This is an archive of past discussions about British Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Wiki-Ed, In regards to your revert here.... (BTW there is no concrete consensus because it was only you and that other guy who passed by for a wording error which I fixed in the edit)
1) The first edit to use "and" instead of "or" sounds more reasonable because "and" indicates that they "ruled and administered" sound more logical than "ruled or administered", putting an uncertainty and if they did for one or the other differently, then "and" would be more reasonable to use.
2) Using "At its height, it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the hegemonic global power". Keep the eye on the keywords "largest empire", "hegemonic" and "global power". In the first word "largest empire", it's referring to size, not its power because keep in mind that the empire was the strongest at a time it didn't reach it's maximum height yet. The second and third ones "hegemonic" and "global power", the word hegemonic is needed to emphasize that Britain was the leading world power among other world powers because "world power" doesn't only refer to the strongest power, but also to strong powers amongst others, something the word "hegemonic" does a good job at it. But on this second one, there is the option to use either "foremost" or "hegemonic", so I don't blame you on this one.
3) And finally, "the British Empire became the foremost superpower", again, the reason for this edit is to use this keyword: Superpower. This indicates that Britain's position was the top amongst other powers, since simply "global hegemon" doesn't really put an emphasis on Britain's position as a ("here we go again").. "Superpower", and implies that Britain was "a power", but not "the power", by using weak words. And the word "Superpower" is "global" and "hegemon" all packed in one word. And at the end, these words don't change the meaning and points the article is trying to emphasize, no errors and you'll see people often change words to accommodate certain sentences. (N0n3up (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2015 (UTC))
Or is better than AND as they are two different states. Superpower is a very modern word, not sure it is appropriate to the British Empire in that historical context. Otherwise please respect WP:BRD if you are reverted you discuss it and get agreement BEFORE you put your own edits back in ----SnowdedTALK06:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, Superpower is a word that has been invented recently, but you are getting the wrong idea that Britain as a "historical power" and superpower being something modern, no. The British Empire's position has already been considered a Superpower and if you look at the article, definition and research the word, the British Empire perfectly and appropriately applies for the word. Just don't take my word for it, you can research. In fact, look up at the Wiki-article of superpower, the British Empire, along with the United States and Soviet Union was one of the original Superpowers. (N0n3up (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC))
Snowded, I know that the term superpower was only named after WWII, but the definition applies to the British Empire and meets the criteria. You can see this in the article page of the article of superpower. The originals to be described as superpowers and be properly applied the term (the original 3 as I like to call them) were the British Empire, the US and USSR. Although Britain after WWII and when the term was used, Britain after the war and the Suez crisis ceased to become a superpower, it still had the privilege to have all descriptions to hold such title, specially after WWII.
And besides, when Britain was at its peak (and I'm talking around the Victorian era here), Britain still had the requirements, since apart of the political control it had over its extensive empire that covered much of the world, it also had an Informal empire, an empire based on the British Pound which controlled regions outside the empire without the need to post military bases all over the world like the US currently does right now, since Britain's empire was in every part of the world, Britain could just reach out from the territory she wanted to reach from the nearest imperial territory. One example can be seen in 29:25 of [this documentary] that talks of Britain's ability to bankroll Latin-American countries. Not to mention (and this is going a bit further back in time) that the Monroe doctrine was supported and maintained by Britain, whom the British mostly benefited since they were helping Latin-American countries with gaining independence in order to trade with the Latin-American economies, not to mention that the US only intervened in Latin-America after the Spanish-American war and Latin-America's favorite sport is Soccer, who else brought this sport to Latin-America, certainly not the US or France, (the only time France truly intervened in Latin-America was during the French intervention in Mexico, and that didn't go so well). (N0n3up (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC))
You seem to be making an argument based on your own interpretation of sources. Personally I don't like using modern terms out of context. Superpower as a term really links to the post WWII situation and is linked with Nuclear Power and whole bunch of other things that to my mind are different from the commercial/naval domination of the British Empire. So I disagree. If other editors agree with you I'm not set on the position but as it stands I oppose your change. ----SnowdedTALK16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded, "Personally" is a nice word to use to accuse me of something you are doing by saying of me "making an argument based on your own interpretation of sources", yet Wiki-Ed was talking about the grammatic part of the edit. To you "personally" as you said that the Nuclear Power and whole bunch of other things that to your mind are different from the commercial/naval domination is how two superpowers wield their will because Britain had an Informal Empire in which I said controlled nations outside her empire like the US does today. Britain also was a pioneer to creating a modern powerful military or having intelligence agencies for foreign control prior to the US if that's your Superpower for you. Many cites and sources also mention the British Empire as a Superpower before and after WWI which I will mention only a few, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9] (look at em all) observe that they all call the Empire a Superpower and so should we, since Britain's Empire was unlike of those before it when it's power encompassed those of previous with innovation from the Industrial Revolution, creating new kinds of military such as the dreadnought and bankrolling other countries. And just a small detail that the suit originating in Britain is the official wear of pretty much everything, something the US and others before and after the British Empire didn't manage to do. And I've been disappointed in you lately since your Threatening and Menacing edit summaries here and there are incomparable to your other edit summaries to other nuisance instances if this can even be called a nuisance and sending a message "accusing me of putting up my point of view by reverting because of your point of view" has been pretty much the summary of your message resinting in the other direction. Like I said, the word Superpower is needed for this article to indicate Britain's position. Again, it ain't two users against one, Wiki-Ed had a different reason than you have for reverting me. Be careful. (N0n3up (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
I'ce given you my opinion on the use of "Superpower" and I have no idea why being polite about that causes you a problem. If Wiki-Ed comes here and agrees with you on the change then fine, its not a major issue but for the moment you don't have agreement. Not sure why I need to be careful, WP:BRD is pretty clear and you are the one failing that. No need to clutter up my talk page by the way, I monitor pages I am engaged with. If you want to revert GoodDay's change I have no issue with that
Snowded, I don't know why you complicate things than how they are, specially in the attitude you're expressing. Again, it's merely your opinion, I've given you my reason to why the term "Superpower" should be applied to the article with proof. And Wiki-Ed was more concerned on how I applied the term in terms of grammar and tautology all I'm saying. And after your threats in edit summaries and you deleting my message in your talk page calling it a clutter, something you don't seem to do very often appears you have something personal against me as shown with your predatory edit summaries here and there and indifferent formal messages as you posted on my talk page with an immediate accusation of Edit-War is very unbecoming of a serious Wikipedia user, even less so from a consultant. Again, the British Empire was considered a Superpower. PS. Do you remember telling me to indent my messages with the same demeaning attitude, yeah, are you so indifferent to this article that you forgot to sign your post. Here's something MLK might think of such attitude of wanting order rather than accuracy, good day. (N0n3up (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
You really are getting worked up over a minor issue. You continued to reinstate your edit despite not having agreement on the talk page - that merits a warning. And OMG out of the many edits I make every day I failed to sign one of them, shame on me. FYI the internet at CABINN in Copenhagen kept dropping so that might explain it. I like the idea of predatory edit summaries mind you, we should all aim to bring out the raptor in our souls :-) ----SnowdedTALK 10:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC) ----SnowdedTALK10:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (twice this time to make up for last time)
SnowdedOkay, I understand and apologize if I got worked up on you, It's just that it's irritating that someone could not see that the British Empire was a Superpower. I showed you that Britain was a superpower through various kinds of sources, the British Empire was the FIRST Superpower. It was the birthplace of the Industrial revolution, changed the world forever, No One has ever done that, and the Digital Age we're experiencing with our computers is called the "Third Industrial Revolution", and it kinda makes you think. Britain pioneered in Intelligence and information, the telegraph was created during the time of the British Empire and Britain made the Best use of it, like none other before. And if you're wondering about Wiki-Ed, again, he was concerned more on the grammatical implication of the edit as you can see, even after I explained to him about the use of Superpowers: [10], [11], and the only reason he reverted me was because I applied the word with tautological errors with some other errors when I should've only concentrated on that one little word as you can see in the edit history. And you're right we should bring out the predatory spirit in us, but just do it on the people who want to screw up the article, not the ones who seek to improve. I still hope you see my point. (N0n3up (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
I've been fairly clear that I don't think we should apply a modern term which has multiple meanings that are inappropriate for the British Empire in other than possibly its final years. I think the current wording is fine. If other editors support you then it is not an issue I would waste much time on but at the moment its just you advocating the change. ----SnowdedTALK16:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded You're being stubborn about this. A modern term doesn't mean it doesn't apply in the article, and like I said and showed you, the British Empire counted as a Superpower, I doubt you even read what I wrote, Many other people call Britain a Superpower. People like you often get the wrong Idea that the superpowers must be modern the same way many people assume a Mummy is a cadaver wrapped up on toilet paper rather than a cadaver with decayed skin. The "modern" term applies. I gave sources and proof, you are just acting on your personal opinions. I could say that Atlanta is filled with crime, but decide to take it out because I don't like it. C'mon. (N0n3up (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
My dictionary doesn't define 'stubborn' as 'having the temerity to disagree with N0n3u'; is this some new wikipedia guideline or rule? Lets see what other editors think ----SnowdedTALK16:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Again, "Your" dictionary doesn't agree but the term applies to the British Empire [12], [13] both of whom apply for the British Empire, again, Rome wasn't a superpower, Spanish Empire was not a superpower, the British Empire and eventually the US and soviet unions are Superpowers during their heydays. Not to mention, you always seem to have something against me, apart from your threatening messages and edit summaries, you also delete the messages I send you [14], [15], something you never did to ther discussions in your talk page and makes me doubt you even read what I wrote. (N0n3up (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
I see no reason why the British Empire could not have the term "superpower" applied to it retrospectively, at least in reference to the interwar period—1920s and 30s, that kind of time—and perhaps a bit before that too. Why, you have a whole book called The British Empire as a Superpower, 1919–39, written by Anthony Clayton and published by Palgrave in 1986. —Cliftonian(talk)20:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
As I said its not a big issue - but the operative dates there are important 1919-39 the term is applicable and relevant, but not before then when the rise of the Empire was commercially driven and often private enterprise. So a date limited reference might be a good compromise ----SnowdedTALK20:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd also support a compromise along those lines: the term could be used exclusively after the First World War, for example, as per Paul Dukes on [page 85 of The Superpowers: A Short History (Routledge, 2001), the word wasn't invented until the 1920s. (It didn't take on its modern meaning until the 1940s, but that's another matter.) —Cliftonian(talk)20:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Cliftonian, Snowded you're right, even before mentioned dates, the term Superpower applies to Britain because of it's major influence worldwide, they were the first to have an air force, created the modern navy and to patent the machine gun into their army. Not the least to say that the Industrial Revolution did a big thing and itself alone should be considered a superpower, mass production, the modern Globalization, and the modern capitalist economy. Not to mention Britain controlling Latin-America by bankrolling various governments, credit and etc. You don't see this in previous Empires. The term as some might think applies to modern empires, but Britain was a modern Empire, basically the one that brought on the modern age. And if that sentence is to be used, it should be that Britain was the first Superpower, dont you think? Since The Industrial revolution was a great force to create the modern World and Superpowers? "In the 20th Century the Empire emerged as the first modern super-powers" sound more right because of Britain's higher position right before WWI (N0n3up (talk) 21:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
The consensus version of the wording is fine. We're using contemporary language which does not carry an (anachronistic) association of a modern "superpower", which it most certainly was not until comparatively late in its existence. Citing a bunch of not-very reliable sources that use that term does not mean that we should copy. I don't think the line "In the 20th Century the Empire emerged as a modern superpower" is correct - it didn't emerge - it was already there - someone just invented the word in the 1940s. We're better off without it - there is simply no reason to use it in the introduction. The fact that it would require caveats and sourcing tells us enough.Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed: these sources: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (look at em all) and I wouldn't call them "not-very reliable sources". The term Superpower is needed because it is part of the British Empire's history, Britain played a role in creating it. And again, Cliftonian agrees the word should be used. And just because a word was made in modern times doesn't mean it shouldn't apply to topics befor the name was invented. The word "Mummy" is a modern word but used to apply to things older than that word. In fact, Britain was arguably the first Superpower, y'know, the modern Superpower. Look the definition [25], [26]. The British Empire was a pioneer of the modern "Superopwer", the dreadnough, Industrial revolution, first modern powerful nation, all these shout "Superpower". @Cliftonian: what do you think? (N0n3up (talk) 22:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
First: The term is contentious in this context - that's why we're having this discussion. If it's contentious then it needs referencing. But, in an ideal world the introduction should not need references (see the MOS).[27] This is unavoidable for some subjects, but here it is simply your preferred wording and nothing more. Moreover an article like this requires proper academic sources, not online dictionaries... so just three out the eleven links you've provided are suitable.
Second: Those sources specifically only refer to the British Empire as a 'superpower' in it's later stages, and one of them makes a contrast between 'early-stage' and 'maturing' (i.e. late c20 US), suggesting it is wrong to use the term without qualification. If we have to use caveats to justify including a redundant term (the concept is covered in logical sequence in the first and third paragraphs) then we should strike it out; it adds nothing that hasn't been said in a more informative way.
Finally, it is just repeating the idea that is mentioned in the third sentence. The reader doesn't need to be told twice in the same paragraph. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed: But even if the British Empire was a "Modern Superpower" in its latter stages, it needs to be in the article, like I said, the word "Superpower" has to go one place or the other in the main part of the article. The British Empire was three of the original Superpowers, along with the Soviet Union and US. If you don't like it on the same third paragraph, how about on the end of the first paragraph? Either way, it needs to be mentioned. The British Empire has a history of being a Superpower, if not, pioneered to be one and needs to be known. You even have a whole book dedicated to it. A world map in 1945. According to William T.R. Fox, the United States (blue), the Soviet Union (red), and the British Empire (teal) were superpowers. (N0n3up (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC))
A whole book? Wow. So we'd better change history because one author has a particular opinion then? That's not how Wikipedia works. If the balance of historians referred to the British Empire in this way then we should refer to it as they do, but they don't. The concept is already covered in the text, both the introduction and the body. The word itself does not need to be used at all. Your interpretation, without the caveats used by the sources you mention, is bordering on OR. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Wiki-Ed: When I said "a whole book" was to make you see that the British Empire applies for the term Superpower. Obviously it isn't one book only, I can name you a bunch of books and like I said, the term Superpower needs to be stated. And I noticed that you didn't even read my message, you only looked for my flawed sentence with a very picky attitude which I don't find amusing. The British Empire was a Superpower in many opinions including mine that it was a Superpower during the Victorian Period, and if not, a Superpower in the Empire's latter stages, but it was a Superpower and needs to be stated, something un-contentious since it's known that the Empire was a Superpower. (N0n3up (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
At best it was a superpower in its final period and I'm open to a compromise that mentions that at some point, but not to the changes N0n3up is suggesting and the argument today is not bordering on OR it is OR. If someone wants to make a specific proposal we can look at it - I'm not inclined to change but open to something minor so I don't intend to - then fine but otherwise I think this has gone on long enough ----SnowdedTALK05:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Additional Note: I see that N0n3up jumped the gun and made a change anyway so I have reverted that. When something is contentious we get agreement BEFORE we make a change. Thinking about it I also reverted GoodDay's change. Ruled and Administered are both valid terms and removing one of them is not a good idea ----SnowdedTALK06:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
1) My first edit in regards to change "global" to "world" is a small wording since the word "global" is repeated in the third paragraph and that obviously needed to be fixed.
2) In regards to this sentence: "ensuring Canada's future would be separate from that of the United States", it's using a one-sided POW and only mentioning about Canada's future when it talks of both nations that their future will be separate from each other which led to the Treaty of Ghent thus making this sentence more accurate: "ensuring that the future of Canada and the United States would be separate from each other"
3) " By the 20th Century the Empire became a modern superpower" is fine and more accurate, and like it's shown that the British Empire became a "modern Superpower" even at the latter part of its stages, but it WAS one. You seem to be ignoring the sources I provided you to the point of denying the fact that the British Empire was a Superpower. And Again, I will bring up the sources and map so you can see it, Again: [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] (look at em all) observe that they all call the Empire a Superpower and so should we.
I see you also reverted @GoodDay:'s edit, but everyone makes a grammatic fix in order to improve the page, something you're preventing and decide to keep order rather than to improve by reverting or deleting all edits such as mines and GoodDay's. Again, going back to the attitude that motivated MLK to say this. I've took this to the noticeboard incidents. I thought we were discussing the superpower incident.. (N0n3up (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Superpower is 99% of the time associated to either the USA or the URSS, and a scale of power the British empire could never match, even in its zenith. Hong Tray (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hong Tray That's the Cold War you're reffering to. Besides, got sources? The British Empire was one of the original Superpowers along with the Soviet Union and US. And Britain was one of the Big three during WWII. Look at the sources and outside sources, it's right there. (N0n3up (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
I've adjusted a sentence, concerning the Commonwealth realms. We must recognize (per weight), that the UK is the realm most closely associated with Elizabeth II & it's uniqueness (she lives in the UK & thus there's no governor general) among the realms. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Enough
N0n3up you are not gaining agreement from other editors and you are simply repeating the same arguments. As long as you do that no other editor is under any obligation to keep repeating the same response. Until you have agreement here you do not have consensus for a change and you will be reverted and reported for edit warring if you persist. If you are unhappy then call an RFA ----SnowdedTALK17:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Why of course. British Empire would make an excellent Administrator. It's already had years of practice, administering a huge chunck of the world :) GoodDay (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded The same can be said about you denying the fact that the British Empire was a Superpower without providing references. You even proposed a compromise yet for some reason backed out of it. You even reverted GoodDay's edit. I didn't edit the page since you reverted thus cannot be accused of edit warring. Your attitude has gone far from comprehensive and should've left the notice to Admin incident judging from this post you just wrote. You're simply saying "leave it like that, I don't care if it's wrong or if it makes sense" and ashamed to have dealt with you up to this point. I provided sources and apparently even though there is one or two that might disagree, none of them provided sources to counter the argument because two wrongs don't make a right, presicely what you are doing arguing without sources. All you do is deny and again, trying to keep me at bay with your threats. (N0n3up (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
I remain open to a compromise but you rather messed that up by editing the article directly. Three editors disagree with you, one is pretty neutral but open. There is a lesson there for you if you care to learn it. But go back to ANI if you want it. You will get some sympathy for the fact that English is obviously not your first language, but you won't for failing to get agreement on the talk page and constantly personalising differences. ----SnowdedTALK17:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
SnowdedI thought with the early discussion where you brought up the compromise was the point that this argument would end, and I didn't mess it up, you use that excuse to simply accuse me of something I didn't do like you said you would report me for edit-Warring when I didn't even revert your edit. You are one of the "three" that disagrees, Wiki-Ed is precise and well-spoken for his arguments, yet his argument is just an opinion, and the last one was a random guy who just said something without basis. And now you're so desperate to get rid of me making up a story that English isn't my first language?? (N0n3up (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Happy to apologise if English is your first language, it didn't appear to be and I was trying to be sympathetic. To wit it can be difficult to get a point across in a non-mother tongue. You have reinstated your edits several time against consensus - that is edit warring. ----SnowdedTALK17:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hence my assumption (well one of the reasons) that English was not your mother tongue. There was a suggestion of a possible way forward. That was not a consensus for change it was an opening for discussion and possible agreement on text. ----SnowdedTALK17:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded you even deleted the minor fixing edits done by me and GoodDay simply because we need a consensus. We do need a consensus but not for minor things for example, you're not gonna have a long discussion if we are going to do a small grammatical fix, you're being too rigid and say that I'm alone in the consensus when this isn't true, stop manipulating things to your own advantage. (N0n3up (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Out of context statement, has no real value as an addition to the article. You need a consensus for any contested edit. I suggest you go back and read the pillars ----SnowdedTALK19:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
This has gone to the point of being ludicrous. You're ignoring facts. The people who don't agree is you, Wiki-Ed and some random editor whom I forgot his name. Wiki-Ed, even though well-spoken had only stated his opinion, the random editor just posted an un-referenced comment and you simply because two editors don't agree and are missing the point that I'm not alone in supporting the fact of Superpower, Cliftonian agrees with me, but you deny it because three editors disagree, but missing out that it's two editors against two editors, and you only without posting an opinion but only for consensus? Get the math? (N0n3up (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Cliftonian like me is (I think) open to an amendment which includes superpower if it can be phased in a way that makes sense. So far you haven't proposed anything which does. You can't dismiss an editor as 'random' either. You really need to cool it. ----SnowdedTALK20:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded I proposed a version in the very first part of this discussion: "By the 20th Century the Empire became a modern superpower", how does this not make any sense? And in regards to your other reverts by me and GoodDay here was unnecessary since we only concentrated on the topic of Superpower, and again, 1) My first edit in regards to change "global" to "world" is a small wording since the word "global" is repeated in the third paragraph and that obviously needed to be fixed.. and 2) In regards to this sentence: "ensuring Canada's future would be separate from that of the United States", it's using a one-sided POW and only mentioning about Canada's future when it talks of both nations that their future will be separate from each other which led to the Treaty of Ghent thus making this sentence more accurate: "ensuring that the future of Canada and the United States would be separate from each other". Now going back to the topic of Superpower, I explained that the people who don't agree is you, Wiki-Ed and some random editor whom I forgot his name. Wiki-Ed, even though well-spoken had only stated his opinion, the random editor just posted an un-referenced comment and you simply because two editors don't agree and are missing the point that I'm not alone in supporting the fact of Superpower, and your first compromise proposition had a flaw pointed out by Wiki-Ed in regards to the word "emerge" since Britain didn't emerge at that time, it was already there, thus making this sentence more reasonable: "By the 20th Century the Empire became a modern superpower", how does this not make sense?. FYI, comments like this don't contribute to the cause whatsoever. (N0n3up (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
The Treaty of Ghent, aside from being one of the greatest betrayals of a native people by the British Empire in all of its gory history, was (from a British perspective) about separating Canada from the US so the current wording seems accurate to me. Some of the recorded comments by John Adams on the Native Americans were also an inditement on any claim he had to humanity but that is not for this article. Otherwise you just tagged a phrase onto a paragraph, completely out of context hence my comment. Otherwise you really need to stop these evaluative judgements about other editors. Other points you raise have already been handled by myself or Wiki-Ed and I'm not prepared to carry on repeating the same points. ----SnowdedTALK20:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Although I don't agree, this is something I will discuss in the future. But the word "Global" has been repeated in the third paragraph and switched it with "world power" instead of "global hegemon", and don't try to deny that the British Empire wasn't a "World-Power" because it was. You seem to be somewhat anti-British Empire calling it "gory", keep in mind the US killed many native Americans also. (N0n3up (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
The Treaty of Ghent released the US to take Native American territory breaking the agreements with Tecumseh that had ensured victory/stalemate in the War of 1812. As far as I can see global hegemony is there is paragraph 3 ----SnowdedTALK21:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Yes, that's why it needs to be changed, you're not gonna repeat the same thing, and you're denying that first, the British Empire is not a "Superpower", and now that it's not a "World Power"?? Are you trying to reduce the importance of the British Empire or something??? You're going beyond the boundaries of reason here. The British Empire was a Superpower, and even with more reason, a "world power" during its apogee. This is ludicrous, I even gave you sources, and it ain't short of consensus as I said, stop trying to manipulate Cliftonian's intentions and Stop trying to deny that Britain was a "world power" and a "modern Superpower" in it's latter day and I'm not alone in this see? and not to mention, someone already complained about your actions. (N0n3up (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
If you really want to associate with Gob Lofa feel free, you may end up with a similar history the way you are going. You are not saying anything new and I've wasted enough time responding. If you raise any substantive new point or other editors engage then I will respond, otherwise I'm ignoring these tediously repetitive assertions. Until you gain a consensus any change by you without consensus on the talk page will be reverted. ----SnowdedTALK22:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded "any change by you with consensus on the talk page will be reverted" That's like saying that even if I'm right along with Wikipedia standards, I will be reverted? That's not how Wikipedia works. You keep saying I don't have consensus when I do, I have editor who agrees with me and I brought sources that back up my claim. You didn't even present anything other than just saying that you don't agree. The British Empire was a "Superpower" and "World power". (N0n3up (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Thanks for point out the typo (corrected). Otherwise you have two editors (I am one) who are prepared to consider a possible change. You do not have anyone who has agreed to your specific change. Personally I think the current wording is fine but if you come up with something sensible and historically appropriate I'm happy to look at is as I am sure others are.----SnowdedTALK22:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Cliftonian is not only willing as you keep saying, but he agrees as you can see here, agrees that the Empire was a "Superpower", but even now you deny that it even was a "World power". And you saying "if you come up with something sensible and historically appropriate I'm happy to look at" (quoting from your post on top) is cray because I already gave you academic sources, books and even outside sources that call the British empire a "Superpower" along with consensus. Why is this so hard to understand. (N0n3up (talk) 22:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC))
Can I at least fix the redundant-grammatic part from "Global hegemon" to "World power" in the first paragraph? "Global" is repeated in the third paragraph and use the word "world" for same meaning without reiteration. (N0n3up (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
Using the same world in two different paragraphs is not an issue. You have also just made the change so why are you asking here? You really have to get your mind around a simple principle here, If your edit is reverted you get agreement on the talk page BEFORE you make the change again. Global is better than World so I am reinstating it. If other editors engage and agree with you fine but for the moment just stop edit warring and creating a massive storm on dispute resolution, ANI etc over something very very minor. ----SnowdedTALK06:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Snowded The word is redundant since it's repeated and a granmatic issue. You let GoodDay and other editors edit the page, yet you jump all over me with the excuse of getting consensus for a minor change whereas GoodDay and others you let them edit as they wish. This ia notable and pointed it out on dispute. (N0n3up (talk) 07:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
Repeating a word from paragraph one in paragraph three is not a grammatical error neither is it redundant If you make any change which is reverted then you don't reinstate it without agreement. Callanecc went out of their way to try and help you here in respect of a previous block and you need to read that advise again as well as WP:BRD. You've been given direct links to the RFC process by another editor but you are ignoring that as well. ----SnowdedTALK07:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm focusing on content. GoodDay has just made some good changes which make the article better. Your changes in my view did not so they were reverted. Try not to take things personally. ----SnowdedTALK08:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. Lots of words. Going back to the "compromise" proposal: Aside from diversionary forays into unrelated sections, I don't see any new arguments from User:N0n3up here. The assertion that "By the 20th Century the Empire became a modern superpower" is just wrong. It was already a significant global power, it didn't emerge/become/evolve into anything at this point; by the turn of the century its position was deteriorating relative to the growth in stature of other powers. And the position it held was not comparable to a modern superpower - at least one of the sources he has cited even says as much - a term which was invented nearly half a century later. The long-standing wording of the introduction is accurate and does not need to be changed just because one editor appears to have a fixation on the word "superpower". This is the kind of argument that gives WP a bad name. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Wiki-Ed, Snowded A good new argument would be that even though you might not agree, the British Empire was a "superpower" one way or the other either before WWI or during WWII but not after, yet it was one, being a pivotal member for the allies [39]. Often described as one [40][41]. During WWII, it had atomic operations such as the Tube Alloys or it's involvement in the Manhattan project, thus eligible to be considered a superpower. This is not an obsession, it's the important fact that the word Superpower is often used to describe the British Empire yet no one acknowledges the fact that it indeed was a Superpower. The British Empire is often described as one of the "Big Three" superpowers. Why do you think Britain was part of the Yalta,Tehran and Potsdam Conferences along with the US and Soviet Union? Not to mention the very least the British Empire's contribution to creating the [Tank], [Dreadnought], and having the first modern [Royal Air Force|Air Force]]. Britain was a superpower, even in it's latter stages a detail that needs to be known. You have done a good job denying sources, yet I would like you present references, something the opponent part failed to do. Apparently some agree and some don't in here, can we come to a compromise? (N0n3up (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
You need to come up with a form of words that (i) addresses Wiki-Ed's concerns (ii) is not ooriginal research or synthesis on your part (the argument you make above is a picture of both of those). If you can do that we can look at ti otherwise this is going on too long with too much repetition ----SnowdedTALK14:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
OR doesn't apply on talk pages. Again, you're avoiding the main issue here, you keep bringing double-morality to this page lecturing me about reading Wikipedia policies as you yourself broke various Wikipedia rules while trying to keep me distracted from the topic in-hand, not to mention, false-accusations and commenting on the user instead of the topic. (N0n3up (talk) 15:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC))
OR doesn't apply to talk pages, but if you're going to come up with wording to put into the main article, it applies to that... LjL (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're saying here. Anyway if you expect people to accept OR just because you state it on a talk page first, that's not going to happen. LjL (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we cannot call Britain or the British Empire a "World Power"? I did a cursory Gbooks search and there are many results agreeing with the term. Dr.K.23:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
In the appropriate context, I don't think anyone has a problem with "a world power". From my reading though the issue (at least initially) was the proposed word "superpower" which is arguably anachronistic for the British empire at any time and may not be supported by consensus historical opinion. "Modern superpower" is even a bit more over the edge. Juan Riley (talk) 23:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Global was there first, and during the GA review process. No reason to change it that I can see and the first reason given by N0n3up was that it was ungrammatical, he sought to change it in one paragraph but not the other. He now seems to understand that there is no grammatical error in using the same term in paras one and three but still wants to make the change. This has been forum shopped to ANI, Disputes resolution and now Wikipedia Help as well as individual talk pages. Total waste of everyone's time.----SnowdedTALK23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Google Scholar shows clearly that both terms have thousands of citations. There is no evidence that one is significantly more common than the other ----SnowdedTALK23:33, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
GoodDay We're now talking about to change "global power" to "world power", a more common term used to refer to the British Empire. The "superpower" part is not what we're discussing now. (N0n3up (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
I resent that breach of AGF, Snowded. I am serious about my suggestion. I'm not certain if it's original research. Like any suggestion, it will either be adopted or rejected. Note, I haven't implimented it. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
There was me thinking that the GF assumption was that you were simply being mischievous. I can't see any justification or argument for the suggestion, you just lobbed it in out of context. Given that you have been watching and partially engaged in the previous discussion you are aware of discussion around 'superpower', so to raise it without some explanation or argument is shall we say odd. ----SnowdedTALK00:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
In keeping with the mood: how about "terrestial supercalifragilistic power"? If that gets one hit on google it must be a legitimate contender, eh? Juan Riley (talk) 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
SnowdedJuan Riley User:GoodDayUser:Dr.K. Apparently JuanRiley and Snowded decided to gang up on me by disregarding and making jokes around me. Again, LOOK at the SOURCES. Snowded kept complaining the first time I talked to him months ago for sources, and now he brings new arguments to prevent me from putting SOURCED edits, clearly, he did a good job at manipulating all this charades because he has something personal against the sourced facts or me[48], [49][50], [51]. (N0n3up (talk) 00:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC))
No one is ganging up on you, they just disagree with you. Both global and world are adequately sourced - on google scholar we are talking about 7.5k against 10k so nothing significant enough to justify a change in the text, You are also making personal attacks again - its tedious please stop. In fact generally this needs to stop there isn't support for a a change to the article. ----SnowdedTALK00:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
Snowded Apparently now there is a consesus that agrees. Snowded and JuanRiley don't agree, but N0n3up and now, Dr.K agrees [52] it's basically 2/2. And I've provided sources. This is my final statement until further notice, I also agree this had gone too far. (N0n3up (talk) 00:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC))
Superpower 2, the mentioning
The term 'Superpower' only applied to the British Empire post WW2, and even then, it was considered the lesser of the three superpowers (British Empire, Soviet Union and the United States). In modern times, a few historians have applied the term to the pre WW2 British Empire, but there is no actual consensus among such authorities that it actually was. The term superpower is used far too casually nowdays.Antiochus the Great (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
It is a curious fact that when some are speaking/writing of 'Superpowers', mention is often made of Suez in 1956 as a sign of the 'decline of Britain's influence', but what is almost also never mentioned is that since 1945 neither the US nor the former USSR have ever won a war without British involvement on their side. Both the US' Vietnam War and the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan were both lost without any involvement of Britain whatsoever. In contrast, in the 1982 Falklands War the British managed to win on their own, and against a reasonably modern opposition with a proper army, navy, and air force. In direct contrast to the other two 'Superpower' states, who both failed to win wars against what were effectively Third World countries.
As for Britain never being a 'Superpower', all I can say, to all you non-Britons on here from all around the world, is, "Thank you for learning my language". I'm very flattered. For you dear people I enclose a link to an English item that should be taken in the spirit in which it is sincerely meant - with tongue in cheek: [53] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.120 (talk) 19:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Antiochus the Great Perhaps that the term "Superpower has been tossed here and there, and it's true that the British Empire after WWII has been considered a lesser power among the Soviet Union and US. But even so, i'd have to disagree with you regarding that Britain's post-WWII superpower status should not be mentioned as a trait in the Empire's history. Keep in mind that after WWII, Britain had considerable power, which eventually fell out as evident in the Suez Crisis, but even so, before such time, Britain still maintained considerable international power. As the IP 2.31.130.120 said, there are considerable traits regarding Britain after WWII, such as how the United States (even with British and western support) had lost the Vietnam War, and how the USSR's involvement in Afghanistan was a fail, while Britain won a war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands even long after Britain lost it's World Power status while still being a Great Power while the USA, USSR and UK were in a Superpower status. The point is that both the United States and Soviet Union were along with the still-then existing British Empire a Superpower, these three were in the Superpower pool. I suggest we mention this detail by saying "Britain after WWII became a modern Superpower until later, evident in the Suez Crisis of 1956" or along the lines of this. (N0n3up (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC))
I have been watching this discussion from the sidelines for a while now. I have done my research on the subject of Britain and it being a superpower. Yes it was a superpower at least until the until the end of World War II, or in some cases consider the end after the Suez Crisis. The term "superpower" is a post WWII term, but was applied retroactively. Reb1981 (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Reb1981 Exactly. The British Empire was just before and after WWII a Superpower, before WWII in the defining retrospective meaning and after WWII in the time the term began to be commonly used and a time when the British empire still retained its remaining power, as seen in these few sources here:
And even still was the British empire a Superpower after WWII as shown in this picture. Not to mention that the Superpower article states that Britain was, along with the US and USSR, a Superpower, at least until the Suez Crisis of 1956 when Britain's decline was becoming evident. (N0n3up (talk) 07:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC))
Just to be clear on the discussions above, there were some who agreed (including myself) and others who did not. And the only reason I'm saying this is because the topics in the above discussions are so diverse from a wording in a War of 1812 related-section and the mentioning of the British empire as a "Superpower" as a whole. Only this time this discussion is concentrating on naming the British Empire a Superpower on modern times, where the term applies the most. (N0n3up (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
I think something along the lines The British empire became a modern superpower after WWII until it began losing it's colonial holdings after the Suez Crisis.Reb1981 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Reb1981 version. And Snowded, since the British Empire's latter feature was that it was a Superpower right after WWII bound to eventually collapse as evident in the Suez crisis. Plus the sources and arguments provided, I think it should be put in the lead, since it was a feature in the late Empire. (N0n3up (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
Snowded, Going through the previous old discussion, not everyone disagreed. Like I said, some were in favor and some were not. In case you haven't noticed, this is not about branding the British Empire a "Superpower" as a whole, but only the modern period of the empire where the term properly applies. The consensus and sources for this new argument is well-sustained. I don't see why it shouldn't be included. As shown in the map I provided, the late British Empire was a "Superpower" until around the time of the Suez Crisis. And Reb1981 provided a reasonable version in which we both seem to agree. (N0n3up (talk) 22:24, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
A modern term that only applies to a limited period of the Empire. It might just be valid somewhere in the body of the text but it is not significant enough for the lede. It is very clear that the importance you want to place on the word did not get any significant support. There was a willingness to consider its mention somewhere but even that really doesn't have consensus. See what other editors think, I've made my position clear.----SnowdedTALK22:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Reb1981 Currently, Snowded hasn't provided any solid support for his arguments and since consensus agrees for the statement to be made in the lead, do you think I should take a go at it? (N0n3up (talk) 23:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
You're going off topic by saying "the importance you want to place on the word did not get any significant support" since Reb1981 and IP 2.31.130.120 agreed, and it was a major feature of the late Empire even if it applies to a limited period of the Empire. It should be mentioned in the Lead since consensus and sources are in favor, which goes against your last statement. (N0n3up (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
Do that and it will be reverted. Try reading the earlier discussion, most editors clearly disagreed with superpower and you have not made the case for its inclusion in the lede. Getting support from one editor in this discussion is not enough. You've been blocked before, for this sort of deliberate misreading and edit warring so I suggest you don't go there again. Given your last block was for a month the next is likely to be an indef. Just wait and see if any other editors support you, in particular those who contributed to the discussion before your last block. If you were serious about mentorship then you should consultant your mentor BEFORE engaging in an edit war ----SnowdedTALK23:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm neutral when it comes to N0n3up I won't heisitate to let him know when his has done wrong, but I have been looking over this information and I think it would be just fine to include it in the article's lead. You seem overly critical Snowded. Reb1981 (talk) 23:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree Reb1981. Again Snowded. I'm not saying that Superpower should be used to reffer to the British Empire as a whole like in the earlier discussions, this new discussion concentrates on the latter Empire. And posting false accusations regarding me "not making a case" for its inclusion in the lead (which I did). By the way, it's also untrue that it's one editor when, again, Reb1981 and IP 2.31.130.120 and myself (all three) agree while you're the only one that opposes without providing a solid argument. (N0n3up (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC))
There are three questions - (i) is there a weight of references that call the Empire a superpower (ii) if so should the reference be made in the article per WP:WEIGHT and (iii) Is it of such significance that it should be placed in the lede.. Otherwise this specific discussion you have two editors who are not in favour, two who seem to me and one IP with a odd turn of phrase and posting of YouTube references. IN the prior discussion the majority of editors were against. You need to wait until other editors engage before even thinking about making a change here. And, you need to check with your mentor ----SnowdedTALK05:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you understand that this is a whole different subject, unrelated to the previous discussions because the difference lies that this discussion is regarding the "Latter British Empire" while the previous was about the Empire throughout it's history. We have Three who agree and two who don't, and that other one was referring to the previous unrelated old discussions. Me, Reb1981 and one IP (whose opinion matters) agree that the phrase should be put there. "is there a weight of references that call the Empire a superpower".... the answer is Yes, I provided them in case you haven't noticed. "if so should the reference be made in the article per WP:WEIGHT".... yes, you even have authors who identify the US, USSR and UK as the three post WWII superpowers. "Is it of such significance that it should be placed in the lede".... the answer is Yes, since it was a feature of the late empire until about around the time of the Suez Crisis that it should be mentioned in the lead.. (N0n3up (talk) 05:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
It is not a whole new subject, your wider use was rejected before (with similar or the same references) so you have returned to suggest a narrower use. Of your references (ignoring ones like other wikipedia articles which cannot be used) three make reference to the word, one of which is qualified. It is far from clear that the term is used, even in the latter period as a standard description which is what we would need for inclusion in the lede. There may be a case to say in the latter period section that: the Empire has been described as the World's First Superpower. That is all that can be supported by the sources. You also need to understand that we don't vote on wikipedia and that a 3:2 "vote" is not a consensus. Other editors need to engage here. You have made your case I suggest you wait for that to happen. If you want to look at an RfC then you need to clearly separate the question of the inclusion of a phrase, such as the one I suggest, in the article and the mention in the lede which you propose. Those are very different propositions. ----SnowdedTALK05:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The new suggestion for the term's "narrower use" for the latter Empire makes it into a new subject. I haven't made reference to other Wikipedia articles as you said I did. And comparing consensus to a vote is a little misleading, again, we can wait for others if you want. Imho I think you're making the situation more complicated than it should be. (N0n3up (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC))
Disagree it is a question of degree not a new subject. Your first two references link to wikipedia articles. You really need to read up on what consensus means - your use of partial vote counts on this has been a problem in the past and it persists here. Too be clear, the inclusion of a reference to the use of the term in the modern era is something other editors were prepared to consider in the past and might be again. Given the past history inviting them to comment on that now you are back from your block might get a favourable response. Insisting on including it in the lede without wider involvement is a whole different issue ----SnowdedTALK06:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
An RfC normally follows discussion and engagement of several editors. N0n3up, if you check those links some of them reference Britain (only incidentally the Empire) as a post or immediately pre-war superpower. One openly discusses whether the idea of Empire is the same as a superpower and indicates controversy about that. Simply searching on key words and listing the results does not a good case make. Remember this is an article about the Empire and per the previous discussion there is a clear agreement that it is not appropriate to reference the Empire as a super power through the bulk of its history, something you appear to now agree with. Given that the question is what the sources say. There is material which says that the Empire has been retrospectively described as a super power and also material that talks about Britain as a superpower. There is a sort of implication there that it is the latter days of Empire, but in the context of the referenced material it is less about Empire per se. So we have questions about what the sources say and how relevant they are to this article, compared say to one on the UK/Britain. Given that for the majority of the time that the Empire existed the phrase super-power was not in use that means there is a very weak case for inclusion in the lede (and that does directly relate to the last discussion). There may be a case to include material later in the article say around the end of WWII linked to the decline to say that it was retrospectively described as a super-power. I would be open to that if it creates peace and there is no major opposition, I don't think it adds anything to the article but it may not detract from it ----SnowdedTALK08:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
N0n3up, Reb1981. The British Empire was only considered to be a superpower during its twilight years post WWII, and even then, it was the lesser of the three superpowers. Furthermore, when all is said and done, the term 'superpower' is only a word, and only loosely associated with the British Empire for about ~10 years towards the end of its many centuries of existence. I find it difficult then, to see any justification for including it in the lede paragraphs. In fact, doing so would be considered WP:UNDUE, as it is giving prominence to an idea that represents the British Empire for only the briefest if moments. I say, lets keep this article about the British Empire, and not squabble over a political buzzword that came about post WWII as a form of patriotic chest-thumping.Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Antiochus's summing up. Explaining how it became a "superpower" even as its power was declining would take some considerable synthesis. It certainly shouldn't be mentioned in the introduction and I cannot see a sensible place for it in the narrative section of the article. And we're not going to rewrite a chunk just to squeeze a word in because one editor seems to like it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
1) "The British Empire was only considered to be a superpower during its twilight years post WWII, and even then, it was the lesser of the three superpowers. Furthermore, when all is said and done, the term 'superpower' is only a word, and only "loosely" associated with the British Empire for about ~10 years towards the end of its many centuries of existence", Perhaps only after WWII but if that's the case, then should be mentioned as a small detail sentence in the lead, if not, in the body. Yes it was a brief period of the Empire, but a detail that was part of WWII and post-war Britain that's still not mentioned. The big three
2) "I find it difficult then, to see any justification for including it in the lede paragraphs. In fact, doing so would be considered WP:UNDUE", if you look at WP:UNDUE, you'll see in the fine print that says: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources", something that hasn't been provided by the opposing party. I brought this topic to light as a result of some parts of this article have a lot of missing gaps compared to other well-sustained articles that have constant maintenance by interested users.
Wiki-Ed, since you only repeated what Antiochus the Great, I would suggest what I wrote in the response above. And it not because "one editor seems to like it", since I'm not the only one who agrees, since Reb1981 and IP 2.31.130.120 agreed in this discussion.
Snowded, again, you keep interpreting sources in a bogus manner since the sources provided don't reflect what you say. The sources clearly support the fact that the British Empire was a superpower in both during and after WWII for a time until the Suez Crisis thus notable to place in the article. And in regards to your proposition: "the Empire has been described as the World's First Superpower." it contradicts your previous statments about "superpower" applying only to "modern" post-WWII period. Although I'd have to check into that. You probably got that from this source:[69]. You brought up three arguments to place the sentence in the article, all of which have been met [70], don't see why you keep bringing up new methods to keep the sentence from being placed even before Wiki-Ed and Antiochus the Great showed up, when the argument was supported.
As far, four propositions have been made as to how the sentence should be put: 1) "Britain after WWII became a modern Superpower until around the time of the Suez Crisis of 1956", 2) "The British empire became a modern superpower after WWII until it began losing it's colonial holdings after the Suez Crisis.", 3) "the Empire has been described as the World's First Superpower", 4) "The British empire briefly became a modern superpower after WWII". Again, no one in the opposing side has refereed to the sources. Already mentioned sources: [71], [72][73][74], new ones: [75][76][77][78][79] ([80][81] as the "three" major powers during WWII). (N0n3up (talk) 00:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
The best option is to leave things as they are and at the moment you do not have support for a change. This is second time a huge amount of time has been wasted on what seems to be an obsession with a single word. Unless other editors engage I think this one is over ----SnowdedTALK05:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
RfC: Should the term "superpower" be mentioned regarding the latter years of the British Empire?
No consensus to accept the proposal, as clear or unclear as it may be. I'm closing this per WP:SNOW: it is not going to change in the next couple of days. In addition, this matter is to be left alone for a calendar year, starting...NOW. Drmies (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Based on the arguments above and the sources provided, should the term "superpower" be mentioned regarding the British Empire in the 20th century? Should a brief statement be made in the lead regarding the British Empire's position during and after WWII before the Suez Crisis of 1956? (map included here:[82]). [83], [84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93]. N0n3up (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose Only three of the 'sources' user N0n3up has linked are either viable RS or actually discuss usage. And they all simply repeat what a single American author said. Some of them go on to explain how he subsequently thought it was a silly thing to say. While I have come to expect shoddy 'research' from N0n3up the other two editors (above) should be experienced enough to check before asserting that the sources are reliable. The point remains that the term global hegemon is already used in the introduction. The use of the term 'superpower' is unnecessary, inaccurate, and not supported by the majority (or even a reasonable number) of sources. Inserting the word would require an explanation of how the BE had evolved from one state (global hegemon') to another state ('superpower') - this would be utterly contrived nonsense. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose per Wiki-ed and other arguments given in two separate discussions above. RfC is also badly phrased it is not clear if this is a general proposal for a reference or a specific proposal to place in the lede ----SnowdedTALK04:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. Lead is clear and concise without there being any need to introduce any different (and contested) terminology. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose:as per User:Wiki-Ed. Been a while since I looked in here but I am far from convinced that the sources supplied justify its use. Whilst a superficial glance may indicate a number of sources support the premise, digging deeper shows this to be the work of a single author. I would suggest this very much falls into the WP:FRINGE category and as such should not be included. WCMemail17:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Oppose no reason to have "superpower" in the lede, nor having it exchange "global power". The British Empire's state power is accurately described already, no need to use a scarce term that really belong to comics.--Zoupan15:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Oppose on balance. There are interesting sources on the matter, but I feel that the point being made (superpower status) is not important in giving a broad understanding of the British Empire, which is the aim of the lead. Generally, I feel that the lead of this page is already perhaps a bit too large, and so I would be very cautious about non-crucial additions. CMD (talk) 22:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Reb1981, normally I would close the Rfc, but since this doesn't seem legit enough for the reason of not only the two certain editors of having a history of stalking on my edits without contructive reasons whatsoever but also their arguments make me think of not being concise enough, I think it should stay a little longer. (N0n3up (talk) 02:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC))
If it is kept open a little longer and continues to go against you, are you prepared to agree not to bring the inclusion of 'superpower' back again in a slightly different form? This is the second time and it is consuming a lot of effort. You should also address content issues rather than making silly accusations against other editors. I have been involved with this article for longer than you have been an editor on wikipedia. When you appeared and started making contested edits here and edit warred, your edits on other articles were checked at the same time - normal practice. The solution is to use the talk page, respect consensus and not make personal attacks, ----SnowdedTALK06:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Snowded, first of all, the RfC bot or the originator are the ones allowed to remove the Rfc. Second, the outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies... counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome (something you haven't done when majority agreed and had to wait for other users like Wiki-Ed and others for arguments and editor numbers, then you seemed to take the "vote" approach). Third, Wikipedia has no deadlines.
You need to stop your constant WP:HOUND actions in my edits since you've been stalking my edits for awhile now. Just because I post an actual action a "personal attack" (pretty much an excuse you use every time you can't think of an accusation). I like how you removed Wiki-Ed's name (whom I was not referring to in case you're wondering) to and to make yourself sound more righteous in the article for being active longer in the article, (which by the way is certainly not an excuse for your conduct). And regarding my comment on the editors (you being one), it was regarding a reason for the extension of the Rfc, which is somewhat related to the Rfc itself, not for you to take it personally. But since you've decided to talk about this, let me remind you of this action of yours which contradict on what you just said regarding "discuss content, not editors". Please check WP:FOC and WP:HOUND. (N0n3up (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC))
Sigh. (i) You are wrong on who can close an RfC and as originator you certainly can't unless you withdraw it (ii) Your are not being hounded, when you started edit warring your other edits were checked (iii) the point about length of time editing was that you could not have been 'hounded' to this page (iv) you need to stop winging about other editors when all you needed to do was say you didn't want it closed yet (v) you really need to check with your mentor before you post (vi) Can we have your assurance you are not going to bring the superpower point up again once this RfC is resolved? Personally if no else gets involved shortly I think we can close this one ----SnowdedTALK15:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Do that, and it will be reverted. This act will be considered an aggression since reading the WP:RFC you are basically repeating what I said. Second, Wayy before most "votes" agreed with the fact that the sentence should be placed there, you've been constantly barking to keep the edit at bay until Wiki-Ed showed up and then after used you justified "vote", and I don't see that as a resourceful manner to conduct yourself in a discussion, let alone an Rfc. Third, Wikipedia has no deadlines and the WP:RFC doesn't say others can end the Rfc, like the other Rfc you've been stalking whom I told the user to close it down. Fourth, the outcome is determined by weighing the merits of the arguments and assessing if they are consistent with Wikipedia policies... counting "votes" is not an appropriate method of determining outcome. And I would be careful of how you address others, "winging" is not a proper word to use regarding others and might as well consider it a personal attack like you do at pretty much anything when someone disagrees with you. And regarding your comment on not stalking my edits, it's ironic that many times you show up in edits I have made, not to mention these two: [94], [95], in which you rarely or never edited. Not to mention, you have failed (like always) to address directly to the things I said in my last post. You were constantly undermining my and others opinion, even when the discussion had a majority of agreements, so I think it's wise to wait and be patient. (N0n3up (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC))
I leave it to admins to close RfCs but I'm entitled to express an opinion as to when that should take place. Oh and I freely confess, after your disruptive edit warring here I checked if you were doing the same on other articles; common practice given the amount of vandalism and POV editing that takes place here. ----SnowdedTALK00:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I belive this discussion should be allowed to run a full 30 days. Not only because it has not been sufficiently publicised in order to attract opinion from the broader community, but also to avoid decisions being made by only a fraction of its regular (and not so regular) contributors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Interesting argument. Never saw that one used before. Personally I don't care; however, this discussion has been going on for about three months now and some of us are getting tired of it. Juan Riley (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง Agreed. And interesting that Juanriley and Snowded, the two who've I've mentioned who hunted and stalked most of my edits without proper basis were to respond. This clearly shows one reason why I've wanted to extend the Rfc, because I knew these two would slither into my posts. Snowded pretty much accused me of Edit-warring when I haven't even reverted any edits for a while without providing proof, barking without providing proof and Juanriley constantly breathing behind my back. Believe me, if these two hadn't showed up, I would've closed the Rfc a while ago. I respect and acknowledge the other users who disagreed, yet I feel bad I haven't answered their questions to hear their opinions, not to mention the extra sources I have here to provide. (N0n3up (talk) 01:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC))
IMHO, this Rfc should be allowed to run its course. After 30-days (I believe that's the time given), we'll know what's been agreed to. I would recommend that a moratorium (say 1 whole year) be put in place when this Rfc is closed. GoodDay (talk) 06:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
A 1-year moratorium would mean that after the Rfc is closed, no matter the result, this topic shall not be brought up again, for 12-months. GoodDay (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The moratorium is a great idea in this situation. Yes lets go ahead and let it run its course with normal 30 days. Reb1981 (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
This Rfc has been open for just about 3-weeks now & it's glaringly obvious that there will be no consensus for adding super power. In addition, this entire include/exclude super power dispute, has been ongoing since October 2015. FWIW, I wouldn't object to an administrator closing this Rfc & placing a 1-year moratorium on bringing up the topic again. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I know I haven't responded due to my currently busy schedule but I will respond either by tomorrow or by the end of today. (N0n3up (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC))
10 days is irrelevant and I have no objection to waiting, BUT the real point GoodDay raises is a moratorium on raising this again. We've wasted a huge amount of time on two separate attempts, neither of which have gained any consensus. So are you prepared to accept that?----SnowdedTALK04:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Apparently I made a mistake. I basically screwed up what I was trying to advocate in my RfC. I didn't actually want the sentence in the lead but somewhere along the fourth paragraph in the lead. And the term "superpower" doesn't have to be included, just something that states Britain's status right after WWII being one of the "big three", specially in the early Cold War. (N0n3up (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
So, after wasting a huge amount to time here (twice) and with your RfC receiving little or no support you say you really didn't want that the change you explicitly proposed. Rather than accepting that this RfC is closed and accepting the moratorium proposed by GoodDay you want to open things up yet again? The current wording is more than adequate to cover the British Empire's history. The UK article covers that material. You seem determined to make your behaviour the issue rather then improving Wikipedia. Given you have a mentor I suggest you ask for advice before you make a post such as the one above AND before you respond to this comment. ----SnowdedTALK08:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what to say. I'll be blunt, the reason (in case you don't remember) that I wanted this second discussion separated from the first one was because of this precise detail. I thought the lead was the entire top page when I actually wanted it somewhere in the top page which didn't have to be the lead. And instead of making personal attacks by accusing me of being "determined to make my behaviour the issue rather then improving Wikipedia" is kind of ironic when even the RfC had the majority of support, you refused to let anyone edit the page. I will accept a moratorium if it will be discussed as a different matter to these first and second arguments since that's what I intended to do but screwed up by saying "lead" instead of "top page", which I admit was completely my mistake. (N0n3up (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC))
I think this needs to be let go. The moratorium needs to happen, and doesn't need be discussed because this discussion has been going on far too long now, Non3up. I completely agree with GoodDay about this you should heed the advice on it. Reb1981 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
N0n3up, please read WP:LEAD. The lead encompasses the text before the table of contents/first section header. Editors have likely commented on that basis. CMD (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what you're using to identify pages, but, as explicitly stated in the first sentence of WP:LEAD, "The lead section (also known as the lead, introduction, or intro) of a Wikipedia article is the section before the table of contents and the first heading." CMD (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
There is nothing ironic in stopping you making a chance when you have opened an RfC and only have a couple of responses in. To be very clear, if you raise this subject again or some variant of it I am going to request a topic ban on British Empire and related articles for you at ANI ----SnowdedTALK00:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The dates on the disambiguation page should be changed, pretty much as you had it. I've just removed the 'between' that you appear to have overlooked and clarified that it is 'some historians' using the term; not something in general usage. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
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 | Talk05:47, 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)
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 know this is an old section, but just in case it gets revived I'd like to point out that for New Zealand (And possibly other Dominions) the date of independence is not agreed. We became progressively more independent in a series of small changes. See Independence of New Zealand. I'm picking that 1931 was the Statute of Westminster 1931 which did not come into force for New Zealand until adopted by New Zealand in 1947.
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)
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
[96] 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. WCMemail15:24, 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. WCMemail11:00, 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? WCMemail21:02, 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)
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. WCMemail22:05, 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. WCMemail08:12, 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)
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)
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)
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. WCMemail22:05, 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)
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.
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 [97]. I'm wondering why he didn't just correct the figures/dates? WCMemail13:27, 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)
![[82]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Empire#/media/File:Superpower_map_1945.png){kind=link}
