File talk:The British Empire.png/Archive 1

British India
"British India" refers specifically to the directly administered provinces of India, as opposed to the princely states. Since the princely states were also part of the British Empire, and are included in the map without distinction, this ought to just say "India" or "Indian Empire." john k (talk) 18:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, will change it. I think "India" is better than "Indian Empire" though.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree. john k (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Heligoland
This island that now belongs to Germany is lacking in the map Lefairh (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, will add.... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Bahrain mistake
Bahrain is the little island next to Qatar, not the Omani enclave in the UAE at the tip of the Arabian peninsula on the strait of Hormuz, so the map is wrong.--90.218.44.26 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Colouring
The colours on this map aren't terribly friendly to colourblind folk like myself. Is there any chance someone could redo the map with contrasting colours...I know pink / red for the British possessions is standard on imperial maps, but it isn't sufficiently different from the grey for me to be able to see it properly without concentrating hard! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.14.131 (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Havana?
Wasn't Havana in British control for a brief period? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.201.26 (talk) 11:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it was a military occupation during a time of war and is not considered to have been part of the British Empire per se.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing Countries
If the map consists of all the countries that have been under British (or English or Scottish prior to unification) rule or are under British rule then the following should be added:

France (When the crown of the Kingdom of England inherited the Valois claim to the French throne sparking the hundred years war). Afghanistan (on and off 1839-1919). Hawaii (February ~ July 1843). Germany (Lower Saxony Hamburg North Rhine-Westphalia Schleswig-Holstein during the Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1949 and the West Berlin boroughs of Charlottenburg Tiergarten Wilmersdorf Spandau). Austria (the British Allied occupation zones of Austria and Vienna 1945-1955).

Pleas could someone add them Thank you --Lemonade100 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2009 (GMT)


 * None of those territories are considered part of the British Empire, per the sources listed.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hawaii is. It still contais the Union Flag in its flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You can read why that is the case here.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Queen Charlotte Islands and Alaskan Panhandle
The Queen Charlotte Islands, just off of western Canada are not coloured in. As well at one point parts of the Alaskan panhandle were claimed and controlled by the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.32.195 (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cameroon
..is not highlighted on the map and was part of the British Empire. Flosssock1 (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Also the Australian and NZ Antarctic territory is missing. Flosssock1 (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a whole section on that above, and another discussion at Talk:British_Empire which you are welcome to contribute to. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I had noticed that, I'll take a look. But what about Cameroon? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't fancy doing anything about it? Flosssock1 (talk) 18:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Parts of Saudi Arabia
Weren't some western parts of Saudi Arabia under British control after the First World War and were then given to the King of Saudi Arabia some years later? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abc26324 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Britain claimed a sphere of influence in Arabia in 1913. This was part of a deal with the Ottoman Turkish Empire where they drew a line from Aden to Qatar and the Turks recognised British claims to the area south and west of the line. Britain had control over most of the coast areas, but the interior was just a claim. Then with the Turkish surrender in October 1918 Britain was responsible for accepting the surrender in the Hedjaz (now western Saudi Arabia) and also Yemen. This included the Holy City of Medina, so that Britain had to find Moslem officers from the Egyptian and Indian Army to lead the force to accept the Turkish surrender. (Arab nationalist had already taken Mecca). The Sherif of Mecca who became King of the Hedjaz hoped for a British protectorate but this was not granted. In 1926 Ibn Saud who ruled the Nejd conquered the Hedjaz and incoroprated it into Saudi Arabia 1932. It was more of a sort of client state. 08:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

The Netherlands East-Indies
Large parts of the Netherlands East-Indies were British (And Irish) colonies. --82.134.154.25 (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the British army occupation in French Indochina (the current nations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos) from the end of WWII to 1954 when they departed with the French colonial rulers? You could mention the British occupational government in Libya until the former Italian colony's independence in 1956. The British also assisted the establishment of Somalia in 1960, also a former Italian colony. But, the legal jurisdictionary ruler in pre-independent Libya and Somalia was post-fascist Italy. + Mike D 26 (talk) 05:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Netherlands East Indies were occupied twice during the Napoleonic Wars 1799-1803, and 1806-15. At the stage Dutch rule did not extend to all of Indonesia. Then in 1945 Britain was responsible for accepting the Japanese surrender in the East Indies, similarly southern Indochina - Cambodia and Vietnam south of the 16th parallel. They handed over to the French in 1946. China accepted the surrender in Laos and North Vietnam. Britiain was also responsible for the surrender in Thailand. The Italian colonies were more long term. Not all Libya, but Tripolitania and Cyrenacia were under British administration until independence in 1951. France administered Fezzan in the interior. Eritrea was under British admin until 1952, and Somalia until 1949, with an Italian Truesteeship established 1950. Ethiopia was also occupied 1941-46. At the time the details were not public because there was a war on, but although Emperor Haile Selassie was restored to this throne in 1942, Britain retained responsibility for railways and essential services. In 1946 the occupation forces were replaced by a military mission. Some areas such as the Ogaden were reportedly handed over in 1949. Sources include the 1952 Statesmans Yearbook, and 1949 Britannica Yearbook. British forces also occupied southern Iran 1941-45. 08:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

Eritrea and other territories
Eritrea is missing, and also territory in the USA which is shown here http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Anachronous_map_of_the_British_Empire.png is missing. Flosssock1 (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The maps this was generated from showed neither (see source information in the image page). Eritrea was an Italian colony and a British mandate (note Libya isn't shown either), the Oregon Territory was merely a claim.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Antarctic territory is a claim, and that is shown. And in the first sentence if the British Empire article it states the the British Empire comprised mandates, so shouldn't the map show these mandates? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that the sources used to construct this map did not show those territories. In other words, the map is verifiable.  The Antarctic territory is shown because it is a BOT ("BOTs are underlined in red").  Eritrea was a UN mandate (not a League of Nations Mandate).  The LoN mandates were generally considered to have been colonies in all but name and you'll see them coloured pink on maps.  Now, if you can put forward some sources that explicitly states Eritrea was part of the British Empire, or implies that it was by including it on a map of the BE, then we have a discussion.  Maps that other people have drawn and uploaded to Wikipedia are not reliable sources.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Papau New Guinea
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Papau New Guinea was a German colony until World War one, when it was conquered by Australia (which by then was theoretically independent of Britain). From World War One until the 1970's it was an Australian protectorate, due to a League of Nations and later United Nations ruling. So it is perhaps slightly dubious to say that it was British, even if Britain ran Australia's foreign affairs until 1941.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Cuba and Manila
Cuba was captured by the British from the Spanish in 1762 after battle of Havana, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Havana_(1762) Manila was also captured that year but the British were unable to gain control of all of Philippines. The next year it was traded for Florida in Treaty of Paris, Manila was traded in same treaty for Minorca. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.55.49 (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The British In Flordia
I think That the area that covered Spanish Florida should be included on the map because it is one of the territories handed to Britain during the 7 years war.It should be labled just like other territiores handed over to Britain after the war, Like the rest of Canada and India. I also think that the 13 colonies territorie should be expanded, thanks- Dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.183.123 (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean - it is shown on the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

O sorry id din't realise it was coulored. BTW i admire your empire knowlegde greatly, thanks. speaking of missing areas, i also agree that Afghanistan Should Be added —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.14.148.142 (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ireland and India
Is there a reason Northern Ireland on the map as part of Britain and not Ireland while Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan and Sri Lanka are all part of India? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.55.215.43 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As the author of the map, I tried to show the territories/borders as they were immediately prior to independence. Sri Lanka (Ceylon) is not shown as part of India - it is separate.  The borders of "India" reflect the "Indian Empire", save for Burma which achieved independence separately to India and Pakistan.  Ireland became independent minus Northern Ireland.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Wei Hei Wei
This was a part of the Empire from 1898 - 1930. Primarily used by the Royal Navy as a base, but it was a 'leased' territory under terms similar to other territories coloured pink here. Shouldn't it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjccuk (talk • contribs) 00:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC) A further note, I have in my office a map of the British Empire from 1920 and it has Wei Hei Wei coloured pink just as Hong Kong, Gibraltar, Singapore etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pjccuk (talk • contribs) 00:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely correct about Wei Hei Wei. Every British and world map of this era show this. It was no different than Hong Kong. But of course that is just one of many many many mistakes on the map anyways.Camelbinky (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so put forward a reliable source which either has a map showing this as part of the Empire, or it explicitly states it was.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's one quick source showing the flag ... http://chinarhyming.blogspot.com/2009_04_01_archive.html and here's the wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weihai —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.193.89 (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC) So will it be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.15.114.233 (talk) 09:48, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To repeat - please "put forward a reliable source which either has a map showing this as part of the Empire, or it explicitly states it was". Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself and extrapolating from the fact that the flag looks a certain way to the conclusion that it is considered by historians to be part of the "British Empire" is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:20, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Come on Pat F. We don't need an RS unless someone is challenging the material. In an ideal world everything would be cited, but we all know thats not the case... Outback the koala (talk) 03:47, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The map is referenced and appears in a featured article (the British Empire). As Weihai is not mentioned in the supplied references, we need a RS in order to add Weihai.  I'm not disagreeing with it, I'm just asking you to provide a source.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Where is the southern part of British Columbia?
The territory as far south as the 42 parallel across to the Columbia River in present day Washington state. The territory was claimed as part of the British Empire until the Oregon boundary dispute with the USA was settled in 1846. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.35.224.232 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Goa
It's easy to overlook Goa - hadn't I studied the subject in the Uni I still would think the British got whole India. Therefore I think this map really needs a white spot where Goa is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sorent (talk • contribs) 07:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Goa was never a British possession. It was captured by the Portuguese in 1510 and annexed by India in 1961.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I see what you mean - you mean it was not British and therefore should not be coloured pink. I guess the same goes for French India.  The problem is that it's a bit difficult on a map of this scale to show this.  (It's one thing to mark British outposts otherwise too small to see with squares, but to do this for non-British colonies would be a bit odd)   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought goa was big enough to be seen at this scale, the other portugese and french colonies I would agree were too small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.179.163 (talk) 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Goa would show up if made white on the map, and how could making the map more correct be bad in any sense? This change really needs to be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.222.201.121 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

British Antarctic Territory
Is there a specific reason that the British Antarctic Territory is not shown on the map? Darkieboy236 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia's "currently preferred blank map" does not show Antarctica.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, how about Zanzibar? Is this not shown because it was a protectorate?  Was Egypt not a protectorate also?Darkieboy236 (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Antarctica is shown.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When I posted that response it was not.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The map currently only shows the modern British Antarctic Territory - if the map is supposed to show the areas which were once part of the British Empire then it should also include Australian Antarctic Territory and New Zealand Antarctic Territory, which were originally part of British Antarctic Territory. Eggybacon (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Eggybacon is perfectly correct; the New Zealand and Australian sectors should also be marked as part of the Empire. --APRCooper (talk) 14:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So provide a source that states they were "part of the Empire". Note, the BAT is included as a British Overseas Territory.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the Wikipedia entries for both Australian Antarctic Territory and the Ross Dependency give clear evidence of their being British possessions prior to their transfer to Australia and New Zealand. Further independent evidence at Ross dependency and Australian Antarctic Territory. --APRCooper (talk) 16:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference for itself. That would be circular.  You need to show a reliable source that explicitly states these were/are considered part of the British Empire.  I'm not saying they aren't.  It's just that I haven't seen such a claim myself.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check the other links I gave. These are taken from the official gazetteers of AAT and the Ross Dependency, and are definitive. This is not even a slightly contentious issue for AAT and the Ross dependency. --APRCooper (talk) 09:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not answering my question. Reference, and page number please.  Not link to other Wikipedia article.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. The links I gave (Ross dependency and Australian Antarctic Territory) are NOT to Wikipedia, but to the official Composite Gazetteer of Antarctica, endorsed by both the Australian Antarctic Division (it is hosted by them) and by the New Zealand government. This is as definitive a link as you will find. I also don't know how to put this, but I am a well known person in the Antarctic mapping community. --APRCooper (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I saw the first links to the articles and missed the second. But having now read them, my point remains the same: these references do not make the claim that these slices of Antarctica were ever part of the "British Empire", do they?  You are engaging in synthesis if your reasoning is: (a) New Zealand was part of the British Empire (b) the Ross Dependency was transferred by Britain to NZ administration therefore (c) the Ross Dependency was part of the British Empire.  From WP:SYN, "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources."  If that sounds like I'm being pedantic, think about this: it is frequently stated in reliable sources that the British Empire covered a quarter of the world's surface.  Does that include the relevant slices of Antarctica?  I don't know, I haven't done the math.  But what I do know is that I haven't seen it stated anywhere, explicitly, that the British Empire ever included these parts of Antarctica.  (What follows is my own personal view, but even today claims to Antarctica are not universally recognised, and we are also talking about a time when these claims were purely nominal.  Similarly, Spain and Portugal claimed that all as-yet-undiscovered-to-Europeans lands were theirs, dividing the world into two.  That does not mean that the entire undiscovered world was part of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires.)   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is that prior to their being annexed to Australia and to New Zealand, the AAT and Ross Dependency were held to be British possessions by right of discovery. Note also that no nation disputes these territorial claims, though they are not acknowledged by some nations (BAT is another matter). The Gazetteer notes that both were transferred FROM British control, specifying the legal instruments that transferred control; no-one since then has disputed Britain's right to transfer that control to Australia and New Zealand. James Clark Ross claimed the Ross Sea sector on behalf of Britain in 1842 (from memory, but a perfectly acceptable reference would be Ross' account of his expedition(Ross, J. C. (1847). A voyage of discovery and research in the southern and Antarctic regions during the years 1839-1843. London, John Murray)). Of course, you will find few explicit mentions of the sovereignty of Antarctica, because it was uninhabited and uninhabitable territory, and those who went there tended to be concerned with survival and mutual support. But there is absolutely no doubt that the Ross dependency and the Australian Antarctic territory were regarded as British possessions and hence as part of the British Empire. --APRCooper (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Ross Depenency: Settlements Act, 1887 This link clearly states that the Ross Dependency was a British settlement.

Regarding Australian Antarctica: ''Antarctica and international law: a collection of inter-state and national documents, Volumen 2. pp. 143. Autor: W. M. Bush. Editor: Oceana Publications, 1982. ISBN 0379203219, 9780379203219'' This reference refers to south of 60° S and between meridians 160° E and 45° E except Adélie Land being handed over from Britain to Australia in 1933. (Adélie Land is French).

Antarctic Territory Acceptance Act 1933 refers to the territory becoming part of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Therefore I suggest the map should be amended, as previously discussed in this thread, to show both the current Australian Antarctic Territory and the Ross Dependency as former British territories.

Mjb1981 (talk) 09:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can provide a reference that explicitly states that these were part of the British Empire, then they can be added. The references you provided do not state that.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:20, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ross Dependency: The Order in Council Under the British Settlements Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict c 54), Providing for the Government of the Ross Dependency states that the Ross Dependency as of 1923 is "part of His Majesty’s Dominions in the Antarctic Seas, which comprises all the islands and territories between the 160th degree of East Longitude and the 150th degree of West Longitude which are situated south of the 60th degree of South Latitude". Encyclopædia Britannica 1911 states that British Empire is a "name now loosely given to the whole aggregate of territory, the inhabitants of which, under various forms of government, ultimately look to the British crown as the supreme head". Therefore part of His Majesty’s Dominions in the Antarctic Seas means part of the British Empire.

Australian Antarctic Territory: states that the 1907-1909 expedition took "possession of Victoria Land for the British Empire"

states "Sir Douglas Mawson ... landed at Proclamation Island on the same day, where he proclaimed Enderby Land for the British Crown"

I have yet to find a reference regarding Wilkes Land, which is the only remaining part of the current Australian territory.

Mjb1981 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I opened up the debate on the British Empire talk page. Let's see what others have to say (there is more traffic there than here) and of course please add your own thoughts there if you wish.  I'm still opposed to this for the reasons I list there, but if there is consensus for it then I'd go with it.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no discussion of this matter on that page. If you are not including them because there are no permanent residents then the BAT should also be removed as well as south shetlands. If you accept that they were Australian and New Zealand territories prior to WWII then the only way they could not be part of the British empire was if NZ and aus left the empire prior to WWII??? If your definition of British Empire is places ruled officially directly from London, I find the definition too narrow, it would preclude all territories given to the dominions by the league of nations, north half of eastern papua and namibia to name two obvious ones. As well as the thirteen colonies, areas of borneo, Eygpt and possibly parts of the raj. On balance I think should be included, but if not BAT needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.179.163 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The British Antarctic Territory does not exist as such for it is Chile the country that governs this territory. It ranges from 53°W to 90°W and from the South Pole to 60°S. Southern Hemisphere countries (Argentina, Australia, Chile, New Zealand, and South Africa) may claim sovereignty, but Belgium, France, Japan, Norway, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States do not have any right. Besides, all claims are suspended under the Antarctic Treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pollux geminae (talk • contribs) 02:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Florida
Someone needs to remove Florida, that was a Spanish Colony, not British —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.192.101 (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Florida article, Britain controlled Florida between 1763 and 1783. Grover cleveland (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Why are (sort of) current borders used on this map?
According to the English-language Wikipedia page British Empire, the empire came into being in some form or other circa 1497. I appreciate that this is highly debatable, however I think most of us would concur that it has existed and/or ceased to exist long before the establishment of states such as Montenegro, East Timor and Tajikistan. So why are modern† state boundaries used, especially seeing as the author of this map -whom I believe has done a highly commendable job- lends (him?)self easily to modifying these boundaries to suit the contours of the imperial possessions. This leads to, for example, casual users assuming, based on the otherwise largely current map of Africa, that now-Libyan south-eastern Cyrenaica is still a part of Sudan, or that northern Yemen is today a part of Saudi Arabia. This is highly confusing and, frankly, rather bizarre in a map with such a high level of accuracy. I suggest that the confusing country outlines be removed in favour of a blank, timeless map template. Laika  Talk: Laika  17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

†Postscript -if this map is to continue to use the current blank map with country borders, it would need to be replaced with the current template (or similar including Antarctica) on or before 09/07/2011. Laika  Talk: Laika  17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Jamaica
Jamaica was a British colony from ~1655 until 1962. Not sure why its omitted? --Monstro23 (talk) 01:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't omitted see West Indies bottom-bottom left. CaribDigita (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hawaii
Im no expert on the british empire, but i do know Hawaii has the union jack on it's flag and was also were Captain James Cook was killed. please add this to the map. along with captain cook dying there on the flag of hawaii page it says it was part of the empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.240.90 (talk) 21:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Claims and Improvements
Some changes should be conducted to improve this map;
 * The Dominion of Newfoundland included Labrador, NOT just the island of Newfoundland; this should be highlighted;
 * Australian Antarctic Territory, as a claim, like British Antarctic Territory should be highlighted.
 * Ross Dependency, as a claim, should be highlighted.
 * Columbia District, as a claim, should be highlighted.
 * Northern parts of Greenland, as a claim, should be highlighted.
 * Egypt under British Influence was carved far into Libya, this should be highlighted; GBozanko (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a map of the British Empire (not British claims), based on what reliable sources say the British Empire constituted, and based upon maps that can be found in those sources. It is not an exhaustive list of "claims ever made by Britain", just as much as a map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires would not colour in most of the world on the basis of their claims at the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas.  On that basis, I disagree on the Antarctic claims.  The only reason that the BAT is shown is because it's one of the present day 13 British Overseas Territories, which this map specifically refers to.  Likewise on the Greenland claims (show me a reliable source which says Greenland was part of the British Empire), and the Columbia District.  OK, on Newfoundland - that's a mistake - will fix.  And Egypt, OK... it's an anachronistic map so one has to pick borders at a point in time.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A claim is a claim. BAT always has, and still is a claim, yet it's highlighted. Other claims that were soon vested in other dominions (Australia + New Zealand), are STILL claims based on the historical ones laid by the British Empire. And I said 'northern parts of Greenland' not 'Greenland' itself. Several maps, including one used on the British Empire article show this; (example 1) (example 2). GBozanko (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A claim is a claim, yes. This is not a map of claims.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then explian BATs place on it?  Whether it's classed as Overseas Territory or not, it's a claim. GBozanko (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * For a long while, at British Empire, which this map was created for, there was a sentence underneath the map stating that not all countries recognise claims to Antarctica. Seems it has been deleted.  It states this in the text though, in the Legacy section.  By the way, jingoistic maps from the past drawn by the British at the height of the imperialist tub-thumping era are important sources in their own right, in that they reflect British attitudes and opinions at the time, but they should be treated with caution, in the same way that an Indian map of Kashmir would look different to a Pakistani map.  Much better to use sources and maps from modern-day historians (which is what I did when creating this map).   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Tangier! What about Tangier?
What about Tangier? That port was in possession of the English Crown for a little over 20 years.

Those who remember their Shorter Pepys will recall that S. Pepys, a member of the Tangier Committee, was constantly referring to Tangier. I think he sailed there to supervise the withdrawal of England from the place.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubiesque (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines
Wasn't the Philippines at one time part of the British Empire in the 18th century? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mar vin kaiser (talk • contribs) 04:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC) Yes, briefly held in 1763, at the end of the Seven Years War (1756-63). It is reported that the British just occupied Manila and had little influence elswehere. Louisiana, Senegal, and Cuba were also occupied at the same time. Not sure how long they have to be occupied to be part of the Empire. 07:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)
 * from the text under the map "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire" one time which literally would mean a second(?) would be sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloke100 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a map of the British Empire, as determined by reliable sources, not a WP:LISTCRUFT map of "every single place the British ever militarily occupied" which does not equate to the British Empire.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

ok, so to clarify what makes it part of the british empire? manila was occupied for nearly 2 years. i'd imagine the troops had some sort of generic celebration about capturing the town for britain and probably did not add the qualifier but this is not part of the empire. there was a british governor of manila installed who was assisted by a council. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloke100 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Haiti (parts)
Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Tortuga, a small island near Haiti, was controlled by the British and French, 1630-1635.
 * Part of today's Haiti was occupied by the British (1795-1798). The aim was to divide the island between Britain and Spain. Whether it became colony or not is not clear, see note 23 here: http://estc.ucr.edu/britem.html.

Tibet?
Tibet was occupied by the Britain in 1904/1905, and the initial peace treaty "declared that Tibet would have no relations with any other foreign powers (converting Tibet into a British protectorate)". This was changed within a year in favour of continued Chinese control. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Darien Colony & Togo
Scottish Darien scheme may be added. Also British Togoland was formally separate territory from the Gold Coast. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 01:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Corsica?
For a time, there existed a Anglo-Corsican Kingdom, with a British viceroy. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a map of "stuff that can ever be connected with a British ruler, administration or military occupation in any way for any duration", although empire maps on Wikipedia seem to attract editors who like to engage in such WP:LISTCRUFT-y projects (mapcruft?). Rather, it's a map of what reliable sources say constituted the "British Empire".  If you can produce a reliable source suggesting that Corsica was part of the British Empire we can have a discussion on that (I've never seen one), but otherwise this map is not the place for it.  Ditto Tortuga, Haiti, Tibet and the failed Darien Scheme.  British Togoland should be corrected though, I agree.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:56, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

This map exaggerate a lot
Afganistan was not never part of the British Empire and well as some Arab gulf states. Afghanistan was a never a British Protectorate in a true sense between 1879-1919. Afganistan retained the right to sovereignty. Even though the Treaty of Gandamak, allowed the British to take control of Afganistan's foreign affair, the British never did and Afganistan retained it's full sovereignty throughout the years and maintained it's foreign affair. Every historical documents show Afganistan was never under the British empire. Please provide evidence that Afganistan was ever part of the British Empire.Tarikur (talk) 09:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right - someone modified the map without any supporting sources. I reverted this change.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Afghanistan?
What about Afghanistan which was formerly granted independence in 1919?


 * Again, no map that I have seen in the numerous reliable sources that I have in my collection state or show that Afghanistan was part of the British Empire.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I said that it had been under British rule ON and OFF according the Wikipedia page on the History of Afghanistan that it gained full independence in 1919 when a certain king came to the Afghan Throne and the British lost their influence of Afghanistan.


 * Yes, but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please read WP:RS and WP:V.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.225.25.28 (talk • contribs)

Actually I have found a souce on the Afghanistan page of the CIA World Factbook it is here —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lemonade100 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That does not state Afghanistan was part of the British Empire.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Britain claimed a protectorate over Afghanistan in 1907, as a part of a dividing up spheres of influence in Asia with Russia. In 1919 the Emir of Afghanistan fought a war to establish independence. It may have been subject to the Indian Office, but falls into a category of "foreign territories under British protection", such as the Arab Gulf states which were not "part of the Empire" but states whose sovereignty in terms of foreign afairs, defence and economy were subject to Britain. You can't have it both ways: if a country is not an indpendent sovereign nation then it must be subject to someone else's power. 07:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)
 * I believe the user proposing Afghanistan is correct. It was at one point part of the British Empire, not only during their wars their but officially.--Senor Freebie (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Afghanistan should be included per above arguments. Outback the koala (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So, as I'm sure all of you understand our policies on what constitutes original research somebody please provide a source stating explicitly that Afghanistan was part of the British Empire, or provide a map of the Empire which shades in Afghanistan. To repeat for the umpteenth time, this map is drawn from the sources specified.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 08:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Afghan_Treaty_of_1919 Irishfrisian (talk) 01:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Debated Territory
I think The Columbia District should be re-added, because it was jointly run by Americans and Britons, and they both considered it territory, I also think Afghanistan was a protectorate, since the U.K controlled its foreign affairs and in the Third Anglo-Afghan War, it says they 'gained full independence', and it doesn't have to specifically be a protectorate to actually be a protectorate 'a territory under the protection of a state protected state is a territory under a ruler which enjoys Her Britannic Majesty's protection' is what the page on 'protectorate' says. Over whose foreign affairs she exercises control, but in respect of whose internal affairs she does not exercise jurisdiction, also I think that the Ross Dependency and Australian Antarctic Territory should count since they were claimed by the United Kingdom and placed under their respective authority but I cannot find a accurate date of independence for Australia and New Zealand as dominions. And I kind of thought Libya should be a part of it, since they were administered as Territories after WW2 until 1951, and its often referred to as gaining 'independence' since it remained under administration for 10 years approx. I suppose history is very superfluous instead of dead on facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.39.71 (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Anholt
The island of Anholt, between Denmark and Sweden, was held by the British 1808-1814.
 * It was occupied by the British Royal Navy, but was never annexed, and Denmark never abandoned its claim to it. 95.166.21.98 (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Normandy?
well yeah Normandy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tincanmansiimon (talk • contribs) 13:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Calais and western France were also part of England's territory, but were long gone by the British Empire. Saying that, Oregon should be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_boundary_dispute — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.29.234 (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Columbia District
The articles on Columbia District, Oregon Country and John McLoughlin all note that McLoughlin administered Canadian law over British subjects from Fort Vancouver, located where Vancouver, Washington now exists. The National Park Service confirms that the British claimed the Columbia Valley. The State of Washington has a page discussing the British presence, with a map. Page 25 of this book has a map of the North West Company holdings along the Columbia River. The following books also have reference to the British claim extending as far south as the 42nd parallel: A history of British Columbia and Sir James Douglas (the links may start a few pages in to the relevant chapters).

Before 1846, the whole of the Oregon Country/Columbia District (including Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and British Columbia) was "disputed" between the United States and the United Kingdom - the Treaty of 1818 effectively allowed both to claim land there, and to allow Americans and British subjects to settle in the whole of the territory regardless of specific territorial claims. As McLoughlin did establish British (Canadian) law in some of the region, from a "capital" on the Columbia River, I believe it's appropriate to label Oregon, Washington, Idaho and that part of Wyoming north of the 42nd Parallel on the Pacific slope of the Continental Divide as formerly a part of the British Empire. Argyriou (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * X was claimed/administered by Y, therefore, X was a part of the Y-ish Empire. Making that leap is original research.  (Examples: Spanish claims to the entire North American continent does not mean that historians view Canada or Alaska as a former part of the Spanish Empire; Britain administered a part of Germany after WW2, that does not mean historians view Germany as a former part of the British Empire).  Do you have sources which explicitly state this area was part of the British Empire?   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Antarctica
The current Australian Antarctic Territory and Ross Dependency; were they not discovered by the British? The Dominion of Australia controlled these from 1933. So surely, they were Imperial territory? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.69.201.243 (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Hanover?
What about Hanover which was a royal domain between 1714 & 1837? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.192.167 (talk) 05:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, Hanover was only in personal union. That's to say, the kings of Great Britain / United Kingdom between those dates were also kings of Hanover, but those were separate crowns and neither one was subordinate to the other. 80.3.72.207 (talk) 01:11, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Bencoolen? What happened to Bencoolen?
Poor Bencoolen (Bengkulu, Benculen, Fort Marlborough) is the cinderella of the British Empire, yet it was a full-fledged British colony for some 150 years, until it was given to the Dutch by the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824. The colony was often simply called Fort Marlborough in documents of the time, for the name of the fort the British built there.

Thomas Stamford Raffles (I read a biography of him, what I nice fellow) was governor of Bencoolen after he founded Singapore. Bencoolen: 200 miles of malaria-infested Sumatran coastline. Yet it should be on the map. --Lubiesque (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no reaction? Are we or aren't we adding Bencoolen, which was British for nearly 150 years, to the B.E. map?


 * Bengkulu in Indonesia.svg


 * Art. 9 of the Anglo-Dutch Treaty of 1824: The factory of Fort Marlborough and all the possessions of Great Britain on the island of Sumatra are hereby ceded to His Majesty the King of the Netherlands (...) (De factorij van fort Marlborough en al de bezittingen van Groot-Brittanje, op het eiland, Sumatra, worden, bij dezen, afgestaan aan Zijne Majesteit den Koning der Nederlanden)--Lubiesque (talk) 02:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes calm down - I will get round to it in a couple of weeks.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Bencoolen is on the latest version? 80.3.72.207 (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Why Dunkirk?
Dunkirk was added in a recent edition (Nov 2014) and is certainly a famous name in British history, but is there a source for Dunkirk ever being part of the British Empire? If the same spot was labelled Calais (which lies a few km to the west) then there would probably be a clear case, given that England retained Calais until 1557 which is well into the period of "origins" in the BE article. 80.3.72.207 (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What utter nonsense. I reverted it back to the last 'good version'.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Senegal?
Wasn't Senegal ceded by the French to the British after Seven Years' War and then ceded back to French after the American Revolutionary War? So shouldn't it be on the map? Cthulhu131 (talk) 02:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Senegal#Against_the_backdrop_of_Anglo-French_rivalry Cthulhu131 (talk) 03:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Borderof Jordan
The Border of Jordan or Transjordan is shown as it is today, but was actually slightly different under British rule. The border was modernized after independenced in 1965 through an agreement with Saudi Arabia that resulted in a land exchange.


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winston%27s_Hiccup Cthulhu131 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Jubaland
This territory was a part of British East Africa (later Kenya) and was ceded to Italy in 1925. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jubaland#Colonial_period Cthulhu131 (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bioko and British concessions in China
Wasn't this territory leased to the British, similarly to how Hong Kong and Wei Hei were leased to the British. Speaking of China, shouldn't British concessions in Tianjin, Shanghai and other Chinese cities be marked on the map? Cthulhu131 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Equatorial_Guinea#Spanish_and_British_empires Cthulhu131 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Foreign concessions in Chinese cities remained under Chinese sovereignty. They were only administered at the municipal level by the British, French, German, Austro-Hungarians, etc. For instance, Chinese courts retained jurisdiction over the Chinese living in those enclaves. And the Chinese gov't maintained post-offices (alongside foreign POs until about 1923) and custom houses there.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)