This is an archive of past discussions. 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.
That's an interesting point and one of the reasons I vehemently (though, as always, ineffectually) opposed the change from "Combatants" — a purely descriptive term valid across all periods and regions, from dimmest antiquity to the most irregular conflict — to "Belligerents" — the product of Westphalianism and modern political theory, which heavily biases sovereign states. The current nomenclature is problematic even for colonial conflicts (where, of course, the insurgent-indigenous faction generally enjoys no legal recognition, and cannot count as "belligerents"); Algerian War, for instance, is hopelessly saddled with non-belligerents.
But, to return to the immediate question, (what I imagine to be) your preferred solution also runs afoul of this problem, since "the British Empire" itself is a purely formal/cultural creation with no separate legal existence, and thus also not a true belligerent (not to mention the absurdity of listing the UK in a bullet point, with essentially the same status as Newfoundland!)
"Combatants"? That must have been before my time. I'd have "The British Empire" to mean "the territories ruled by Westminster" (however indirectly) and French and German empires the same way. I wonder if someone has noticed that that would make the US the imperial capital of Britain?? When Canadian and Australian nationalists do drive-by flag waving, they never complain about Bavaria and Saxony not having flags in the infobox and seem surprised to find out about the Statute of Westminster 1931. Bloody foreigners! I expect they think I'm a superannuated imperialist, rather than a pedant. ;O)Keith-264 (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
We should be careful about confusing “empire” as territorial entity and “empire” as political system, though. “German Empire” doesn’t refer to the worldwide territories ruled from Berlin, but simply to a federal system in which the head of state was styled “Kaiser” (i.e., an ‘imperial’ monarchy -- which also existed, incidentally, in India). So I don't think there should be any pressure on us to list the Bavarians and Saxons as constituent territories of the German Empire, any more than we would list the provinces of Canada at the time: both were federal states created from a union of pre-existing territories (of course, in practice, the German states then enjoyed considerably more autonomy than Canada’s provinces, a situation which has, alas, been substantially reversed.)
Similarly -- and this might be a more compelling example -- the First French Empire was an empire in the true sense, stretching across the Rhine, through the Low Countries, into Italy and beyond; the Second French Empire was a risible fiction, a tinpot monarchy grafted onto a feeble, declining France. However, stricto sensu, “French Empire” is the correct name for both states, not in terms of territorial grandeur, but because it refers to the system of government of the period (i.e. Louis Napoleon’s regime was not a republic, not a kingdom, not a commonwealth, not a soviet, etc.)
Finally, it might be useful to note that -- while it may seem I went on a spree targeting “the British Empire” specifically -- I try to discourage (again, what I perceive as) frivolous uses of the term in any national context. Albrecht (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
And, again, what really irks me here isn't the use of "empire" per se, but the way "United Kingdom" is subordinated in a bullet point, giving it the appearance of a colonial possession. Surely it's much more accurate, in letter and spirit, to present the UK first, and then list the Dominions, Raj, and territories administered by the Colonial Office. Albrecht (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I would use the term "British Empire" when referring to a legal entity, the territories ruled from London and recognised as such by foreign states, after all Australians were British citizens with British passports until long after 1918. In discussion I would write "British empire" using empire as a generic term,* same as the French and German ones. None of the entities had contiguous borders or a uniform set of laws and since Bavaria and Texas aren't listed as seperate states Canada and Australia shouldn't either.Keith-264 (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
since it changed in extent and nature so much. The Anglo-Saxon empire was a tad different to the transatlantic one[s].Keith-264 (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
It's ultimately a matter of convention, I guess. You're certainly right that Canadians of the time were legally "Subjects of His Britannic Majesty" like any other (although the issue of Canadian nationalist aspirations is far more complex), but these legal niceties also shouldn't be blown out of proportion (a scenario in which the UK were the sole belligerent at Gallipoli or Vimy Ridge would be grotesque, especially when we're only a decade removed from full state sovereignty). I think, ultimately, that listing the imperial contingents below the UK is an elegant compromise–conveying the existence of the empire in the very form of the list.
We also need to be careful—and this is perhaps a sharper disagreement—"the British Empire" is not "a legal entity," but a cultural representation or, if you prefer, a colloquial shorthand for a very complex collection of legal entities. Ultimately, it's a layperson's or journalist's term—no treaty was ever signed with "the British Empire."
Also, keep in mind the distinction between territorial empires vs. political empires. Saying "German Empire" is like saying "French Republic"—one has an emperor and the other a president for head of state. In other words, the United Kingdom, the French Republic, and the German Empire each possessed colonial empires—but Germany, in addition to having an empire, was an "Empire" by the nature of its monarchy (in the same way that Queen Victoria was "Empress" of India, but not of Newfoundland) Albrecht (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Colonial Laws Validity Act 1865 They were all empires, France and even plucky little Belgium as well as some being called "Empire". If ahistorical labels like Canada are to be applied, so must Saxony and New York (for the 1917-1918 cameo). It's not a matter of culture it's a matter of fact. When the UK signed a treaty the colonies were bound so can't have been sovereign so shouldn't be shown in the infobox, unless analogous entites are treated equally. As a collection of "legal entities" one was supreme like the Emperor in Vienna.Keith-264 (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
There's a lot with which I agree in this flurry of assertions (British colonies were not sovereign, so technically can't be belligerents, as I conceded above), but much also with which to take issue. The question, I would say, isn't the historical reality of something called "the British Empire," but whether the phrase itself was something with legal and political weight. I maintain that, of course, it had no such validity: the United Kingdom was an entity in international relations; His Majesty's Government was the official state apparatus; British sovereignty was recognized over a multitude of territories, etc.; but the phrase "the British Empire" is a colloquialism or shorthand—legally, there's no such thing (the Colonial Office is distinct from the Dominions, from the Raj, etc.).
By way of illustration, the same applies for "the Spanish Empire," whose use I would also discourage: strictly speaking, the Spanish monarchy styled itself "King(s) of the Indies" (whatever that means) and, in practice, administered a set of overseas territories through viceroys and captains-general. But there was never a sovereign state called "the Spanish Empire." Albrecht (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
(Which isn't to say that "British Empire" isn't perfectly acceptable in the body text—but as a belligerent, it's inaccurate.) Albrecht (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
British empire, French empire and Austro-Hungarian and German Empire then. There must have been a title which collected all the territories ruled from London for the purposes of diplomacy and trade. I'm thinking about it from the point of view of Wikimojo rather than the politico-philosophical point of view which it seems you're doing; your analysis would also invalidate the Land and Dominion names. Presumably when the British government signed a treaty it did so in a form which indicated what it was?Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to contribute to the WoSS article look here User:Rebel Redcoat/sandbox. Tell me what you think. It is far from complete and the latter sections are in note form; some of the paragraphs are badly written, or at least imperfectly written, and there's a lot work still to be done. I have not worked on it for a long time, but I'm thinking of finishing it. If you are not interested then that's okay; if you are, then you can advise and I will appreciate your input. The article as it stands is probably too detailed. But it is NOT set in stone. If you hate it then, so be it. We can argue it out on the talk page in a friendly manner IF I decide to finish and upload it. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I am updating some of the article Peninsular War and in the process also trying to fix some of the broken citations. Back on 29 October 2006 you added some short citations to "Esdaille" (Esdaile?) unfortunately you did not include a long citation to go with the short. If you can remember the which book you used as a source and if so add the long citation it to the article and the year of publication to the short citations? -- PBS (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominations for the Military history Wikiproject's Historian and Newcomer of the Year Awards are now open!
This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Voting for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year now open!
Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81
Back in 2006 you added a number of citations to the article Peninsular War. Some of the edit were to a book by an author called Esdaile for example see Revision as of 03:38, 29 October 2006 where you added a reference to Esdaille, p. 302-303. Unfortunately at that time you forgot to add a long citation to the references section for this short citation.
Hallo Albrecht! I understand that in view of the operational separation, their late involvement and their very limited contribution, it might seem exaggerated, pedantic, ironical or perhaps downright a travesty to mention the Italian forces in the battle box, but the simple facts cannot be denied: there was a battle between Germany and France (and The Netherlands, Belgium, and assorted Commonwealth forces) — and Italy, while Fall Rot was still going on, joined that battle. Of course the literature can limit, and sometimes has limited, the scope of the term "Battle of France" to various selections of the military events on French soil in May and June 1940. The present article is however, not strictly limited to Fall Rot from the purely German point of view; within the larger picture the Italian effort is rightly mentioned and therefore the battle box of that article should inform the reader of the Italian numbers also. That might give a wrong suggestion about the effective balance of forces but that's better than the false impression that Italy took no part in the war. Can you agree with this line of reasoning?
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Battle of Ridgeway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irish independence. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Emilio Esteban Infantes.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.
ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Albrecht. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Albrecht. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.GreyShark (dibra) 07:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Voting for the Military history WikiProject Historian and Newcomer of the Year is ending soon!
Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Albrecht. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Albrecht. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Albrecht. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:37, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Template:Important Figures in the Peninsular War has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 06:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)