Talk:British Empire/Archive 5

message: I've also written this in the 'Evolution of the British Empire' page, but as the map is also here I thought it is relevant here too:
I see in the map labelled 'The British Empire in 1897’ there is a part of Greenland shown as part of the Empire. The map contains the note ‘This map shows parts of Greenland as part of the British Empire. This region was never occupied by the British and the claim was contested by Denmark, which continued to claim sovereignty over all of Greenland.’ Aside from this note, however, I can find no reference to any part of Greenland being claimed by the British in articles on the Empire or on Greenland. Looking at the map the area appears to be labelled ‘Prudhoe Land’; again I can find no reference to such a territory. If anyone does have any information about this I would find it very helpful if they could put some details on this page. --Phunting 1020, 29 Dec 2006
:Don't know about this example. But there's something similar at Borders of the Roman Empire, where a part of Ireland is "sort of" included in the map. It's against the historical evidence, which fails to show a claim, much less an occupation. Do you notice any similarities in these cases, any community of edits? The usual suspects (above) may be at work, casting back for legitimacy in the hope that no objection is made.--Shtove 01:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that really helpful and relevant contribution. To the original poster: The borders were legally determined in 1933 (36 years after the map was drawn), but there is still a dispute today over Hans Island if you’re looking for relevant background information.  Wiki-Ed 11:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dripping with sarcasm. Thanks.--Shtove 13:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I was aware of the Hans Island claim, but the map appeared to be claiming a whole chunk of the West Coast of Greenland, not just the island. I suppose I'll just chalk it off to having very unclear borders back then. Phunting 13:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greenland? 

message: This passage in the second paragraph makes little sense. European powers at the time were simultaneously backwards in terms of their administration, their bureaucracies, and in terms of their military technologies. The resultant of "backwardness made it difficult for any one state to overwhelm the others and create in empire like that in China or India”. It reads like someone with a poor command of English dropped in the quote without necessary context. Johnatx 13:52, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was nonsense. It was removed. Wiki-Ed 11:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  British East India Company 

message: Would someone PLEASE remove that absolutely vile map and insert one that is half decent? It's unclear, too busy and you can't really see the territories anyway. None of the other European empire pages have images of century-old maps, and if they do, they should be removed too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) 
:The problem is what do you replace it with? Graphics are copyright, and cannot just be uploaded at whim. Are you in a position to create a better map? --Michael Johnson 04:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The map is fine and we've had this discussion before. There are other maps of the evolution of the empire on various pages. Wiki-Ed 11:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAP 

message: The sentence in the first para, "British influence remains strong throughout the world, such as in economic practice, legal and governmental systems, militarily, society, sports (such as cricket and football), educational systems, and the English language itself.", should - I think - be expanded upon in the final Legacy section of this article.  I've made a first stab at this... Gsd2000 01:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many unsourced comments, anecdotes and opinions in this article already. Your opinion that popular awareness of the Empire has increased (due to one book) does not belong here unless you can turn it into a fact by citing an acceptable source to prove that people were previously less aware and are now more aware than they were. This is somewhat unlikely since previous generations were a part of the British Empire, so awareness can hardly have risen since its disestablishment. Your anecdote about the Falklands/Hong Kong is not really relevant and is unsourced. The material you inserted about Gibraltar might well be correct, although it is unsourced, but again, it's not really relevant. Wiki-Ed 11:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: I would be interested in seeing a map included in the article that demonstrates all colonies or land that has ever been historically part of the British Empire -- i.e. including what is now the United States, India, etc. -- as well as the maps that demonstrate the empire at various times.  Is this appropriate for the article?  Anyone have a relevant image or document?  /Blaxthos 01:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's one floating around somewhere. I think some of the links at the bottom cover the topic of evolution, and similar maps can be found at The empire on which the sun never sets.Wiki-Ed 11:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an article for this, Evolution of the British Empire.  The problem with this kind of article though is that people go overboard and include ridiculous things like the regal possessions in France dating from William the Conqueror and the post-WW2 British occupation zones in Germany and Japan.  You also get into difficult areas with "informal empire" - where Britain was not the official sovereign power but through economic and military leverage effectively was so.  The concept of a list of "lands that have ever been ruled over by a English or British regal, governmental or military administrative authority" is a list for a list's sake, or "listcruft" (see WP:LC.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: The reason I've attempted change of the introduction is because as a rule the first sentence of an article should describe what the subject of the article is; the first sentence as it currently stands technically does so, but in a rather tautological way (if I were to click here from a list of large empires, and I was curious to know about the largest one, I would be informed that the British Empire was the largest land empire).  What are editors' views of this text for an introduction?:
:The British Empire was the territory - in the form of colonies, dominions, protectorates, client monarchies, and other states - ruled by the United Kingdom. It was a product of the European age of discovery, which began with the European maritime explorations of the 15th century. At its height, it was the most extensive empire in world history and was the world's foremost global power for a substantial period.
--Comments appreciated, Slac speak up! 05:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't agree when you first changed it, as you know (cos I reverted it), but subsequently I've come round to your view.  I agree with the above opener.  It does need a definition-type first sentence.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 10:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How about "ruled by Britain"?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 17:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Britannica - "Worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of three centuries came under the British government."; Encarta - "name given to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the former dominions, colonies, and other territories throughout the world that owed allegiance to the British Crown from the late 1500s to the middle of the 20th century.".  Why should WP be any different?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 22:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK was never part of the British Empire. TharkunColl 23:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Rome not part of the Roman Empire, and Japan not part of the Japanese Empire?  When Churchill said Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will say, "This was their finest hour." was he not referring to Britain itself?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 01:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As it happens, in strict law Rome was not part of the Roman Empire. The emperor's authority in Rome was based on a different legal principle, and was much more limited, than his authority over the provinces - all of which had governors of one sort or another, unlike Rome which was free to run its own affairs. As for Japan, I don't know, but I suspect the position was similar to the British Empire, inasmuch as the term "British Empire" was never in official use at all. Churchill's speech was just using the term metaphorically - and no doubt somewhat ironically, as he of all people knew that the empire could never survive the war, having liquidated all its worldwide assets and investments in order to pay for it. TharkunColl 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to argue that line, you'd have to provide some sources backing up that view, and showing how Encarta is wrong and Churchill didn't really mean "British Empire".  Seems like your OR to me.  It's irrelevant to the BE but I also disagree with your analysis of the Roman Empire.  Rome was its capital.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ps see also the 1911 Britannica , clearly including the UK as part of the BE.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 00:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Britannica and Encarta disagree with one another and both of them make assertions which are not supported by many of the reference sources used to write the article. It is not so much a case of finding a source to say "Encarta is Wrong!" as finding a consensus between multiple sources. They both generalise on some rather debatable points; our current introduction avoids these pitfalls. Wiki-Ed 09:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: There is no crown of the United Kingdom - it's still Queen of England, Queen of Scotland, Queen of Ireland. As far as I know.--Shtove 22:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

text: On a side-note, my original edit referred to "the territory (followed by a descriptive clause)", not "a territory". Slac speak up! 02:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that's right. Presentism means distorting the past by analysing it with contemporary views eg. saying "The British Empire was evil because it had slaves". That's what we are trying to avoid. The "British Empire" was never an official term; it never had legal or specific boundaries such as those you seek to introduce to the intro. By avoiding a modern definition of an entity that had no fixed contemporary description the article avoids anachronistic analysis. Wiki-Ed 09:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter whether the British Empire was an "official" term.  It has been part of the English language for hundreds of years.  There are millions of maps coloured pink with legends saying "British Empire".  It's nonsense to claim that one cannot define in one sentence the term "British Empire", or that one should not because it was not an official term.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 12:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed introduction 

message: Anyone able to make a moving map of the Empire, somewhat like the one to the right regarding the evolution of Canada? Lexicon (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one here, though it could be more detailed.. --Astrokey44 09:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, (Canada at least) really truly became a fully independent country, and not part of the Empire, after the Statute of Westminster (in 1931). I agree that the map should move slower. Lexicon (talk) 12:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But even the states that were fully independent after 1931 were still described as being part of the Empire, whilst that term remained in use. TharkunColl 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By whom?  I'm sure not everyone thought so.  Did the British Empire last until 1982 for Canada (when we patriated our constitution)? Lexicon (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Canada, Australia, etc. never left the Empire. So the question becomes, when did the Empire end? When were people still using the term as something contemporary, rather than something that was no more? Probably sometime in the early 1960s. Or how about 1973 when the Imperial Preference as far as trade was concerned came to an end, with the UK's accession to the EEC? Any date is arbitrary. TharkunColl 21:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving map? 

message: "By 1921, the British Empire held sway over a population of about 458 million people, approximately one-quarter of the world's population.[1]"
Looking over World Population figures, I have doubts about this, given it hit 2 billion in 1928.  Can we get the actual figures from the source? Brokenwit 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "about" and "approximately", presumably because people don't trust the overall population statistics or the proportion living within the BE at that time. In any case a quarter is the nearest fraction. Wiki-Ed 10:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population info 

message: Why was the addition of more negative consequences reverted ? If the header stays rosy as it is, with no mention whatsover of what  befell some native peoples, some people won't even bother reading the article. Barrowinfurness 18:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Undone again. There may be a point about the negative consequences, but this addition is in the wrong place, the resulting sentence is ungrammatical (and to long), and there is no reasonable source provided.--Stephan Schulz 19:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it doesn't belong there. I'm removing it, it belongs in the Legacy section. - MichiganCharms 20:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, a source can easily be found for the statement* as it is very true. As for it being unsuitable for the intro... in what way? It's certainly true, and for a great number of people it is the most talked about effect of the empire. We are an encyclopedia, and the fact that the British Empire is largely remembered in a negative light not being present is simply sad. Neutrality promises that no particular POV is pushed, yet this article treats the Empire as if it were some incredible thing, which to a large group of people it was anything but. 
*And now it's been added. -MichiganCharms 05:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That reference does not back up the claim.  You stated that the BE's treatment of native peoples is a source of "much contention".  You then provided a reference espousing the views of one person.  The views of one person (which on the whole I agree with, by the way - it's not that I am disagreeing) do not equate to "much" contention.  Finally, I do not think that analysis such as this belongs in the opening paragraph.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing criticism reverted 

message: British rule has not ended in Ireland, the north part of the island is still under British control and Ireland 9 out of 10 times refers to the whole island.
British rule? I assume you refer to the democratically and not coincidentally, demographically supported retention of the Union between Northern Ireland and Britain-once more i must caution against what is quite common onthis article-statements that are always seeking to personalise the issue to Irelands benefit and Britains detriment-whatever the history of Ulster, just look at the results of elections to the Northern Irleand assembly-the most useful poll in political opinion in Ulster
It states
2007 Election Results Summary
The 108 Assembly seats 
DUP-36 seats, 30.1%      UUP-18, 14.9%    Alliance-7,5.2%   Others-3,8.0% SDLP-16,15.2%   Sinn Fein-28,26.2%
 
taking the Alliance party and combining it with the UUP and DUP-for reasons that the Alliance party does have strong, though non delcared unionist leanings-unionism is confirmed by the election results-so to say Britain `rules` is wrong-they rule themselves in union with the democratic british state Gashmak 09:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of British rule in Ireland 

message: Why is there a special section for the "Scottish Role" and NOT one for the "Welsh role" or "English role"? It makes absolutely no sense.
:Anglo hate?  That's a bizarre one.  By the time of European colonialism, Wales was joined at the hip to England: there was no separate "Wales as a political unit" colonialism.  Scotland was still independent though, but the bulk of it was England - indeed, this is what most of the pre-1707 text of the article is about.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for straining your intellect there.  "It" refers to "British" colonialism, not land area.  The bulk of "British" colonialism, pre the act of union, was English, was what I meant to suggest.  After the act of union, it was British.  The role of Scotland, as an independent political unit, in establishing colonies abroad that went on to become the British Empire, was far overshadowed by that of England.  The English role is already covered, and the Welsh role - well, there was no "Welsh" role.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Funny. I had no trouble understanding that the first time I read it :). However, I feel that "Scottish role" is probably the wrong heading and might be the source of the confusion. Perhaps something along the lines of "Pre-union Scottish colonial activity" (but something snappier) would be more to the point. Wiki-Ed 23:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Scots did indeed attempt to set up a colony in Central America prior to the union. It was a disastrous failure and bankrupted the country - and was thus one of the factors that compelled them to submit to union in 1707. TharkunColl 10:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You DO realise that you can edit the encyclopaedia yourself, don't you?  I've renamed the section and excised the post-Union stuff, which I am pasting here until we can figure out where it should go.  After the Acts of Union 1707 many Scots, especially in Canada, Jamaica, India, Malaya, Singapore, Hong Kong, Australia and New Zealand, took up posts as administrators, doctors, lawyers, armed servicemen and teachers in what had become the new, or Second British Empire. Progressions in Scotland itself during the Scottish enlightenment led to advancements throughout the empire. Scots settled across the Empire as it developed and built up their own communities such as Dunedin in New Zealand. Large numbers of Scots settled in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and Rhodesia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Your talk page contributions strike me as particularly nasty.  Perhaps you should go away and come back when you a ready to collaborate with others instead of attack them.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo Hate? 

message: is there the off chance that the monarchy reinstated and the british empire returned to its previous status?
Er...what??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.17.87 (talk) 17:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return? 

message: Perhaps I'm missing something - when did the Empire ceased to exist (or at least, when did the 'name' get changed during the evolution into the Commonwealth of Nations)? Perhaps we could add a exact date. GoodDay 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it was never an official term, that is impossible to answer. It was still used in the 1960s. In fact, in the OBE, it is still used. TharkunColl 17:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, that's true (concerning official term) - the British Kings & Queen regnants, were never titled 'British Emperor/Empress regnant' (like the Prussian Kings, William I, Frederick III & William II, were German emperors). GoodDay 18:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They were Emperors/Empresses of India, from 1876 to 1947. Hence the royal monogram R.I. (Rex Imperator). India was officially styled the British Indian Empire, since in size it was big enough to be an empire in its own right anyway. A lot of the "imperial" terminology of the British Empire relates specifically to India. TharkunColl 18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, very interesting. Oh, one more thing; there's been places where (not on Wikipedia) I've seen Vicotria's having become Empress of India on 'January 1, 1877'. When exactly did the 'Indian imperal title' come into existance? GoodDay 18:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 28 April 1876 . TharkunColl 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. GoodDay 19:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When did the Empire ceased to exist 

message: I must admit that I don't believe that the British East India Company was ever a multi-national. I was taught that in order to be a multi-national, a company must have multi-national ownership. That generally means that its shares should have legal registration and be publicly traded on share exchanges in more than one state. It is not enough that it may operate multi-nationally. Hence because the HEIC shares were solely traded in Britain which also contained its head office, it failed to be a multi-national despite its global operation. This point became extremely important after the 1857 mutiny. Because of the Company's uni-national status, it was simple for HMG to dissolve it and to take over its operations. Had the HEIC been a true multi-national, it could not have been shut down in that fashion.
This stands in contrast to Unilever generally agreed to be the first multi-national after its formation by the merger of British Lever Brothers and Dutch Margarine Unie in 1930. Both companies had properties and operations around the world before the merger but neither were considered to be multi-nationals since each one's ownership was nationally based. In contrast Unilever, the product of the merger, met all the criteria for a multi-national.
So I think that the claim of multi-nationality for the HEIC should be removed -- or at least that it should be made plain that it was a British company with multi-national operations rather than a multi-national company per se. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know enough economic history (bleh) to be able to comment on definitions. I suspect, however, that the original author meant it literally, although might make it even less accurate? Wiki-Ed 10:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multi-national corporations 

message: This seems a bit muddled. "All but Ireland and Australia declared war".
* http://www.ww2australia.gov.au/wardeclared/index.html - Menzies broadcast - "Fellow Australians, it is my melancholy duty to inform you officially, that in consequence of a persistence by Germany in her invasion of Poland, Great Britain has declared war upon her and that, as a result, Australia is also at war." - okay so he felt he didn't need to declare war. The war was with the British Empire. The Australian government did however make a proclamation that they were in a state of war. Surely this situation applies to New Zealand and Pitcairn Island and the Isle of Man etc - why single Australia out here? Jooler 00:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia WWII 

message: I've just been rereading these sections and think they can be massively improved.  Currently it's all rather disjointed: a random section on a single person (John Dee) then jumping to Ireland, all the way from Norman times to the 20th Century, to a section on the Stuart Era, discussion of Scotland, then suddenly, without any explanation, we're in Newfoundland.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did it.  Hopefully nothing too controversial.  My source for all the text was the Origins of Empire volume of the Oxford History of the British Empire.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think the British East India Company bit should be edited down - it's quite lengthy and goes into a lot more detail than other parts of the article.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes... where has my Sunday gone?  The article is now chronological up to the US declaration of independence, and it now includes some important stuff that I'm amazed wasn't there before (stuff about the changing balance of power caused by major wars).  Hope people are happy with the rather major edits, it's a big one alright .  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Woah. Major editing here. I think it looks good, particularly the pruning of the section on India which is far more accessible now. Aside from the balance and re-organisation the insertion of in-line citations and removal of reference-needed tags improves the article too. Nice work. Wiki-Ed 23:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Growth of Empire & Colonisation Sections 

message: Hi 
Section  "Company Rule in India" mentions that 1857 revolt was supported by westernized Indians like Raja Rammohan Roy. He was not alive when the revolt has happened.He died good 25 years before. So there is point in mentioning his name. Even if Raja Rammohan Roy's name is used like an example of westernized Indian, that comparision is questionable.Better to get rid of this.
Cheers,
Preetham  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishnadevaraya (talk • contribs) 03:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1857 Revolt -Raja Rammohan Roy 

message: In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of 
December 4, 
2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.  Far too many citation needed templates and, in addition, many many sections are entirely without references. In addition, it fails many manual of style guidelines, including a lot of stub sections under Level 2 and 3 headings (which probably is an indicator of failing broadness of coverage) and a lead that does not adequately summarize the entirety of the article. Anyhow, the citation issues are the most important part, and the article cannot remain a Good Article until all sections are adequately referenced and all citation needed tags are addressed.Cheers, CP 02:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Delisting 

message: Why not have a section on British Atrocities here? In India and Africa...just not mass murder but also economic exploitation? DemolitionMan (talk) 08:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a terrible idea, and extremely unencyclopaedic.  "Atrocity" is a point of view and besides, even if a standard could be agreed upon for the definition of an atrocity, it would be a judgement of historical events by today's morals.  If British soldiers killed X thousand during uprising Y, write that, in the context of Y.  Leave it for the reader to decide whether it was an atrocity or not.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You misunderstand.  I'm not saying the events are unworthy of inclusion.  I am saying that explicitly labelling them with a subjective term or implicitly doing so by bunching them into a section is highly inappropriate.  Look at Nazi Germany where the evils it perpetrated are very matter of factly referred to as "the displacement, internment and later, the systematic extermination of an estimated eleven to twelve million people".  Historians are free to judge history with whatever moral compass they choose.  Encyclopaedias are not.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No, I'm not just objecting to the suggested name: I am objecting to any section of its own devoted to this.  Anything along the lines of a list of "bad things that the British Empire did".  If there are significant events (ie significant enough to appear in a condensed history of 400 years) that are presently ommitted, then feel free to add them, in the right place in the article, along with sources.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just my opinion, it's WP policy.  WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: It's a far from neutral term.  Take the dropping of the atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, or the firebombing of civilians in German cities.  Were those atrocities?  Thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians died.  Sounds like an atrocity to me.  But what if those acts prevented even more people dying, due to the prolonging of the war and murderous regimes.  Would that be an atrocity?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  You can certainly find people arguing either way.  These are things that should not be judged by an encylopaedia.  I don't see how you can still say that after I mentioned that link to you.  Did you read it?  WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Describing an event as an 'atrocity' or as 'heinous' isn't neutral, and WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves is pretty clear. I can only imagine the conflicts as to what constitutes an 'atrocity' and what doesn't. Besides, I looked through about six or seven 'Empire' articles, and the nearest thing I found to an atrocity section was the section about WWII war crimes of the Empire of Japan, and even this example was in its proper place in the historical timeline, not all by itself at the end. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 19:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

text: If you want to go off and create such an article, good luck to you.  But did you read Talk:Atrocity?  Several people have rubbished the article and I agree with them.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think that any of us are suggesting a whitewash of this article. If you believe a notable event has not been mentioned, then by all means put it in its relevant section in the existing timeline. What some of us do object to is grouping a bunch of events together into a seperate atrocities section. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Where are any of the legacies described as beneficial to the recipients of the legacy?  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "The viewpoint of this article is pretty anglocentric. To many subject peoples and states the British Empire was caused untold misery. That is an objective fact." Viewpoints are never objective facts. Perspective is always subjective. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: This is an article about the British Empire, it's not an essay or critique.  Where does it say that the British Empire was a Good Thing or that the British were angels?  Also, have you read Encarta's article on the BE ?  You will find it has a similar tone to the WP article and does not go into criticisms.  Ditto Britannica's.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

text: "Mass murder" is also POV, one should refer to numbers "killed" or numbers of "deaths".  I'd also say "exploitation" is a POV term.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Atrocities 

message: I think the article needs to make more of a point of the true source of British power- trade. It should really mention areas that though were not part of the empire were very heavily dependant on the UK economy (e.g. Argentina, the US). Not including them as actually part of the empire of course but giving them their own mention somewhere and explaining the situation. --Him and a dog 12:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think it probably deserves its own main heading, but I'm not sure where it ought to fit. I'd be wary abuot slotting it in between the Second Empire section and the Imperial Century section since it would disrupt the flow, but I think that would be about the right time period. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal Empire 

message: In the anachronous map of British, and formally English possesions, should French areas conquered and ruled under Henry V's reign and the German areas administered after WW2 be included? (especially if other mandated areas are on the map) I'm not trying to be controversial, just complete. Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.41.225 (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A long time ago they were included.  And they were removed .  Why?  Because you will not find historians referring to either English realms in France or the military occupied zones in Germany, Japan or Austria as the precursor to or part of the British Empire.  They were not colonies.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were administered for a period, like other conquered or reclaimed (eg French Indo-China) areas, by British military administrations and given the brief period of time involved it would not be worth including them on a map, but they do mark one idea of a British Empire "high tide" and I have read at least one account that does describe it as the point at which the BE had the greatest spread.82.70.225.100 (talk) 12:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Provide references then showing that these territories were considered British Empire.  "I have read at least one account" is not a reference.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  French and German possesions? 

message: :Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg 

message: While many Americans may consider their winning of the American War of Independence as being the end of 'the first British Empire', I would like to point out that the Empire was thriving elsewhere in the globe by 1776. Why would therefore strongly advice the replacement of these terms since no self-respecting historian would use these terms unless they believe that the only Empire that did exist, existed in the form of the thirteen colonies. There was no 'first' and 'second' British Empires. Just the one- it did not stop and start just because of one revolt in one of many colonies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.100.76 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you both broaden your reading then.  You could begin by searching for the terms at books.google.com, where you will find plenty of British "self-respecting" historians using the term, including the author that is referenced in the text, Anthony Pagden .  The gist of your arguments could also be used against the division of history into periods of time such as "the Middle Ages" or "the Reformation" or the "Age of Discovery": it is obviously a matter of convention, there is no law of physics that says these are objective periods of time - it's just about academic consensus.  Even the division of time into centuries or decades is arbitrary, it's all based on a particular calendar and unit of time. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First and Second British Empires? 

message: For some reason there was a rather alarming gap between 1939 and 1945, so I put a section in. Now it needs work to build it up. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second World War 

message: I think perhaps this page could do with a section dealing with the various economic matters and imperialism (effects of imperialism on the periphery, the metropole, 'the imperialism of free trade' etc). I would be willing to add something if people thought it were appropriate. There are some good chapters on this topic in the Cambridge Illustrated History of the British Empire with which we could draw on as sources. Any comments?Led125 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fairly large subject area. I think that along with the political and social history of the Empire, economics has to be incorporated into the narrative of the article. If it's not covered sufficiently well covered then feel free to build it in at the appopriate places. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Well this article is already quite big, so if you want to add this information, I would suggest that you just include a couple of summary paragraphs in this article as part of a new section and write up the rest as a new article, Economics of the British Empire or whatever. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economics of Imperialism 

message: Would I be correct in assuming that only significant difference between "United Kingdom" and "British Empire" is that the latter includes Crown Colonies? Oberiko (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: During WWII no. India was still in the Empire as were most of the African colonies (S. Africa had dominion status). Generally people would have used the term Empire forces or British and Commonwealth forces' to refer to British troops, Empire troops (such as the 1st African Division and the forces of the Indian Army) and forces from the dominions of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada. Jooler (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage of United Kingdom vs. British Empire during World War II 

message: Is there a timeline for British empire on all continents? That would be a snapshot of sphere of influence in any year in history. At present, it is cumbersome to grasp the big picture.Anwar (talk) 16:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See  Jooler (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline 

message: I don't believe that the term 'Pax Britannica' has much currency. There are a few obscure references to its use and one from the 'The Oxford History of the British Empire', but one swallow does not a summer make. The only place I've seen it used much is on Wikipedia. Jooler (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Gazzster (talk) 23:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pax Britannica 

message: I thought an empire was where people living in other places are ruled by a single country and people live in the Falklands and Pitcairn Island and they are ruled by the UK Mike i cool (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically that's true, although I'm not sure "ruled by the UK" is entirely correct, but the term (and this article) relate to a historical entity which has ceased to exist, or at least has changed form to such an extent that the definition is no longer applicable. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually its incorrect.  British Overseas Territories are self-governing in that they have their own democratically elected representatives that govern the territory, the British Government pays no role in administering their affairs, except for defence and diplomatic representation.  Justin talk 15:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

text: During the days of the Empire there were in fact self-governing colonies, eg., Australia, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand. They claimed to be part of the Empire. When we talk about the 'British Empire', we're talking about a political milieu, a mindset, a culture, that bound the British people and their descendants scattered across the world. As with many things British, it did not end with a single event; it ended with the decline of the cultural domination of the vast parts of the world by Britain. Britain no longer thinks in terms of 'the British dominions beyond the seas' or 'rule Britannia'. So even though it still governs territories the Empire mentality is over.--Gazzster (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there still an empire? 

message: Various alterations to the Dutch Empire map have been made, with no sources provided for these alterations.  Would appreciate comment on the Talk:Dutch Empire page.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - [[Dutch Empire]] map 

message: May I point out that the United Kingdom doesn't get a mention in the lead section, which I think is notable by its absence. --Jza84 |  Talk   01:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right... I had never noticed that!  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whose empire? 

message: The antique map's colour for the B.E. is clearly pink, despite the fact that it says it is red on the map.  Given that I have seen other atlases and globes of the period shaded in the same colour (pink, not red), and indeed, there is a book on the subject of the remaining British Overseas Territories entitled "The Last Pink Bits" , I think that Wikipedia's legend should state the colour that it is, rather than what the map itself says it is.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmm, interesting argument, the map says red but you think its pink, whatever happened to verifiability over truth?  Colours are notoriously subjective, for example see Category:Shades of red the shades of red category I've added below, several of which have various degrees of "pinkness" but are all classified as red (which I'll explain presently).  Also with more thorough research, you'd have noticed that both Pink and Red have equally been used to demarcate the former British Empire, for example on Wikipedia see The empire on which the sun never sets and I quote "especially during the Victorian era, when British world maps coloured the Empire in red or pink"  Looking into it even deeper, Red is the colour traditionally associated with the British Empire (the Redcoats, the Red Duster etc etc), use of Pink is a printers compromise from the 19th century since a red background made it difficult to read letters overprinted in black, and so pink was used as a colour close to red but light enough for the lettering to be clearly legible.  On that basis I've gone and reverted the compromise edit, since red is the colour traditionally associated with the British Empire. Justin talk 11:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes it did start as red, but pink became Universally accepted and pink become the colour. This is the assciated colour, no matter how it started out, and the map in this case is clearly wrong. It was also taught in schools with the famous pharse ``all the pink bits are British``.  --Rockybiggs (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The colour is rose-pink, which is a shade of both red and pink. However, the version shown on this site is slightly different from the colour of the ribbon of awards made in the Order of the British Empire, which use this colour. I think that's about as official as it gets. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Wiki-Ed.  The map says its red, is there a need to argue about it?  Justin talk 13:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pink or red? 

message: Hi - I'd be grateful for any input at Talk:Italian Colonial Empire regarding the map.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map RFC at [[Italian Colonial Empire]]