Talk:Historiography of the British Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled (proposed "See alsos")[edit]

Canada has been added to this article but others are still missing, such as Australia. Qexigator proposes that the "See also" section includes one or more of

Qexigator (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

good idea--i will do it now. Rjensen (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why not there now? Qexigator (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, why is there no Africa section in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.153.150.218 (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major issues[edit]

There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article. Instead we de facto have a partial and pos version of the main British Empire article. It needs radical pruning to get back to the subject or possibly deletion. If it stays it needs to be about Historiography in respect of the British Empire not about the British Empire ----Snowded TALK 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OR means somerthing is not footnoted--and just what is that? Rjensen (talk) 18:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:OR it has nothing to do with footnoting. Please address the issues raised and you might want to read WP:OWN while you are at it ----Snowded TALK 18:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the rule is The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. Which statement is not sourced to a RS??? The paragraphs are summaries of what specified RS actually say. Rjensen (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It can also apply to a synthesis of material, however well sourced, which represents a particular opinion or perspective. You are still not addressing the main issue here. The material here does not match the title, it is a partial POV perspective on the British Empire. As such it is a coat rack article for material which would not survive scrutiny at British Empire. ----Snowded TALK 19:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography is about the different topics and methods historians use who write about the British Empire....Each paragraph is about different approaches or topics historians have examined and how they differed. Rjensen (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not really and that is the problem, most paragraphs are actually written as objective history. Neither is there any source which supports the main subject headings chosen. You really need a meta article or two which define historiography in the context of the British Empire. A less attractive option would be a source which defines historiography and then applies that to work on the British Empire. That could be problematic but at least there would be some justification for the subject headings and structure of the article. The individual sections may be valid and referenced but the overall structure and selection is still a personal synthesis without a third party source ----Snowded TALK 19:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with @Snowded: Most of the sections do a good job describing historiographies, but the focus/landscape is much too limited: each section, could be the foundation for a whole article (most of these topics, have huge, complex histriographies). I would imagine the reading list to adequetly research any one of those articles, would be a fairly substantial phd-style reading list.... The article needs to stay, and provides a good foundation, but the foundational work by @Rjensen: is only scratching the surface of these topics - and we need an expert (or panel of experts) systematically identify gaps/weaknesses in the coverage. Sadads (talk) 20:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded seems to not understand the difference between history and historiography. Obviously he never studied it at university. He instead pontificates about, "a meta article or two which define historiography in the context of the British Empire" That has been done at great length in the Oxford History vol 5 which is explicitly all about historiography. (and there are many journal articles and a few books on historiography of Brit Empire.) This article resembles vol 5. All of the sections deal exclusively with how historians of the Empire have been doing the job--and where they disagree (as on slavery for example). The "History of the BE" article has almost nothing on historians. Not one is named in the text. And it stumbles badly when historians disagree, ignoring the whole issue of the role of slavery, as debated by Eric Williams and many others. Not a single 'native' is mentioned, not even Gandhi! Sadads is right about coverage. This is an encyclopedia and we're dealing with hundreds of books and articles in a short space. So we give the ideas in a nutshell. Each section can someday be a full article, but we have to start somewhere and I think many of the key issues are indicated, albeit briefly. Rjensen (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you think there is something wrong or missing with the BE article then you should make changes there. The fact you emphasise criticism of that article here reinforces my concern that this is at least intended in part as a coatrack article for material you suspect will be rejected in the main article. If you have material in the Oxford History which supports your structure then please share it rather than trying to claim the right to assert expertise; you should know that is not the way wikipedia works. Too be clear, if you can show a third party source that supports the overall structure fine, but without that it is simply your synthesis. To request a third party source is a perfectly reasonable thing to do and the use of 'pontificate' aside from breaking wikipedia protocols seems to indicate an unwillingness to work with other editors. I suggest you stop that before your behaviour becomes the issue. The article needs to talk about approaches taken by historians (and be clear as such to non-historians who read it) not present itself as a history. That means that it needs to talk about the methodology of historiansin tackling a subject and use material to illustrate those different methods. Given a third party source for the structure the lede would then need to summarise the various approaches/schools etc to provide proper context . @Sadads: - I couldn't find a tag for synthesis so used the OR one, but I'm happy (and just have) to use the coatrack one instead. That probably better makes my point.----Snowded TALK 03:48, 25 November 2015
the BE article is full of low grade middle school history--it misses the main new themes of the last 30 years--it suppresses the native viewpoint --not even Gandhi gets a mention!!--and skips all the debates by historians. This article is about historians -- just about every paragraph makes that clear. It covers themes in the standard books on historiography (not yet all of the themes because it's still incomplete). "Coatrack" articles = content is about a different subject. Not true here. In style & substance & topics this this article complies well--its sections topics follow the chapters of Winks' "Historiography book & the Stockwell book. Rjensen (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2015
If you have concerns about the BE article then raise them on that article. Everytime you protest it here it further confirms by suspicion that you intend it as an alternative history not an article about historians. You assert it follows a structure but won't share that structure. Please supply supporting material, we cannot rely on your assertions alone. If I look at the Stockwell book outline, it presents a thematic history rather than one based on a timeline. Now the fact she does that is historigraphy, but the thematic history is history. So presenting that seems to me taking a different approach to the main article, here the criticism. Now you might want to propose a thematic approach on the main article. Or there might be a case for an article on her book that can summarise the approach. I am less sure it provides an authoritative source for the structure of this article given its title ----Snowded TALK 05:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded is correct, this is a coatrack article: it should be discussing the historiography of the British Empire; instead it seems to be an interpretation of the British Empire, thinly disguised as a (very partial) review of certain sources. User:Rjensen contends that it resembles the structure of Vol 5 of the OHBE, but acknowledges that it is "incomplete". I guess that's one way of putting it - if that's the aim then it has a long way to go. He also contends that this article is "about historians". I would challenge him to explain why large chunks are not about historians (e.g. mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control) and make no mention of them.
So in terms of structure should we be copying the OHBE or Stockwell or some other work? Probably not. This should be an introduction to the topic, not a comprehensive survey. User:Rjensen is critical of the BE article because he thinks it is "full of low grade middle school history". I see from his own article that he has suffered some criticism from middle-school students, so I can understand why there might be some antipathy, but ultimately we should be writing articles in such a way that people at that age can understand and use them. "Texts should be written for everyday readers, not just for academics"[1] The article on the British Empire touches on a massive range of social, economic and political issues across a 500 year period. There is NO way that any of them can be examined in academic detail. Likewise, this article is an overview, so it should be explaining the broad approaches that historians have taken and summarising, briefly, the key themes. What it should NOT be doing is judging the merits of different arguments with one-sided commentary. So, for example, the section on "First" and "Second" Empires glibly supports the period-based approach (Parsons, Jackson, bit of Marshall), but makes no mention of historians who refute it (Judd) or completely ignore it (e.g. Lawrence, Ferguson) with a narrative.
Way forward In my view the introduction and the final section (which I see is being edited even as we discuss the article) ought to be merged and expanded. A history of the historiography would provide our hypothetical (middle school level) reader with an understanding of the scope of the topic and how it has evolved over time. We can then talk about different approaches (narrative overviews, period-specific, thematic etc) and then branch off and summarise some of the broader areas (perhaps in line with, but not identical to) the OHBE. Existing sections should be rewritten to meet WP:NPOV (where necessary) to reflect the range of different views. We should have more links to topic-specific articles - many issues are covered in detail elsewhere. Commentary on the quality of sources should be removed from the "Further Reading" list. I'm not sure about listing primary sources - why are these here? Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:18, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
many students are required to use primary sources and they can be hard to locate, so we have a very short guide. Annotations are helpful and they are explicitly allowed in the wiki rules about further reading. As for NPOV if they are major opposing views not mentioned they should be added to the views already covered. Rjensen (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to +1 on the @Wiki-Ed: way forward: and emphasize a contention I have with Rjensen's last statement: historiography needs to deal with both the key critical concepts AND the authors/works that propose them, else we are doing the academic slight of hand, where the authority of the writer, allows them to make wide (and sometimes wild) claims about what "historians" as a group are thinking. Sadads (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, User:Rjensen are you prepared to work with us on this? ----Snowded TALK 18:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes I can work with anyone in adding new material here. this article is about the historians' interpretations of the history of the british empire. Every paragraph is about the ideas & empire-wide themes that historians have explored including mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control, etc. That is historiography and the topics are not covered in the Hist of Br Emp article. If someone wants to rework the lede, then let's try that. as for topics, we have 41 chapters in the Winks vol 5, plus 20 in Stockwell --versus 13 sections here. so that's a huge amount to summarize. The target audience should be university students who are able to handle ideas at this level and some will be writing class papers. Rjensen (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in that statement which accepts that the article needs substantial change to be about historiography not an alternative history. As to target audience, sorry that is not correct. if you want something for that group write a book or an article. It really is im.portant that you take on board and respond to the points above. Ignoring them or being dismissive of other editors (you reaction so far) will just end up with conflict, ANI referrals and all that jazz. You are an experienced editor so you do know how things work around here. So can I ask the question again ----Snowded TALK 06:50, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also am strongly opposed to including any "alternative history." "alternative history" is fiction in which the author imagines what happens if say Washington loses the American Revolution. Which section in your opinion commits "alternative history"??? Rjensen (talk) 18:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With caveats, I agree with Rjensen's points. This article is distinctly about historiography which is not history and certainly not alternative history. In American historiography such an article would treat say historians' evolving viewpoints re schools of Manifest Destiny, New Frontier or Lost Cause. Sometimes it sounds like those that disagree with him either do not understand the distinction between history and historiography or feel perhaps that historiography is not a suitable subject for WP. If the latter well say so. Juan Riley (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography is inherently subjective (well, more so than normal), which means it requires careful handling, but there should be an article on this topic. We have said this already. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-ed makes false charges: large chunks are not about historians (e.g. mercantilism, benevolence, public health, religion, indirect control) and make no mention of them. these sections all deal with the concepts developed by two dozen scholars, all cites in the footnotes: Hecksher, LaHaye, Hansen, Hill, Nester, Stout, Savelle, Frieden, Marrison, Howe, Etherington, Bell, Gilbert, Tiffin, Peckham, Worboys, Farley. etc. etc. Rjensen (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding material after I've made "charges" does not alter the fact that it wasn't there to begin with. I can use the "View History" tab as well as anyone else. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it was an article on historiography then it would include summary of the various approaches over the ages. What it actually does is summarise only one of those, namely a thematic approach; which is why several of us are concerned that it is simply (or at least in part) an alternative to the British Empire article. The selection of sources seems to come from Rjensen as well. I'm picking the Oxford reference from the bookshop tomorrow and will see what that actually provides by way of a possible metastructure. ----Snowded TALK 00:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Historiography is usually done topic by topic instead of looking at the books of 1910s on all topics, then the books in 1920s onm all topics, etc to 2010s. the standard RS = the two books edited by Winks on the Historiog of the Brit Empire and they are organized by themes. So we follow the RS here but Snowded rejects the RS method. The overlap here with the BE article is minimal (the First-Second Empire topic is the only overlap) otherwise the BE article has very little historiography. Snowded now admits he never looked at the RS on historiography--all his comments are based on ignorance of the RS on historiography. Maybe he will get enlightened tomorrow. The topic sections are mostly chronological by the way--look at "Theories of imperialism" "Slavery " "13 American colonies" "India" -- ie by chronology inside the topic. Rjensen (talk) 02:46, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks again I see, seems to be your modus operandi. I suggest you make a personal resolution to stop that. The point I made above was that an article on historiography should reflect approaches over time not just a contemporary one and that it should not replicate an actual history, other than by way of illustration. I've bought one of the books you cite to check your structure (given that you would not respond to an earlier request for support). That does not alter the substantial point which you seem to feel you don't have to answer given your 'superior' knowledge. ----Snowded TALK 06:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question to @Rjensen:[edit]

Do you accept that the Historiography article is an accurate summary of the various approaches within the field? ----Snowded TALK 07:50, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general yes. I just now glanced through and did not spot any obvious errors. -- though I skipped over section 2 on "Premodern history" which I'm not too familiar with. Rjensen (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK so if we look at that and the Oxford Historiography introduction you cite then you should start to see why several of us have problems here. There is nothing in the article about the Whigs, Marxism, Gibbon etc. etc. Instead what we have is a selection of material from a thematic school of interpretation, and a partial selection at that. An article on how historians have responded to the British Empire can not be a summary of how one school of thought sees that summary. ----Snowded TALK 13:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You made that up--there are no editors who have expressed those concerns. The Whigs & Gibbon did not write about the British Empire. & the scholars who did had a disdain for old-fashioned Whiggish history (Winks p 8). Re the Marxists: The most important Marxist re the Brit Empire is Eric Williams, and he is covered at great length at text with notes 49-56. Lenin is also there (see text at fn 38). Marxist history is very important in British history, but not so much on the Empire. For example The Cambridge Marxist historian Victor G. Kiernan wrote about British Diplomacy in China, -- but China is not part of the BrEmp. The Winks book mentions the Marxists on pp 644-45 -- and says their approach became defunct decade ago (p 645). Rjensen (talk) 21:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your principle source spends a lot of his introductory chapter talking about Whig history as well as the influence of Gibbon in respect of the historiography of the Empire; I have it in front of me as I write. Yes you mention some marxists views but you do in the context of a thematic approach. So you are choosing one way in which historians talk about the Empire when the article should look at it for various perspectives. Two other experienced editors have expressed concern about the article so I'm not making that up, you are simply not paying attention. You seem to have a substantial issue in accepting that there might be other perspectives here. If this is to be a wikipedia article then it needs to be structured based on the main ways in which historians have interpreted the Empire over time, not just a modern American thematic approach assimilating those sources it finds useful. ----Snowded TALK 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)----Snowded TALK 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gibbon indeed influenced most historians but he had zero to say on the Brit Empire, so there is no need to mention him. The Marxists are indeed covered. As for "other perspectives" why please ADD them--new coverage would be welcome. You have never added new ideas to either this article not the BritEmpire article so I think your writing experience is pretty slim to base recommendations upon. In a word I don't expect to see you adding any perspectives to this article--but go ahead and try. Just don't try to erase material that's there. Rjensen (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your main source on the subject devotes several pages to the impact of Gibbon on the historiography of the British Empire so there is a need to mention him. That is also only one example of your neglect of aspects of the subject you disagree with. You need to get your head around the fact that I am challenging the basic structure you are seeking to impose on the article. Further, per the tags, that you are in effect writing something which is a loose collection based on a particular perspective on historiography which is not the purpose of wikipedia. I am not going to add material to a flawed structure which is at least in part a coat rack article. Now are you prepared to engage in an open debate about the article structure or are you simply going to take the I am the expert and have contributed the content so go away attitude which has characterised your responses todate? If so then we may be into whole scale restructuring at least partial deletion of material. ----Snowded TALK 05:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"my neglect" --- I think you assume I have sole responsibility for the article. That is counter to Wiki policy. An editor like yourself who spots an opportunity to add new info should do so, please go right ahead. What's this "coat rack" business? Rjensen (talk) 07:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It means that you are (in part) using this article to create an alternative to British Empire (three of us think that). I'm not interested in adding new material in a structure which represents a POV which is partial in respect of the sources. I'm trying to engage you in a discussion to agree a structure which does reflect said source. If that is not possible then its going to be a matter of removing material as much as adding it----Snowded TALK 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there is very little overlap with Brit Empire [one section on First/Seconnd empires is an overlap--that's because it is the only historiography section in Brit Emp. There is some overlap in Further Reading because I did most of the compiling for both article. BritEmp article rarely discusses historians and their concepts & debates. Note that the Oxford History gives 4 volumes to history and one volume (by Winks) to historiography--it's treated as a a separate topic. I say your overprotective of another article to which you have added very little material. You're harassing me with multiple false charges. Rjensen (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As one of the not-three that disagrees with User:Snowded, so far Rjensen has been meticulously referencing his sources. Apparently the gang of three thinks that their opinion supersedes the actual development of historians' thoughts on the BE. Juan Riley (talk) 21:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one questions the sources, the problem is that this article takes a particular perspective on the subject, and does not match the treatment in the principle source quoted. Riensen seems to alternative between asserting his 'authority' and accusations neither of which encourages collaboration. He also seems to take the view that only content contributions have any right to participate which again is an error. A lot of us monitor many articles for weight and balance which is where I am coming from here. At the moment I think the only way forward is to propose an alternative structure for the article and get the communities agreement to that (or rejection). A lot better if we could just have a little collaboration and a little less defensiveness/dismissiveness.----Snowded TALK 07:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"particular perspective on the subject" is not true. What does it refer to? Rjensen (talk) 07:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To User:Snowded: Forgive me but your explanation above sounds as if you are saying that the edits of Rjensen are suspect because they do not agree with your perception of what "group think" will find on the matter. Quite contrary to that the WP program is: Read the sources, study the material, contribute with RS. All there is to it. Juan Riley (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article on historiography in wikipedia covers a range of perspectives that are not covered in this article. The structure of the main reference quoted is not followed. Just having a personal collection material albeit supported by reliable sources does not match the title of the article or satisfy NPOV and WEIGHT issues. I'll run through this in a few days time when I have the space to go through the Oxford book in more detail and I'll suggest a structure then. ----Snowded TALK 23:30, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat my question to Snowded: he alleges a "particular perspective on the subject". That is not true. What does it refer to? Rjensen (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat the point, you are taking a thematic perspective and within that simply assembling statements about individual historians. In effect you are creating an alternative history article based on a particular school of thought within the general field of historiography, rather than writing an article on historiography from a neutral point of view. As I say I did you the courtesy of buying the book you think is the main authority so when I get time to go through that in detail this week I will summarise what that source says about the subject based on my reading and suggest a structure. At that point we can reach an agreement or not, if not then its a a RFC followed by dispute procedures if needed. ----Snowded TALK 00:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And until or unless you read that one book, your objections have been because of your opinions? Nice admission. Juan Riley (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No my objections have been that this seemed to be creating an alternative history (a view shared with other editors). I asked for support for the structure and was referenced to a particular book so I have bought that to check out the claims. Working from references is what we do around here. ----Snowded TALK 00:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded speaks of "thematic perspective" --that is meaningless. this article has chronological, thematic, and regional sections, as is standard in the RS. "based on a particular school of thought" is false--what school is that??? you have never said. You bought a book last week--well it's pretty hard sledding and I expect it will take you a few months to discover the mysterious "particular school of thought" that I supposedly belonged to. You complained that this article is incongruent with the Wiki article on Historiography. Actually, I wrote most of the Historiography article over a period of 10 years and don't see any incongruities whatsoever. Rjensen (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere. I bought the book for an overview and structure of the subject as you were not prepared to provide that in response to questions on the talk page. Months are not required for that task and any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. Its not a unique distinction to your subject. However if you choose to continue to be confrontational and exhibit the common characteristics of ownership then things will have to go their normal course. ----Snowded TALK 00:22, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not that my opinion counts for much but you, Snowded, appear to be painting yourself as a character from an Orwell novel. I am sure that is not intentional. Please pause and think about you are saying. Juan Riley (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Your opinion on content counts as much as any other editors. However making personal remarks is generally a mistake and I suggest you pause and think before doing that again :-) I have thought carefully about my contributions here and I am doing my best to engage Rjensen, but if I can't I can't. Hopefully we can focus this on content and stop the personal comments, especially bringing innuendo about Orwell into play; please ..... ----Snowded TALK 00:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki relies on RS and Snowded has never cited one apart from his newly purchased book. That's a bad start when working on an advanced topic like historiography that is usually taught to history PhD and MA candidates in graduate school. As for being aggressive: you have falsely alleged all sorts of ridiculous claims that you have never tried to support. for example WP:COATRACK and WP:POVFORK -- actually this article did not emerge from a dispute but has been around since October 2008. So let's drop this WP:POVFORK allegation now. Rjensen (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm commenting on the structure of the article and checking the source you quoted to see if gives a starting point for improvement. Comments on Coatrack are claims based on content and are shared with two other editors. If you just want to ignore those views fine, your call on how you want to work around here. Being aggressive would have involved removing large parts of content. I'm deliberately not doing that, but starting with structure and focus. ----Snowded TALK 00:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
please drop the wp:POVFORK allegation-- it's totally false and you have never tried to justify it. Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think you are taking writing an alternative to the main article based on your own selection of sources, within the structure of one approach to writing history. If you can think of a better tag I'm open to using it. ----Snowded TALK 06:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1) there is a difference between history articles (on events) and historiographical ideas (on historians & their models). 2) "within the structure of one approach" is your nonsense--what one approach is that???? Many different historiographical approaches are covered. Rjensen (talk) 07:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is organised by themes, not by approaches. So within a thematic structure you then describe (in part) some of the other approaches). its the wrong way round. Try to stop using words like nonsense, your conduct is as much a problem here as the content issues and makes it more difficult to resolve. You are effectively writing this article the way you (from your school of history) would teach the subject. Please try and understand that, you might disagree with me but it starting with [[W{:AGF|the assumption]] that other editors are well intentioned is usually the best approach. Now I am going to work through a possible way forward, but I have two papers and content for a new University web site to complete by the middle of the week so it will take a few days. ----Snowded TALK 07:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"your school of history" is meaningless--You repeatedly are asked and are unable to identify this mystery "school" of mine. It does not exist because I take a highly eclectic approach. The sections of the article include chronological, topical and regional approaches, following the model in the Winks book. Inside the sections you will find multiple historiographical approaches, including economic, ethnic, gender, ideological, intellectual, labor, military, medical, political, racial, & religious historiography, as well as coverage of liberal, conservative, racist, human-rights, liberationist, Marxist, multicultural, environmental, popular, nationalist, Whig and "new social history" schools of history. Perhaps we can call that the "eclectic school of history." Rjensen (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is more about a newcomer's particular revisionist point of view than improving the article. ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. Depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment: You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+ In view of the above, and [2] if it were not for AGF, and allowing the benefit of the doubt, there could be reason to see that the misguided editor who tagged the article[3] was intent on picking a quarrel for its own sake and escalating an ummeritorious objection to embarass, "with mulltiple false charges", an experienced editor actively engaged now, as in the past, on improving the article. Qexigator (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qexigator: An entertaining intervention but it would be more helpful if you addressed the argument rather than trying to denigrate the editor. As I've made clear above Rjensen claimed authority from one principle source so that needs to be checked against the structure of the article. A brief reading last week indicated that my concerns were valid but I'm going to do some more detailed work over the next few days and make a proposal. If you want to simply assert that you are right and use words like 'risible' feel free, looks pretty 'aggressive' to me but maybe that is not the intent. You should also check out the talk page of the British Empire Article to see where some of these concerns came from. I see some similar conflict on at least one other history article as well. So lets all stay calm and look at options.----Snowded TALK 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rjensn: the overall structure of a wikipedia article cannot be based on an 'eclectic approach. The article is about historiography so the primary categories should surely be different schools or themes adopted by historians, with illustrations of how that applies to things like slavery rather than the other way round as you suggest above? ----Snowded TALK 19:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More false & incoherent statements. Snowded misunderstands my statement that the themes sections of this article "follow the chapters of Winks' Historiography book & the Stockwell book." Take a look: the subheaders are often similar. However in terms of content rather than outline, I used 100+ scholarly books and articles, all fully referenced. He has looked at N=1 book on historiography, which he just purchased a few days ago. How far has he read? Snowded has a dismal record of rarely or never citing scholarly books or articles. His depth of expertise is based on his reading two Wiki articles--one on the British Empire which he is protecting, and one on Historiography (of which I am the chief author). The rule here is editors must rely on real RS and not rely on Wikipedia articles. Snowded is incoherent on his complaints -- his newest oddball is "the overall structure of a wikipedia article cannot be based on an 'eclectic approach." He invented that weird private rule. Rjensen (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have a problem in dealing with editors who disagree with you, or don't follow your pattern of editing. No one is questioning that your additions have sources, the issue is if the overall approach represents the field and if that structure is supported by the sources. You refused to share the source for the structure so I bought it to check out if you were being consistent with it. That courtesy is now being used for a series of personal attacks. Otherwise you should know that you cannot restrict contributions to those whom you determine have the correct level of expertise. I have made the point several times that an article on historiography should start with the different approaches used by historians and then illustrate those within themes and with examples. At the moment the article is based on (your words) an 'eclectic' set of topics, and a personal selection of material within those topics. In effect you are using wikipedia to write your own contribution to the field rather than to summarise the field as a whole. Now will you please address that content issue rather than falling back to an increasingly strident set of personal attacks. I've politely made the same point in more or less every response to your personal comments here and you still haven't addressed it. You really don't want your conduct to be the issue here, focus on the argument please so we will have two issues (i) this article and (ii) your conduct ----Snowded TALK 06:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
false statement: "You refused to share the source for the structure." No I did cite the 2 Winks books and they are cited in the article. Did you want me to buy the books for you? (see the bibliography--they are free to Wiki editors & parts are also online at Amazon and google.) As for the structure, I explained that "this article has chronological, thematic, and regional sections, as is standard in the RS." that's the structure, plus the usual footnotes & bibliography. It's similar to the structure of Winks's two books and the Stockwell book. This article summarizes the field, and makes zero mention or use of any of my scholarly books or articles or presentations. Snowded when unable to cite a RS for his claims invents new Wiki rules. Here's an example of a silly rule he invented todaY: " an article on historiography should start with ...." You made that up. You have made zero contributions to any Wikipedia article on historiography, so why should anyone follow your brand-new "rules"?? You have repeatedly threatened to delete part of the article without saying which part you think is faulty--which is the first section you plan to delete? and Why? Rjensen (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you to summarise the source to support your structure and you said no (well you were dismissive with a lot of invective), so I bought he book instead. Your response to that courtesy has been to use it as a excuse for another personal attack. As it is currently structured the article does not introduce the reader to different approaches taken by historians, except indirectly in your selection of illustrations within themes. In the lede alone you make statements about the field not supported by a citation that makes that statement, but by a personal note that a trend is illustrated by one historian. I could go on. This reads like an essay you are writing, not an encyclopaedia entry. I also note that while criticising the British Empire article you have made no attempt to change it, which at least in part supports the contention that this is a coatrack article. My suggestion that an article on historiography should focus on the different approaches taken by historians as the primary structure seems to match the subject. I no more made it up that your assertions, its an opinion for discussion, but one that seems to correspond with the opening chapter of the Wink book you reference. I have repeatedly said that the first thing we need to do is to agree a structure than matches the sources. Given that you don't see any reason to change what you have already done I will make a proposal here (later in the week) based on the Wink book. Then we we can see where the community wants to take this. But to be very clear, if you continue to make personal attacks rather than address content issues and if you continue tochallenge the rights of other editors to make a contribution because you don't think they match your criteria for expertise then I will open a separate case on your conduct. ----Snowded TALK 07:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
to repeat: You have repeatedly threatened to delete part of the article without saying which part you think is faulty--which is the first section you plan to delete? and Why? Rjensen (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've repeatidly made the point about structure which you have simply ignored. At one point I said "Now are you prepared to engage in an open debate about the article structure or are you simply going to take the I am the expert and have contributed the content so go away attitude which has characterised your responses todate? If so then we may be into whole scale restructuring at least partial deletion of material" which is a little different from your accusation. You are still not responding to the question other than the assertion that you are right. This is going no where. I have (as I told you before) papers to complete this tomorrow and a trip to Tallinn. I will come back mid/end of the week with a proposal based on the source you supplied. If we can reach agreement fine, if not it can be an RFC or dispute resolution. I note by the way that despite making disparaging remarks about the British Empire article you have not attempted to make changes there. Curious .... ----Snowded TALK 18:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
some false statements by Snowded: 1. "There is little or nothing to do with Historiography in this article." Wildly false claim from a person who is innocent of any historiography. 2) "You are effectively writing this article the way you (from your school of history) would teach the subject." false: there is no such "school of history". 3) "This reads like an essay you are writing, not an encyclopaedia entry." false: Wikipedia has a rule against :Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts). WP:NOTESSAY Every paragraph in this article deals with the opinions of experts, and at no point are my own personal feelings expressed. 4) and 5) "you are taking a thematic perspective and within that simply assembling statements about individual historians. In effect you are creating an alternative history article based on a particular school of thought within the general field of historiography, rather than writing an article on historiography from a neutral point of view.' false: this is simply garbled. He needs to read the Wiki article on "Alternate history" which shows how fiction writers invent alternate history. (to quote: "The Plot Against America (2004) by Philip Roth looks at an America where Franklin D. Roosevelt is defeated in 1940 in his bid for a third term as President of the United States, and Charles Lindbergh is elected, leading to increasing fascism and anti-Semitism in the U.S.) Snowded cannot support any of his false claims and cannot even get the terminology right. Yet he wants to dictate how this long serious article (underway since 2009) should be structured. He has been unable to say how it should be "structured" -- I believe he really wants to erase the entire article. Rjensen (talk) 01:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well its obvious we disagree on a few issues. You are also confusing counter-factual with alternative, I clearly said you appear to be creating an alternative history to the main article, rather than an article on historiography. You've rushed off to make a set of accusations without checking the context of the statement, In fact that failure on your part is illustrated in the article as a whole - there is an absence of an authority for the selection of quotes and statements you make about historians and the structure within which those are give. Personal feelings or views are a problem when one author makes a selection of material without using a third party source to determine that selection. Too much of this article is based on your authority as to what is included. To give you one example: in the second paragraph of the lede, opening sentence, you make a statement about the direction of research which is not supported by a direct reference, but instead by your comment that a particular book illustrates this. That is not proper referencing in Wikipedia terms. There are other examples throughout the article. What might be an excellent paper, or a book written by a historian such as yourself may not be a valid article in Wikipedia which is all about secondary sources and summarising material in accordance with those sources to match the needs of a wider readership. Your earlier suggestions as to the audience, and your implications about who should author this article illustrate that you don't agree with that; so we may have to test it with the wider community. Your tendency to invective and willingness to label any contrary view as false is also problematic. Remember Wikipedia is managed by behaviour not by content adjudication. I've said I'll come back with a proposed structure and comments later in the week having failed to engage you in any conversation other than your outpouring of a diatribe of personal abuse at anyone questioning your authority. It is not an issue of ability it is an issue of process and engagement, but for some reason you have been unable to see that which is a pity ----Snowded TALK 08:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
False again. all my edits are referenced to major books and articles. That's what Wiki editors do--they read the RS and tell us what points the author is making. You are wrong about my opening to par 2: I wrote, In recent years scholars have expanded the range of topics into new areas in social and cultural history, paying special attention to the impact on the natives and their agency in response. it is based on two cited RS. one of which said: Inspired by exciting new writing on race, gender, and culture, a range of fresh approaches to the history of Empire appeared from the 1970s onward....[and] have paid attention...[to ways] which some native peoples negotiated their relationship with their rulers. [Rajamannar p 10-11]. That's paraphrase & summary--and that's what editors do when they are writing Wiki articles. I note you have never done that -- your many edits to British Empire are all reverts of what someone else wrote. You only erase, you never create and so far have failed to tell readers what the RS say. That gives you very little credibility when it comes to attacking editors trying to summarize the RS. the ideas here are all based directly upon the RS. Rjensen (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No one is making the suggestion that you are not using reliable sources. The issue is the selection of those and the structure in which they are placed. You need to stop these incessant attacks on other editors as well. Some editors focus on content, others on process, original research, synthesis and NPOV, a few do both. Its all part of the richness of wikipedia. For example I monitor a lot of political articles for bias, something that involves a lot of reverts and dealing with sock and meat puppets little content creation, I also monitor articles in Philosophy (where I have a degree) and other subjects where I have referenced papers along with ones in which I have an interest or where experienced editors are needed to handle disputes. I don't see myself as a content creator not does wikipedia require that. You are a historian and an active content contributor which is good, but it does not mean that only historians who contribute content are allowed to comment on an article in their field although it may explain your defensiveness or your constant assumption that you are personally under attack when the questions relate to the conformance of the article with the overall purpose of wikipedia are raised. I suggest you take things less personally and address the concerns. I see you don't address your use of a source with commentary (the example I gave) but lets look at the Rajamannar quote. That supports a statement about race, gender and culture in a section of the article dealing with modern historiography. It doesn't support the bold statement in the lede which implies a shift (special attention to use your words) of the field as a whole. As I have said several times you are providing an expert synthesis of material which is excellent in writing a book or an article. To do that you take an eclectic (your words again) and interesting take on the subject. The problem is that the purpose of wikipedia is to create a general use encyclopaedia based on third party sources. ----Snowded TALK 09:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also asked a question earlier which you haven't answered. Given the emphasis you make on content and the opinions you have expressed here, why have you not sought to edit the British Empire article? ----Snowded TALK 09:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is another false charge of Snowded. I took a few minutes and looked at my edit history at British Empire. I made 45 edits since April of 2006, including 13 in 2015. My additions ran to about 2600 words. I compiled most of the bibliography. I also made 19 edits] of about 1500 words to Talk:British Empire, mostly back in 2008. In October 2008 the two of us were part of a larger debate. look at the last section. At the end I praised you: "I agree that Snowded has a good compromise: accept Britain for the period of Empire, but then use UK in the second half of the 20th C. time = 00:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)) Anyone here can check those figures. Rjensen (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to interject here and say that I do recognise that User:Rjensen has made edits to the British Empire article since 2006. I know this because I've been reverting them since then [4]. They're often factually incorrect, but fortunately lots of other editors have spotted this too and have all contributed to correcting his assertions. Some examples: [5][6][7][8] Large chunks which were rejected from the BE article have somehow found their way here (e.g. [[9]]). Funny that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My point related to the criticisms you made of the British Empire article here ----Snowded TALK 11:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the British Empire article has strengths and weaknesses. It's strengths are in its simplicity, it is very easy to read, and sticks very narrowly to basic dates and places. There are very few individuals mentioned – for example no natives whatever, not even George Washington or Mahatma Gandhi or Nehru ("discontent continued to simmer for the next 25 years" is all we learn.) Indeed practically all the rebels have been erased from history, along with nearly all the defeats suffered by the British military. Doubtless this simplicity is very useful for the middle school student, around grade 8 or age 14. However, the problem is that practically all the more sophisticated history is missing. For example there are no natives, no women, no educators, no doctors, no scientists, & only one businessmen (Rhodes). Missionaries get one sentence (but only the Anglicans get mentioned.) The debates inside the British government are omitted (Disraeli gets 1.5 sentences and a cartoon; Gladstone gets half a sentence; Chamberlain and Palmerston are missing. Churchill does not appear until 1941. No leaders of the dominions are mentioned. Emancipation of slaves is treated in embarrassingly simplistic fashion, with the British as the heroes for abolishing the slave trade in 1807. No historians are mentioned, and the footnotes are almost all to basic survey textbooks. That's all fine for the middle schools, but the 80-90% of the adult population in Britain United States Canada and Australia have gone beyond high school. We know that Wikipedia users are much better educated than the general adult population, so the median Wikipedia user has a university education. I think they can handle and want much more sophisticated material. The editor called "The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick" basically wrote the whole article & in terms of reaching his young audience did a good job. He seems very unwilling to deepen the scope. In my opinion, the only interesting part for persons who graduated high school is the last half of the Legacy section. Rjensen (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with most of that, especially the comment on the slave trade and I would add the Lloyd George controversies around South Africa to the missing list. It may need less and more in a sense (with supporting articles). Much of the material here in a different form would be suitable there. ----Snowded TALK 12:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Inserting the material here into the British Empire article would make it far too long and too difficult for its current audience. Historiography and history require very different approaches. Rjensen (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well not as is and yes you can make an article too long. The normal approach to that is to create subsidiary articles as the main one becomes bloated. That would also allow for different levels of readership. My point is that a lot of the material here belongs more in a history article than it does in one on historiography (and that is the essence of our disagreement todate). I'm not disputing the value of the material to understanding both this history of the British Empire, and how understanding of it has evolved over time. For example having a historiography section in the article might be a good start and would make the distinction clear. ----Snowded TALK 13:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this article can stand on its own and is needed. It would be very hard to add topics to the Brit Empire article--you first have to convince "The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick" to allow it. If you do add advanced material you will lose that huge young audience. The geographical structure of Brit Empire article is awkward for this purpose: natives, rebels, local leaders, constitutional variations, women, public health, missionaries, econ development, agriculture, business etc etc would have to be added to each geographical section, doubling or tripling the length. Rjensen (talk) 13:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is an issue and I'm not disputing the need for a historiography article. But I am not sure that is an alternative to a balanced British Empire one. There might be a way forward, will think about it on a flight tomorrow. ----Snowded TALK 13:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism might be correct, but so is the analysis of the problem with the proposed solution - adding the detail would make it far too long for an encyclopedia and too complicated for the intended audience. (Incidentally UserRjensen's assertion about target audience is wrong; I would suggest he checks the relevant policy.) It one of only a thousand "level 3" articles, covering a large geographic area and 500 years of history; it cannot go into detail. The selection of characters, events, themes and analysis is necessarily simplistic and can only ever be partial. By sticking to a simple narrative it remains relatively neutral. Obviously this is subjective, but judging by the reduction in the number of arguments over the last few years, it has reached a balanced position. The detail belongs in the articles which it links to; if we missed a trick then it is ensuring that there are enough leads to those articles, but I don't think that's really a problem. It only seems to annoy those who expect it to provide a POV treatise on their pet issue (genocide, or the role of X in Y in June 1685, or an in-depth analysis of a particular theme (be that slavery, gender, religion). Those topics ought to be touched on by the historiography article, but again, this should be an overview - there's a lot to cover so we cannot go into exhaustive detail - that is for very specific articles on those topics. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since I'm joining this late, I thought I'd just draw out something Snowded said above which I feel captures the problem with this article: "I have made the point several times that an article on historiography should start with the different approaches used by historians and then illustrate those within themes and with examples. At the moment the article is based on (your words) an 'eclectic' set of topics, and a personal selection of material within those topics. (My emphasis) If this article was neutrally balanced and broad, as claimed, then we wouldn't have spotted a problem with it. This isn't about WP:V, it's about WP:NPOV - the weighting of the material. Adding the names of a few historians (in the middle of a discussion) to a pre-picked selection of topics does not remedy the broader problem. If I didn't have to assume good faith I'd think someone was trying to make a target harder to hit... but that's really not what we're aiming at. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the topics are the ones RS historians have chosen to write about and which are highlighted in the historiographical essays by leading scholars (especially the 80-some different scholars included in the collections by Stockwell & the two by Winks plus several more recent essays--all are listed in the bibliog section "Historiography and memory".) As for the claim If this article was neutrally balanced and broad, as claimed, then we wouldn't have spotted a problem with it. I reject the assumption that you have a deep knowledge of the historiography. Wiki-Ed misread the only essay he cited (by Marshall), Snowded just a few days ago began reading his first book on it. Rjensen (talk) 03:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that you are following the overall view of the subject presented by Winks and Stockwell appears to be advocating a new approach to the study of the field. So in the modern day (and this is not sufficiently represented in the main article) a significant group of historians write around the specific themes. Now those need some reference in the main article, and possibly sub-articles in their own right. But there elaboration here is what is in question. Rjensen I really wish you would stop the attacks in individuals. I did read a fair amount in the Philosophy of History (and yes I do realise Historiography is not the same thing but there are overlaps). Even if I hadn't then buying a book to check references for your structure should be welcomed by you rather than being misused to try and eliminate editors from the discussion. Similarly understanding issues of NPOV and purpose is not confined to experts in the field, indeed it may be problematic. My own policy here is not to edit articles on subjects like complexity where I have subject matter expertise, but am also a leading advocate of a particular school of thought within that field. I know I can't take a NPOV approach. I can monitor, but creating content would in effect for me be writing an essay. ----Snowded TALK 04:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which paragraph demonstrates unacceptable POV? Rjensen (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better to start with the overall structure, then look at individual paragraphs ----Snowded TALK 07:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot identify a single section with a POV problem--not one???? You just invented the allegation for the purpose of harassment and disruptive editing. Rjensen (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much more of this and I'm going to make an ANI case against you for personal attacks, ownership issues and a few other problems beside, and keep that separate from the content issue here. Several of your comments to me and other editors are more or less identical to ones that have resulted in bans for editors before. To your question, most of the sections have some POV issues in terms of what is selected and weight, but that is not the place to start. Per multiple previous comments the overall structure is POV of itself and is not supported by references other than your personal synthesis of material you have chosen. Once we sort that out we can address the detailed comments. I clearly indicated above that I trying to work to a solution that includes legitimate material in other articles while keeping this one focused on its subjects. But I am rapidly loosing an good will to working with you given the continual stream of invective and plain refusal to listen to the point being made. 80% of this thread was not needed. I said I would look at your claimed reference and come back later in the week. I still plan that, but you just can't cope with that promise and have to launch daily personal attacks on anyone with havethe temerity to disagree with you. ----Snowded TALK 08:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)----Snowded TALK 08:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In view of the continuing of this discussion, let me remind anyone who has not read the whole of the above, or who has forgotten, of an earlier comment that this discussion is more about a particular revisionist point of view than improving the article, on the part of a commenter who asserted ...any humanities degree allows an intelligent commentary on the difference between a history and an article about theories/practices of history. But, as any reasonable contributor will know, that depends on the quality or character of the teacher and of the graduand, and no academic degree ensures a balanced understanding of editing in general, editing a Wikipdia article, or editing an article such as this one. So far, I have seen an unwarranted degree of aggression and inability to attempt to understand the validity of another editor's explanation for the content of the article as we now have it. The comment: You are going to have to learn to work with editors who are not professional historians and show a little more respect if we are going to get anywhere would reflect very badly on its author if it were not simply risible. Qexigator (talk) 08:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Complain to administrators[edit]

I'm fed up with this harassment. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Harassment on Talk:Historiography of the British Empire in which I denounce the harassment that I have suffered for the last two weeks on this page by User:Snowded and his close ally User:Wiki-Ed.
The definition of harassment from WP:HARASS is: Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always) the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing. Rjensen (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there, this short fuse when no one has yet changed the article but said that they will propose changes is not helping and may not pan out the way you hope. No idea why you can't just wait until there are concrete proposals for change but need to keep up this daily flow of invective ----Snowded TALK 08:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snowded in 2 weeks now has been unable to articulate his position about alleged POV. He is unable to name a single section where it exists. Rjensen (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its the overall STRUCTURE which is the problem Rjensen but I accept that I haven't articulated the issues in a way that you understand ----Snowded TALK 09:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So remove the tags, they do not deal with overall structure. Rjensen (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Structure creates a POV and it doesn't match your main source ----Snowded TALK 09:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
there you go again. the book you bought is only one of many sources. You need to look at them too. "Structure creates a POV" is your own POV & has never been accepted anywhere in Wiki--the rule is Although specific article structures are not, as a rule, prohibited, care must be taken to ensure that the overall presentation is broadly neutral. you have failed to find any lack of neutrality among the RS. Rjensen (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is an authoritative source and there is little correspondence between his treatment of the subject and yours based on my first reading. ----Snowded TALK 10:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Structure: the structure of the Winks book and this article are similar--the 25 sections here correspond to many of the 41 chapters there (the Winks book at 700pp of course is far longer). Rjensen (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Historiography of the British Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen American colonies and Revolution[edit]

Currently the article makes references to rise in American nationalism and republican values but it seems to me that it left out the most important thing: the differences between how the Colonies versus mother country thought the Empire operated. The British Colonies saw themselves essentially as modern Commonwealth Realms: they were subject to the British monarch but not the British Parliament. They saw their colonial assemblies as having the same authority as Parliament thus denied that Parliament could legislate for them. The colonists themselves were proud Britons who hesitated to break from the mother country or rebel against their king. The British by contrast saw the colonies as subordinate to the king and Parliament with Parliament having full power to legislate for the whole Empire. While the rise in nationalism (which at the time was linked to the colony, e.g. Virginian, seldom American) and republicanism were factors the biggest cause was the opposing opinions of where legislative authority lay. My sources for this include, among others, lectures from my college courses, the book The Glorious Cause by Robert Middlekauff, and this article https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ericnelson/files/patriot_royalism_forum.pdf. Emperor001 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

yes -- Good point and I added the constitutional dispute summarized in the American slogan "no taxation without representation." Rjensen (talk) 10:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
regarding the Nelson article just cited above--it has not been all that persuasive to historians. see the followup articles by Gordon Wood and Pauline Maier also at https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ericnelson/files/patriot_royalism_forum.pdf Rjensen (talk) 10:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crimes?[edit]

Obviously, no mention of crimes. Typical, disgusting English hypocrisy 95.232.204.113 (talk) 09:33, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

that is incredibly vague, care to explain what crimes you're referring to? Tophatgaming15 (talk) 03:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Historiography of the British Empire[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Historiography of the British Empire's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Maton98":

  • From British North America: Maton, 1998, article
  • From Bermuda: Maton, William F. (8 December 1995). "Prince Edward Island Terms of Union". Solon.org. Retrieved 18 April 2013.

Reference named "Maton95":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Historiography_of_the_British_Empire&oldid=1207549152"