Talk:British Empire/Archive 4

message: No mention of the Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. The enduring policies for construction and maintenance of the empire were set right there, from Tipperary to Templecrone. Ireland is mentioned in passing in the Norman section (and I agree, that period has nothing to do with this subject), but entirely overlooked when considering Drake and Raleigh, California and Roanoke and Jamestown - it was back in the Land of Ire those projects were rehearsed, and botched.--shtove 00:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland - let us in, ye hoors! 

message: the area of the british empire was at it's greatest extent 37 million square kilometers.
37/148 = 0.25, this is a quarter of the total land area. I have changed the original "a third".
Warniats 23:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check this. Various serious reference books give land area of the Earth between 148,300,000 km2 and 153,295,000 km2. 37,000,000/148,300,000=24.9% whereas 37,000,000/153,295,000=24.1%, so Warniats is correct, it is one quarter of the land area of Earth. 81.64.90.173 13:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a third to a quarter 

message: So, how did the people exactly get this number? from
 
or from? 
 
I doubt if its correct math(even include Iran)--219.79.164.159 08:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on when in 1919 you mean. Afghanistan ceased to be a protectorate in the Third Afghan War. Septentrionalis 21:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  37 million sq km

message: I think we all know that Spain lost the anglo-spanish war concluded in 1604.  This article seems to suggest that spain won however.  Can someone cite a source for this which actually names these supposed royal naval defeats?  The only one I can of is the Revenge (which wasn't a huge battle, the Revenge was just separated from the rest of her squadron and captured by the spanish).  Also the Drake-Norris expedition didn't see much action at sea but rather was a ground campaign.  It was a defeat for england but they later succeded in burning down Cadiz. So two points here,I think the implication that spain won the war (the opposite is in fact true) should be dropped and unless these royal naval defeats can be named and sources provided for them,  I think the mention of these should be dropped as well.
:The war ended with a peace treaty in 1604 - neither side was victorious. Are you sure the article suggests a Spanish victory? Insistence on English superiority at sea in this period is a Victorian delusion. It is obvious that Spain remained the dominant power, until overtaken by the French in the 1640's. As far as I know, the Revenge was sunk in the Azores battle during a storm, along with many Spanish vessels. Please sign your contributions (I know Wikipedia can log-off unexpectedly).--shtove 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And please don't use phrases like "we all know that..." :-) Facts not rumors! Piet 13:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But what's your user name, Guy?--shtove 20:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Related articles seem to support the claim that Spain remained the dominant naval power in the beginning of the 17th century. As for English losses against the Spanish in the 1590s, a few are mentioned in Anglo-Spanish War (1585). Piet 14:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that the Royal Navy has not been beaten by the US Navy, yet surely no one would deny that the US currently has naval superiority. So I question the need for anyone to name a battle where Spain's navy beat England's in order to prove that the Spanish Navy was superior. Superiority isn't always a question of who beat whom. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I've spruced up Anglo-Spanish War (1585) with a blow-by-blow account of what happened at sea (it's generalised and not exhaustive). Details of the land campaigns in the Netherlands and Brittany need to be added there, and perhaps the style could do with some tweaking (help welcomed). Guy (still unsigned) makes a good point, in that the English navy was superior in almost every single fight with the Spanish, but then it was inferior at the more grown-up task of bringing back the bacon and patrolling an empire. In the light of the 19thC., perhaps the English can be said to have learned from the Spanish?--shtove 21:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A few points. I think the Spanish navy in this period is better described as Royal (ie. centrally controlled and funded) - Elizabeth's navy received much of its funds from investors, and her admirals had a tendency, once out of the old dear's sight, to charge off on their own chaotic courses. I don't think their skill was superior - whereas the Spanish sailed around the world as a matter of course, the English had ships and cannon that were designed for smash-and-grab raids: they were effective in that sense, but only when their commanders could agree with each other, rather than acting like a bunch of blow hards. Under James I, the English navy suffered a severe decline, most likely because of the loss of urgency upon the peace with Spain. Don't know about the point on the war of 1812 - but good to see that, in a discussion on the Anglo-Spanish War (1585), America has the last word. BTW - revolutionary America still doesn't get a serious look-in here. Nor does Tudor Ireland. I am not John Bull, but shtove 00:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defeats dealt by Spanish navy? 

message: OK, I may get bitten for this.  I have done two drastic things, mainly because of the huge and unwieldy lists that followed the main article.  (1) I moved "personal unions" into British Personal Unions, and added a "see also" link to it.  Personal unions are not empire per se, and don't really belong in this article.  (2) I completely snipped out the "extent" section, because it is duplicating the Evolution of the British Empire article.  I'll don my flame retardant suit and wait for the fallout... Gsd2000 14:15, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganisation 

message: Am I alone in finding this: "The sun finally set on the British Empire in 1997 with the lowering of the Union Jack at a ceremony marking the handover of Hong Kong to the People's Republic of China under an agreement made thirteen years earlier. Britain was left with a scattering of far-flung rocky outposts, the British overseas territories, with which to remember an empire that spanned five hundred years and a quarter of the world's surface." a little flowery? Would anyone else like to make it a little more encyclopedic?  Guinnog 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Chris Patten was in tears!  :-p  I'll try not to take this personally given that I wrote this and given our previous conversations both on talk pages and above, as I know the spirit of Wikipedia is that one must expect one's edits to be edited mercilessly.  However, it's a closing paragraph relating to the end of an era - I just thought it nicely closed the article - and it is still factual.  Encyclopaedic doesn't have to mean cold and heartless.  Gsd2000 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with both of you, but may still have a crack at toning it down towards a more NPOV position. The BE is not universally remembered with affection, nor is it yet utterly extinct, Guinnog 18:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...although the HK handover is conventionally seen as the end.  The remaining territories are either too small or too unwilling to govern themselves, or too unwilling to be incorporated into their nearest geographical neighbour.  It's no longer an empire.  I don't see how the last paragraph indicates "affection", myself.  At least can you pls wait to see what others think, seeing as you have offered it up for discussion?  Gsd2000 18:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hong Kong 

message: I have attempted to fit the Phoenix/Rockall business better into the flow of the article.  The wording is slightly altered and some words snipped out, but if someone wants to read more about these particular antics they can click on the link - no need to get bogged down in unnecessary detail in a high-level article on the BE.  Phoenix Islands was human colonization rather than "colonial expansion" (the latter conjures up images of Royal Navy landing parties, when really this was a resettlement - ie colonization like life colonizes) so changed accordingly. Gsd2000 01:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am replying to this message left on my talk page: "I must say, I find it highly ironic that you are claiming OR (in your edit comment - "Nuclear missile test? sounds like OR to me") for a fact in the very piece of research cited to disprove my claims of OR: http://www.sages.unimelb.edu.au/staff/pdf/Rockall.pdf.  Despite participating in a debate relating to OR and someone coming up with this source in the talk page debate to prove it was not OR, you must not have even opened it and read the abstract on the first page: "Rockall was annexed in September 1955 because it was situated within radio-electrical range of a test site for Britain’s first nuclear missile, the American-made ‘Corporal’.", for if you had, you would have cited that if you needed to prove this to yourself.  I do not mean this to be antagonistic or arrogant in anyway, but how can I take you seriously as an editor if you are not even prepared to read the very sources that are being cited to settle the debate that you had such strong opinions on?  Just because Wikipedia is mainly contributed to by amateurs does not mean that lower academic standards are justified.  Gsd2000 11:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I have not flown off the handle.  But I am now puzzled.  If you knew this for a fact, why didn't you simply change to "nuclear missile-capable" or remove "nuclear", as you eventually did?  That would have been the obvious thing to do.  Gsd2000 22:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: You're quite right, that would have been better. Anyway, please don't take any of this too personally! I was leaving the rewrite for a day or two as requested. I think it looks much better now, with nearly all you wrote retained, the less significant scheme de-emphasised, the Rockall thing mentioned, and the significant Falklands war summarised. This, of course, is how Wiki improves and evolves. Guinnog 23:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. I take back my statement about the article looking better. I hadn't realised you'd reverted my changes. I really don't like the flowery concluding sentence, and I really must insist on the inclusion in the Falklands of at least the casualty figures and the unique post WW2 naval warfare fact, as they are noteworthy. The parts about not taking things personally and the message I left on your talk page still stand, and I am resisting the temptation to revert, for now. Guinnog 23:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, lets try to resolve this amicably.  If you check carefully, I did make the last sentence less flowery.  "Remembering" empire is now the "remnants of empire" (subjective now objective), and it is important to mention the British Overseas Territories at the end because they are all that's left of it - I wasn't sure why you excised this sentence completely.  Re quoting military details, they need only be quoted where they are relevant to the article at hand, for the reader can click on the Falklands War to see the military details.  The effect of the Falklands War on Britain's international status is very relevant to an article on the British Empire (you snipped this out), yet how many people died and which battalions did the fighting is not.  It is, however, vital to mention this in the Falklands War article, and any failure to do so would be utterly crazy.  So I'm absolutely not disputing your facts, or the importance of your facts, or whether they should be included in Wikipedia, and I'm not demeaning the deaths of the soldiers involved, I'm just disputing the relevance of those facts in this particular article.  Gsd2000 00:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've [[Be bold in updating pages|been bold]] 

message: Lawrence James, Rise and Fall of the British Empire: "The reconquest of the Falkland Isalnds at the end of May 1982...gave a fresh lustre to national self-esteem... Overnight Britain had been transformed from a passive nation, an international has-been, into a power to be reckoned with.  What had been, in effect, Britain's last imperial war... reversed a string of humiliations going back to Suez."
Daniel K Gibran, The Falklands War: Britain Versus the Past in the South Atlantic, p115: "The fight ... boosted Britain's international standing.... Alan Clark..told an interviewer that in his view the Falklands War 'has enormously increased our world standing.  You asked about world opinion - I mean, bugger world opinion - but our standing in the world has been totally altered by this.  It has made every other member of NATO say "My God, the British are tough"'".
Gsd2000 23:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a fan of Clarke, but I wouldn't rely upon his world-vision: "Japanese will become the language of the élite" (c.1985). The passages from James and Gibran quoted above have a Sunday-supplement ripeness about them - anyone for a book-promotion? They are perfect Sunday Times gibberish (the organ for dissemination of "intelligence-lite", as described in evidence to the Hutton inquiry). State the facts and let the reader decide.--shtove 00:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but this article begins "The British Empire was, at one time, the foremost global power".  Is this a fact?  Who says it was the foremost global power?  Further on, "During the long period of unbroken Whig dominance...the Empire became less important and less well-regarded".  Is that a fact?  By whom was it so regarded?  Is "white settler colonies in Canada and Australasia whose British or European inhabitants were seen as outposts of the "mother country" a fact?  Who saw them as that?  How factual is "The British East India Company was probably the most successful chapter in the British Empire's history."?  Again, who says so?  If you wish to strip this article down to bare bones facts it will read like a list of dates.  Gsd2000 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but a balance needs to be struck. There is a slightly Anglocentric tone to quite a lot of this article; let's try to trim this and make it more encyclopedic. Whether Alan Clark is regarded as an authoritative source on the subject is certainly debatable too. Take out the POV, without making it a list of dates, and this will be a better, leaner article. Guinnog 00:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does the sentence read now?  BTW I don't view Alan Clark as encyclopaedic either, it was more the bit before he was quoted, and I missed out an intermediary sentence saying words to the effect of "this was not lost on some of Britain's politicians". :) Gsd2000 00:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The wording "The British Empire was, at one time, the foremost global power" is what emerged after a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with the old wording which was something like "The British Empire was the world's first global power" (i.e. able to exert power on a global scale). It kept getting removed by people wanting to assert the prior global scope of the empires of Portugal or Spain. Jooler 09:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source supporting the claim that the Falklands War reversed a downward trend in Britain's status as a world power 

message: According to Simon Smith in British Imperialism (referring to another text), the British Dominions Secretary Clement Attlee informed Curtin that "Your greatest support in this hour of peril must be drawn from the United States" after the fall of Singapore.  In the article though it says that Curtin wrote in a national newspaper the year before that Australia should look to the US for its defence.  Can a source be provided for that?  Gsd2000 20:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ps I said "Churchill" in the edit comment, I meant Curtin! Gsd2000 20:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defence of Australia 

message: There is currently a bit of an agenda going on, primarily from User:24.9.78.176 (check his comments here and here) from what ive seen, which persistently makes changes to the List of largest empires, Mongol Empire and now the British Empire (see here ) with the aim of placing the Mongol Empire erroneously as the largest empire in history. Neither Empire or indeed Empires generally are my area really i just stumbled across the suspect changes while reading casually so i thought it best to bring this to the attention of users who are probably more involved/concerned with these pages than i am so that an eye can be kept on them. siarach 14:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro-Mongol/Anti-British POV 

message: I think it is a mistake to include information about Ireland in this article. Because it was an important constituent nation of the United Kingdom and was actually represented in the British Parliament, where it elected its own members. I know that it did not have full equality with England and Scotland in the U.K. to the extent that the different states in the USA such as New York and Pennsylvania have full equality with each other. And I know that the union was unpopular with most people in Ireland and the British were harsh on the people of Ireland sometimes. But since Ireland was represented in the British Parliament and the Irish people could vote in elections for seats to Parliament it was certainly not a mere British colonial possession like India was. 
FDR  |   My Talk 1:16 AM May 24, 2006 (UTC)
: Take a look at discussion about Ireland in section 42 above, Talk: British Empire #Map showing France as an English "possession" and axis territories as British, about half-way down.--Shtove 05:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ireland only became part of the UK on the Act of Union in 1801 - before that it had it's own parliament. Before 1541 it wasn't even a kingdom, but a lordship. The reason it's included in the 16thC context is to show how the colonial empire undertook its first "adventure". So I think it's not a mistake to include it in this limited way - if the impression is given that it continued as a colonial possession (certainly post-1801), then that should be corrected.--Shtove 14:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure - I try to stick to history and avoid politics. It won't go without a fight. Maybe Jdorney will be helpful.--Shtove 23:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ireland 

message: There's been quite a bit in the English press about a reassertion of Britain's imperial role - this time "benevolent", according to government thinking. Is there an article on this resurgence/recrudescence, or should it be addressed here?--Shtove 21:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely it's a bit difficult to have an Imperial role when the Empire currently consists of ... the Isle of Wight? -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And downtown Basra too. Le Isle of Wight rocks, Tony.--Shtove 00:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit more than that Derek. Anyway, if this story merits a mention then it should probably appear here, although I can see it might irritate certain people. Can you provide some links? Wiki-Ed 09:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well maybe a little more: the Falklands, Diego Garcia and sundry other bits and pieces, but nothing as big as the Isle of Wight... <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm thinking of stuff like Euston manifesto.--Shtove 11:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A worthy document but, according to our article on it, its authors intended it to promote liberal democracy rather than imperial hegemony. I note that our article also manages to describe it without using the words "imperial" or "empire" even once, so, to say the least, its connections with the British Empire aren't strong. "Imperialism" is used by its opponents but that is a much more generic term used to describe (or attack) a behaviour rather than an entity. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough.--Shtove 16:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Empire? 

message: I changed the two maps about. The one at the top of the page is the one with red areas, with the scan of the pink map further down the page. I did this so that the page conformed to the other Empire pages in which the same style maps are used at the top. Also, the red map that is now at the top is clearer in marking out the territories that are included. Any problems at all? Xtrememachineuk 15:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. You've put the 1897 map in the 1920s section. Also, I'm not sure that putting a 1920s map in the intro for stylistic reasons is valid. In my humble opinion a primary source looks better (even with cartographical errors). Wiki-Ed 08:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed 'em back.  The 1897 map started off the article for a very long time and looked great.  The 1920s map is horrible.  I don't understand why people can't leave a good thing alone... Gsd2000 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Changed 

message: Someone asked me why I removed the sentence about the US "joining the scramble...." The reason is that US actions in the Philipines need to be understood as a continuation of the war with Spain. That's not to say no one in the US wanted territory in Asia, but the sentence, as it stood, contained an inaccurate description of US actions in the Philipines. I wouldn't object to a rephrase, one that captures that US involvement there is viewed, at least by many historians, as a continuation of the war with Spain, which was started far closer to home (Cuba), not as a joining in the scramble for territory. But the paragraph would also be fine as it is, in my view. --Cultural Freedom talk 2006-06-20 21:39 (UTC)
:That was me that was. I have no expertise in this area, but if it was only part of the war with Spain then how come the garrison is still in place 100 years later? Perhaps it's an issue for discussion on American Empire (God bless WP), but empire is empire, in all its forms.--Shtove 23:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The US "joining" in a "scramble for territory" 

message: The article ends on a note saying that in order for the US to join the second world war there was an informal agreement for European powers to dismantle their empires? - this is totally new to me and i'm pretty sure its not true at all. In the 1940's the US was incredibly isolationist, I find it hard to believe they really cared that much about European powers having overseas colonies. Infact having all the nations rich with resources (basically the former empire states) all under one banner would have been good for trade standardization. Equally the US extensivley used British overseas territory in what was effectively its war with Japan. Its been flagged as citation needed and I suggest that failure to provide a suitable citation within a week of me posting this should warrant its removal until such a time as it can be proved. Its too significant a thing to have without backing it up with citation.  Anon
:(Please sign your posts!)  The last paragraph was poorly written, out of place and factually dubious as you suggest.  I'm always suspicious of "article creep" at the end of articles - it suggests that the adder has not thought how the information can be integrated into the rest of the article.  There is a whole section on decolonization and decline, information about WW2/the Cold War should be integrated at the right place, not at the end after a paragraph on HK when the Cold War was over.  Gsd2000 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US forced end of empire...what?! 

message: Gotta say I'm awfully tempted by all that Monroe Doctrine stuff above, and the previous item here on the US "forcing" the end of Empire, but I'll restrain myself.  Except to say, because it's Canada Day (which I still "feel" as Dominion Day, but then I'm fifty), that one analysis of post-war Canadian history is we were part of Britain's repayment of the war debt to the US; that there would be a slow engaging from Britain's longtime patronage of the First Dominion, which protected it from overweaning US pride more often than not - more or less; I'm thinking of the unsatisfactory but better-than nothing Oregon and Alaska treaties...which like the Nootka Conventions have a "Foreign relations of Canada" category tag; but it struck me imediately that these matters were British imperial relations, esp. Nootka and Oregon (both 1818 and 1846); they are not part of Canadian history per se, nor is anything in that region until 1867, in an absolute sense.  What's the appropriate tag for British imperial diplomacy/treaties?
I read through the main article looking for, rather than mere listings, any discussion of the British Empire in the Pacific.  The challenging of the Spanish Sea by the opening of the fur trade between the California-Oregon-Washington-BC-Alaska coast and Canton, which helped fuel the China trade between there and India and Britain.  The competing rivalry of the Russian and British Empires/navies for influence with the Kingdom of Hawaii has always struck me as a marvel of extreme geopolitics, and the HBC's long tenure there and Britain's patronage of the Kingdom (only to turn their backs when Hawaii was annexed by the US).  Settlement, such as it was, of British Columbia and its predecessor colony, Vancouver Island, was accomplished from the Pacific, as much via Sydney and Suez as via Cape Horn; Callao and...Panama?...were part of the "grid"; and of course there's all those islands out there.  I'm not skilled at overall British imperial history but wanted to field the idea that maybe there should be a discussion of how the empire developed in the Pacific, and how it was important to the Raj, the development of Hong Kong and so on...Skookum1 01:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British Pacific - section needed 

message: The reason I removed this section is as follows: a) the British overseas territories were already mentioned and linked to in the paragraph above - instead of duplicating information from that article why not just let the reader click on that link if they wish to read more? b) they are territories not dependencies now; c) the Falklands War was mentioned two paragraphs above.  Gsd2000 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again I removed [] sentences at the end of the article which were simply repeating what was already more succinctly stated: "The fourteen remaining British overseas territories, the Commonwealth of Nations and the enduring personal unions with the Commonwealth Realms constitute the legacy of the British Empire."  Gsd2000 03:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "The Empire Today" - explanation for removal 

message: lets try to keep the article at a NPOV.(IIIV 15:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Size is not a value judgement - it's a fact. Mucky Duck 16:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: IIIV - What on earth do Saddam Hussein and Hitler have to do with this?  If the Encyclopaedia Britannica makes this claim (http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article-9273752 ("The largest, richest, and most powerful empire in the world's history was the British Empire. At its zenith, Great Britain ruled broad lands on every continent and islands in every ocean. It was a common saying that the sun never set on Britain's dominions.") is that good enough for you?  Please do two things: (1) read up on what POV means; (2) please try to do some fact checking first before labelling something POV; (3) please stop reverting this sentence.  I have provided another trusted source that makes this claim - this should be enough to satisfy you.  Gsd2000 16:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size is a disputed thing 

message: Has the british empire been the source of most terrorism? if you look at alot of terrorists today, they only exist because the english annexed their countries and naturally they got pissed off and fought back. Maybe england should be the focus of terrorism and not Iraq.
:There has already been more terrorism against England than against Iraq.  (Of course, England has not had a foreign policy since 1707.) Similar to the Ottoman and Soviet Empires, the British Empire prevented ethnic groups from killing each other and forced them to live together, which is the only reason they're still alive to be terrorists today. Peter Grey 19:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Empire led to independence movements, a few of which used violence and so could be thought of as terrorist. But since nearly all of these movements have achieved their aims long since, the associated freedom fighters/terrorists have disappeared. With the notable exception of the IRA whose associated independence movement has only partially achieved its aim. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, less of that. In three months-three months- in 1798 British crown forces massacred 30,000 Irish civilians. The likes of you would contend it was all the fault of Her Majesty's forces. Untrue. It was all the fault of those barbarian natives who terrorised the ideological structure of colonial rule in Ireland with their mad French ideas of freedom and democracy, obviously. El Gringo 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terrorist Source? 

message: I removed the etymology.  It seemed superseded by the description of the coining of the "British Empire" phrase in the next section and seemed an awkward first paragraph David s graff 02:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology removed 

message: Can I just make it clear that there was no gap between the first and second empires. These terms are made up by some american historians who say that the american revolution effectively ended the British empire. This is in no way true, before america was independent, new france had been captured, so had some of south africa, india was being conqured and australia was being discovered. How in any way was this the end of the empire? There is no first and second empires, the empire lasted from 1600-1997, uninterupted. --Segafreak2 10:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First and second empires? 

message: Im very interested in what rights and freedoms the people in the empire enjoyed. But I cant find anything about this in this article. If someone could add it to the article, direct me to another site or just tell me here, it would be greatly appreciated.
User:80.217.114.202
:That's a rather open-ended question - the empire covered a large geographic area and existed for centuries. Quite a lot happened in that time. Generally speaking there was an increase in rights and freedoms as the empire developed, but if you're interested in a specific place and/or a specific time you should consult an article on the history of that place. Wiki-Ed 09:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rights in the Empire 

message: Does anyone have a map of the British Empire at 1775 that they copy and send to me?  It would be greatly appreciated.Cameron Nedland 21:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request 

message: FYI, for anyone interested there are two AFD discussions going on at
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)
*Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century) Gsd2000 11:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for Deletion 

message: British never really invade europe and most of their domains came from native africans or old empire -- (Anon)
:Some came from Africa but most came from India, North America and Australia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The British empire is overrated 

message: I have deleted the following paragraph from the East India Company section - it is, at best, misleading.
:<I>After the fall of Mughal Empire, there was no single entity that administered the Indian subcontinent. The area was a patchwork of a multitude of kingdoms. The only common bonds were those of religion as most of the population followed either Hinduism, Islam or Sikhism. It may be noted here that there was no political entity called India at that time. The Indian subcontinent was a patchwork of many kingdoms, and much like Europe at the time, there was no single state that ruled over this vast expanse of land since the fall of the Mugham Empire. It was not until India was absorbed by the British Empire, that the idea of a single nation arose, much later in time. Thus, until the establishment of a single administrative and gubernatorial entity by the British, the word India only represents the peninsula south of the Himalayas, known as the Indian subcontinent.</I>
Firstly it gives the impression that the Mughal Empire fell in the way distance past. In fact it was at its height in the first quarter of the 18th century. Secondly it was replaced as the ruling state by the Maratha Empire whose decline was in large part due to clashes with the nacent British Empire in the third quater of the 18th century. That the word "India" was not used to describe these empires hardly matters - that was the English name.
And finally it appears to be completely out of place - what does it have to do with the East India Company? Mucky Duck 08:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unity of India Prior to the Empire