Talk:British Empire/Archive 2

message: When converting from miles to kilometres, you have to use a formula for square miles to square kilometres, which is different than just miles to kilometres. Whoever doesn't know this, and keeps changing the size from 37 million square km to 23 milliom sq. km., please stop. -- (said someone who didn't sign)
:Let's make this explicit 
::1 sq mile = 2.59 sq km
::Maximum Imperial Area = 14,157,000 sq miles
::Therefore Maximum Imperial Area = 14,157,000 * 2.59 sq km = 36,667,000 sq km
: The area of the empire is either 8,880,000 sq mi/23,000,000 sq km or it is 14,157,000 sq mi/36,667,000 sq km, depending on the date that you pick, but it cannot be 8,880,000 sq mi/37,000,000 sq km unless you are using a different definition of sq mi/sq km from the rest of us. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT 23,000,000 sq. km. 

message: We're dealing with separate, but related phenomena. We're going to have to define the complex relationship. I have to go now, so I don't have time to defend my changes, but I will later today. 172 16:54, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about an Empire, not about the philosophy or (disputed) economic motors of imperialism. I'm tired of having obsolete material from other articles pasted in 5KB chunks where it has no place (this article is already 33K, and has the makings of a very good 30K), and where the task of rewriting them is only multiplied needlessly (how many articles does the same content need to be in?). The article links to the existing New Imperialism and related articles. Readers seeking such insights can go there. Graculus 17:42, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Tired or not, we're going to have to link imperialism and empire if we're going to illuminate what factors contributed to the expansion of the empire. The two sections that you're removing, which at least aren't copied verbatim from New Imperialism, are an imperfect start. We're working on a very contentious subject, and we're going to have to deal with many assessments that are disputed and subject to multiple interpretations. We both fully understand the controversy surrounding the content that you keep removing, but it can be integrated into the article in a neutral manner, after a little rewriting, without slanting the article toward a particular interpretation. 172 19:27, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: It is linked, so  why repeat it here? This isn't a POV issue, it's a simple matter of empirical fact: give me a single piece of evidence (not second-hand surmise) that the material you want inserted is in any way relevant to this article and I'll back you to the hilt. Graculus 20:03, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll rewrite it accordingly, as you're requesting. But I won't be able to get to it until twelve hours from now. BTW, if you chose to remove it again, keep in mind that there were other changes aside from reinserting the disputed two sections. 172 20:21, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I've already rewritten it, thanks, and I requested nothing of the sort. I see no worthwhile revisions and have reverted accordingly, which is something I do not like to do. We've collaborated fruitfully in turning New Imperialism  into a fit article, 172, and as I've said elsewhere I don't want us to fall out over this. My above challenge stands: one piece of actual evidence - is that too much to ask? Don't make this out to be an ideological disagreement, because there isn't one: I'd hoped you'd have worked that out by now, and I'd rather we were working together where there was real business to attend to. Graculus 21:47, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't avoid a certain amount of redundancy, because the link in running text doesn't necessarily explain its own significance. You need to set at least enough context so that readers can know whether they need to read New Imperialism or can just say "yeah sure, economic engine of empire, I heard of it" and continue on. But the trick is to set it up for a broad range of readers without digressing into excruciating detail.  Not a matter of evidence or proof, it's just a matter of good expository style. Since this is an encyclopedia and not a collection of self-published textbooks, we should also go for succinctness above all else, and then list all the books that readers should go to for the completely in-depth story (a list missing from this article btw, hint hint) Stan 22:33, 9 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Repeating the same text in every empire-related article isn't doing anything for a broad range of readers except turning them off. It's covered elsewhere. This article is full. And I'm not a bibliography service. Graculus 00:49, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to rewrite the two sections, with the evidence that you're requesting, when I have time, so that there isn't excessive overlap with New Imperialism. Right now, I'll leave the disputed content out of the article. 172 08:20, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: I didn't say "repeat the same text", I said "set context". As someone who has so many strong opinions about how encyclopedia articles should be written, I'm surprised to see that you seem unwilling to Wikipedia:Cite your sources; that's just basic scholarship.  The lack of references seriously impairs the credibility of this and the related articles.  How do I know you're not just making all this stuff up? Stan 13:27, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

text: Thank you. And please remember one and ten: "keep it short". Good material will have to come out of this article as it is, which is a shame. Graculus 09:19, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empire vs Imperialism 

message: The whole page needs to be more descriptive and less historic. I have moved the History section to the duplicate History of the British Empire page, and reduced the history content on this page to a summary. It is still a bit patchy, and needs to be recomposed as a summary. 
Andrew Yong 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Review" 

message: In the entry you stated the Mongol Empire was the largest empire ever.  This is correct to some extent, it was the largest ever in the lifespan of one ruler and possibly in terms of population.  The website below has figures on the sizes of the worlds empires:
http://www.hostkingdom.net/earthrul.html
The British Empire is widely considered as the largest empire in terms of land as maps and the figures from the site above prove.  If you mean in terms of population the Mongol empire was the largest empire I think this should need clarify on the pages.
Cheers
-Andrew
In terms of population is questionable. If it means total numbers present day China with over a billion takes it. If it means as a proportion of world population then that would still need proving. The British Empire was 1/4 of the world's population. If you include the Americas I doubt if Gengiz Khan did better. In area & widespreadedness it certainly is.
Neil Craig 10/11/4
*The mongol empire was the largest contiguous empire ever. Super Saiyan Plough 09:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of empire? 

message: Rather than a list under ""At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territories" would it not be more useful to list all of the territories that were at one time in their history (with dates etc..) part of the British Empire? Thus including the North American colonies etc.. Mintguy (T)
:That's not a bad idea, Mintguy. It might well get around the current problem (unless the user concerned can't accept that the rebel colonists won the war of independence). -- Derek Ross |  Talk 18:55, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Denying The Truth?
There seems to be a ruthless individual who deletes any attempt at setting the record straight over the 13 colonies in North America, his deletions never show up in the deletion log, talk about looking through rose-coloured glasses.
TwoBells  {T}
That's just the way it goes.  Some people are more interested in jingoism than accuracy. We just have to keep on fixing it. -- Derek Ross |  Talk 18:05, 2004 Sep 26 (UTC)
Whether the edit war is sensible or not and which side's position is better is not an issue I want to go into, but it strikes me that the problem lies in the first bit of the 'Extent' section which starts 'At its height, the British Empire consisted of the following territories -' without giving a year for 'its height'. This leaves two options - (1) inserting a date; (2) listing all territories which were once under British control. Clearly, if we go for option (2), the thirteen colonies would need to be listed (along with a lot of other territories like Menorca, Heligoland and the Ionian Islands); if we go for option (1) we have the argument as to what date we pick, but after that we can go for a factual answer (and any sensible choice of date would be after the thirteen colonies were lost). Who supports which option? Jongarrettuk 21:57, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americas 

message: I have some problems with anything pre-James I/VI in this article. Discussion of an English empire would surely be better elsewhere, that could include the Angle and Saxon settlement of Britain or Henry II's invasion of Ireland. The article does not explain how this background material is relevant to what resulted in the British Empire. I cannot see how the sort of economic and political manoeuvring described in section 1 had any bearing on the eventual form of the British empire unless it can be demonstrated that these acts were any different from those undertaken elsewhere in Europe at the time. Lumping a thousand years of history into one page smacks of an effort to exploit that supposedly convenient breakoff date of 1066, yet English society changed immensely between William I and Elizabeth I.
And another thing (!) How do a few shrewd royal marriages between the continental and English monarchies in the middle ages constitute 'English colonialism' anyway?.  adamsan  22:50, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fairer to say that the Empire started in the reign of Elizabeth I (with the founding of Roanoke and the East India Company, and the coining of the term itself by John Dee).  The French holdings of earlier English monarchs only need to be mentioned in order to make it clear that they are not considered to be part of the British Empire.  Similarly the consolidation of England, Wales and Scotland is a necessary part of the context, but not part of the Empire.  Naturally, the history of Ireland ruins this convenient distinction.  The gradual English conquest would be relevant, but unfortunately I can't find an account of it anywhere in Wikipedia.  --Townmouse 09:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre 1600 bits