still be extant, as both the British Government, and British Army, have document archives that stretch back hundreds of years. Presumably if such callousness as alleged existed towards these peoples then there would be no need felt to destroy any documents that showed the UK in such a poor light. Thus any such accuser would need to examine any such documents in order to see if such orders were issued, or if such a policy/policies were true. Until then, any such accusations are best seen as no more than gossip and an attempt at black propaganda.

... one more thing. British still gives out generous foreign aid to various countries around the world, and the biggest recipient as of 2019 is ... India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

It does honestly strike me as odd that there's no mention of the British Empire's human rights violations within the opening section. LittleCuteSuit (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

There were also deaths prevented by British rule. Seadowns (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is not of featured quality - Featured Article Review (FAR) needed

This article was promoted in 2009, when standards were a lot easier than they are today.

1c. well-researched

it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

This article omits mentioning entire sections of the literature regarding the racial ideology of the empire. For example:

• Here's what Ashley Jackson, "professor of imperial and military history in the Defence Studies Department at King's College London and a visiting fellow at Kellogg College, University of Oxford" had to say about the British Empire in The British Empire: A Very Short Introduction, had to say
  • "'Must the British Empire really be depicted', Andrew Roberts asks (quoting Priyamvada Gopal), 'as a tale of "slavery, plunder, war, corruption, exploitation, indentured labour, impoverishment, massacres, genocide, and forced resettlement", or could some objectivity be re-injected into the debate?' Well, frankly, yes it must. After listing such a catalogue of ills (though not denying them), this call for 'objectivity' is puzzling. What are we to do? Throw cricket and the English language into the balance to cancel out the genocide and slavery, and call it a draw? Surely its appropriate to avoid endorsing past actions that we would utterly disapprove of today: we would not longer consider it acceptable to take over someone else's land or kill them — so why endorse what stemmed directly from such actions in the past?"
• And Tom Lawson, a History Professor at Northumbria University had to say
  • 'Britain is a post-genocidal state' source

• Let me quote The Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire
  • 'Were the British more 'racist' than other Europeans? While all Europeans believed in a hierarchy of 'races', the British had an especially marked sense of racial hierarchy which was matched by rigid policies'

• And how do journalists describe the British Empire? Afua Hirsch wrote this opinion in the article "Black Britons Know Why Meghan Markle Wants Out" in the New York Times. source
  • "The legacy of Britain’s history of empire — a global construct based on a doctrine of white supremacy — its pioneering role in the slave trade and ideologies of racism that enabled it..."

Of course, there are books on the British Empire that don't go into much detail about genocide or racism. However, the article neglects to mention that many sources do. --Quality posts here (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Three years have passed by. Over 1100 days. 26,000 hours. 1,576,800 minutes. Could you not have used that time more effectively to come up with a better argument? As before, you are cherry picking quotations from a small number of sources that aren't necessarily reliable. This isn't an opinion piece or a review of yesterday's event using today's values. Try again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Which of the sources are unreliable? If history professors from at least (I only did a quick search, not a full survey) three UK universitities use this language about the British Empire, shouldn't their view be at least mentioned? This is proof that this view of the British Empire is at least a significant minority among scholars. WP:UNDUE says "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth)". And "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". I've just named some prominent adherents.

Regarding journalistic sources, let's analyze some:

1. The Times has several articles from positive to negative about the British Empire. The most notable is the one about 60 UK history academics writing a letter condemning an academic who said "don't feel guilty about out colonial history". Clearly, there is an ongoing academic debate about the British Empire that this article doesn't mention.
2. The Guardian has overwhelmingly negative coverage of the British Empire, using language like "When will Britain face up to its crimes against humanity?" This article shows that the debate is not just academic, but also political.
3. The Telegraph has more mixed coverage. It mentions Corbyn saying "children will be taught about evils of British Empire ". Another article asks "Was the British Empire ‘morally mixed’?" More evidence of an political and academic debate.

The article now is not comprehensive, despite its length. It omits many aspects of the narrative. It doesn't cover academic debates that exist on the subject (including the History wars). There is no discussion about the British Empire from an ideological viewpoint and the academic debate about its crimes. There is no discussion of its political impact today.

The trouble is, I don't have time to write significant article text - only to point out where I think it misses the FA criteria. I would like to begin the FAR process to help improve or delist the article in the near future. However, I have not started it yet.

Last time I think you said you see this dispute eventually ending up at ArbCom. I am not so sure. Only one involved editor (HarveyCarter) has been disruptive. I know we are all emotionally invested in this topic, but I think we will be able to have a very civil discussion. Like you, I have strong opinions because I want to help improve the article - either by pointing out which criteria it misses and suggesting improvements in an FAR process, or if no-one is interested in making major changes, to delist it as an incentive for someone to work on it in the future.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Quoting a few people is not proof that a significant minority of scholars hold that view. You need to set that against many thousands of people who have written about the British Empire. And you also need to make a better argument that they are 'prominent' adherents rather than just another professor with an edgy opinion on something. Moreover, this article is a factual account of what happened; the points you want to include are people's opinions on what happened. If this belongs anywhere it belongs in the article on the Historiography of the British Empire. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think both of you are missing the point. NPOV means that the article must not be pro- or anti-British Empire. Belief that British Empire is guilty of genocide is a minority view among recent historians, same as presenting it as a benevolent entity with only minor flaws. However, I think that the article does need a brief section on historical debates and legacy (the current "legacy" section actually deals with aftermath) in order to be comprehensive. buidhe 20:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Hard to see how that can work in action. "Some historians have argued that the British empire was a major force for good, whilst others content that its history of racism and allegation of genocide make it one of the most evil empires that have ever existed"? Or should we have it the other way around?Slatersteven (talk) 09:19, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

User:Buide's interpretation of NPOV seems to miss the point. User:QPH wants to insert material representing a minority point of view. It doesn't matter whether that POV is pro or anti because this article isn't about historians' opinions. There is a separate article for that. In compiling material, articles should 'fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources'. The article does that already. It does not need a separate section introducing value judgements for everyone to argue over "in order to be comprehensive". There might, however, be a case for renaming the 'legacy' section to 'aftermath', the former being a positive thing whereas the content of the section is actually neutral, listing positive and negative impacts. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Correct if I'm wrong, but another issue seems to be the sourcing layout. Surely the "further reading" section should not include sources that are cited throughout? I thought MOS dictated that there should be a "sources" section and then a "further reading" section, but right now the two seemed to be mixed together. Aza24 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, having just checked up on the different criteria for another article. The difference relates to the purpose of a cited source within the article. Put simply, source as a statement reference versus source for wider non-specific subject information. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 04:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Sock question

@Nick-D: Possible return of a sock puppet of HarveyCarter? WCM_email 12:49, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

You did this before.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

And you weren't cleared, you disappeared. The only thing the SPI check did was confirm you weren't Alfie Gandon. @Nick-D: WCM_email 09:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure that's true? Bbb23 is an experienced checkuser who has blocked many HarveyCarter socks. Your post was in the HarveyCarter SPI page. I doubt he just compared my IPs to Alfie Gandon's. Surely he would have also compared both of our IPs to known HarveyCarter IPs? That's what I thought he was implying when he said the two accounts are not related.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

End of Empire

Researching this to answer a casual question from my kids, I was startled to read that some considered the independence of Hong Kong to mark the end of the Empire. As a Briton born in the early 1960s (and a stamp collector!) I always considered the Empire as a matter of past history that had long been replaced by the Commonwealth. There is no exact point of cessation, but the two key events are the independence of India in 1947, at which point the monarch relinquished the title of Emperor, and the establishment of the modern Commonwealth in 1949. Myopic Bookworm (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

It was The title of Emperor of India, which is why it was given up (in 1948) when we no longer ruled it. As an entity the "British empire" is harder to define. But plenty of RS use the loss of HK as the end point.Slatersteven (talk) 09:58, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Considering that the empire was not a legal entity and had no emperor or constitution, there can be no agreement about when it ended. TFD (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I just saw this. I generally agree. The conventional divisions of the empire in its heyday were: a) UK of GB&I b) the self-governing dominions (Canada, Australia, etc), c) the crown colonies (Ceylon, Trinidad, etc) and d) India. India was neither self-governing (although concessions were made) nor a crown colony. It was an empire in the sense of a loosely-knit political union consisting of areas over which the British had sovereignty (i.e. which they administered) and those whose suzerains they were (which they indirectly controlled with a wary eye). Generally, it lasted (in my head) from the early 1800s when the British led by Wellesley managed to annex north-central India (and signed treaties of subsidiary alliances with princely states) and 1947 when the subcontinent became decolonized. Its heyday (in my head) lasted from 1876 when Victoria was crowned Empress of India by Disraeli (somewhat cynically so, it was characterized by Gladstone) and the late 1930s when the Indian National Congress won all-around victories in the provincial elections, and the tide turned among the British public against holding on to India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

You can view some of that history in the rupee coins from 1787 to 1947 I have uploaded on WP and scrolling to the right. You can also view them, with less verisimilitude, but more cadence in the changing regnal titles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Afghanistan misinformation

Afghanistan was NEVER a colony of British empire. The map that have been recently changed (vandalized) should be restored to previous map. It seriously undermines the credibility of Wikipedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4643:c8ec:0:3839:7ff5:aacd:40e0 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone has messed with the version on Commons. Now reverted. Less drama please, I nearly ignored you because of it. WCM_email 23:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

WCM just to note the stable version is the 25 Jan 19 version. The one you reverted to had a few errors/ommissions. I try to keep an eye on this but sometimes the vandals sneak in between my 'patrols'. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Joserchm: You are edit warring on the main page and making no attempt to communicate, please stop and keep the status quo until the dispute is resolved. @Wiki-Ed: please use this section to communicate your concerns. — Czello 19:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

It is, of course, for User:Joserchm to explain why they have deleted material[1], added POV commentary[2] and generally messed around with the layout and links of the article. (NB You're also close the 3RR limit yourself dealing with the above editor - but I guess you know that!) Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)