Talk:British Empire/Archive 15

First & Second Empires
The idea of a First & Second Empire is utter garbage. This is a recent American creation based on the assumption that the 13 colonies were the be all and end all of the empire, when they were only a tiny part. Lets remember that when push came to shove after the Battle of the Saintes, GB preferred to give up the colonies and keep Gibraltar, which was of far greater strategic worth. Talking in this way infers that after 1783 there was no longer an empire, and GB had to go out and get another one. This is approprate to the First & Second French Empire, since after 1815 they did indeed have to, and did, go and get a Second Empire in Africa, Indonesis etc. But can someone tell me how this is so when after the loss of the insignificant 13 colonies, there was still Canada, India, parts of Africa and a number of islands still under the flag? I need someone to give me some kind of proper mainstream concensuss for this, other than one single writer or it needs to be reverted. None of the books I have, and i have a large number of sources of this ever, ever, talks of a First & Second Empire --Godwhale (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's exclusively an American historiographical thing, but there is an argument for us not to give it undue prominence given the relative paucity of sources that use it and the differing interpretations of when it began. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Godwhale, not sure I understand how you can simultaneously claim (1) these terms do not exist in print, and (2) that it's a recent American creation. Surely if they are American creations it means American historians have written about them recently, in which case they do appear in print?  And even for the sake of argument it is a recent American creation (it's not, see below), how does that fact per se make it a "garbage claim"?  Because you say so?  Wikipedia doesn't work that way.
 * Anyway, we should be clear that the article merely states "This period...has subsequently been referred to as the 'First British Empire'". This claim is supported by a reference to the (British) Oxford History of the British Empire series, the first volume "Origins of Empire", edited by the (Irish) Nicholas Canny in a chapter by the (British) historian Anthony Pagden: p34: "The English arrived late in the Atlantic. This fact was to mark their views both of their own Imperial identity and that of their two main rivals, Spain and France, until the demise of the 'First British Empire' in the late eighteenth century.".  There are other references to this term in the series, which is very good - you should add it to your collection.
 * I'd also like to point you to these books which go so far as to include the terms in the title:
 * Vincent T. Harlow's "The Founding of the Second British Empire 1763 - 1793. Volume 1: Discovery and Revolution & Volume 2: New Continents and Changing Values" . Note he is neither American (he's English) nor recent (published 1964).
 * Brendan Simms's "Three Victories and a Defeat: The Rise and Fall of the First British Empire, 1714-1783"
 * Ned Landsman's "Nation and Province in the First British Empire"
 * Timothy H Parsons's "The Second British Empire"
 * Margaret Strobel's "European Women and the Second British Empire"
 * Next we could look inside more books that obviously don't feature in your collection, e.g. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire by (British) David Armitage ... "The attributed character of the Second British Empire - as an empire founded on military conquest, racial subjection, economic exploitation and territorial expansion - rendered it incompatible with metropolitan norms of liberty....The purported character of the First British Empire - as 'for the most part a maritime empire, an oceanic empire of trade and settlement, not an empire of conquest...".
 * Must I go on? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is true that some sources use this expression, you only have to type it into Google, but the exception does not prove the rule. It was something briefly fashionable, for reasons stated, but now shown as an anachronism, and something that simply does not make sense. It is not mainsteam historiography, only fringe. The terms do not appear in Encyclopedia Britannica 1909, so its clearly not a traditional concept. Documentaries on TV never refer to ‘First’ and ‘Second’ British empires, merely ‘The British Empire’, British Raj, Empire Rule or British colonialism/ imperialism. It was a constant linear process after Newfoundland in 1497 of aquiring territory, and just because some terretory was lost did not mean the empire ended. Even as the thirteen colonies were being lost plans were being made to colonise Australia, using a different model. I could easily list stacks of scolarly books about the subject that do not use this first and second terminology but it would be a waste of time. But heres two examples of writers dismissing the idea as nonsensical;

In 'The Ideological Origins of the British Empire', (Page 2) David Armitage states; Historians of the Eighteenth Century have protested against any easy separation between the ‘First’ and ‘Second’ British empires on the grounds that the two overlapped in time, that they share common purposes and personnel and that the difference between the maritime, commercial colonies of settlement in North America and the military territorial colonies in India have been crudely overdrawn.

On page 19 of ‘Empire; the British Imperial Experience from 1765 to the Present’, a book that the excellent historian (IMO) Frank McLynn wrote in the Irish Times as being 'the best general history on the subject now available’, Denis Judd wrote even in 1996; “For some time it was fashionable for academics to define a ‘First’ British Empire, a trade driven and settler based system, brought crashing down by the successful revolt of the thirteen American mainland colonies, and to discern a ‘Second’ British Empire rising, almost miraculously, from the ruins of the old, powered by the irresistible expansion of Britain’s industrialised economy, powered by the Royal Navy and administered by the hard-headed, muscular Christians of the burgeoning public school system. Between the collapse of the ‘First’ Empire and birth of the ‘Second’ lay, it seemed the historical equivalent of a black hole. Fortunately a number of historians have exposed this fallacy with graceful and powerful works of scholarship. In so doing they have concentrated attention not merely upon the essential continuities of British imperial history but upon the potency of imagery and perception in the delineation of Empire”--Godwhale (talk) 12:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay that's interesting. I had thought it was contentious, but I didn't know that historians had said it was contentious. As that is the case I think we should remove the terms from the section titles - quotation marks don't quite do the job - because it gives one side of the argument too much weight. However, the article should reflect the fact that some historians do make this distinction, so we should retain the current text and clarify that it is not a universally agreed thing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This guy has a point. The two chronological section divided should be more than enough for the job. Uspzor (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Wiki-Ed, I made the change about "some" historians, I think reference to that should be kept as it is demonstrably true, and not a "garbage" "recent American creation", as the backpedalling above now concedes. If someone can come up with alternative headings that keep the same chronological periods but don't use these terms, I wouldn't object, as it doesn't really add or subtract much value for the reader.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not just early first, and then consolidation second? Uspzor (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Look, I apologise for using the word 'garbage', but I'm not backpeddling on my point at all. I wasn't being anti-American, just trying to get over a view that there is a tendency, a point which plenty of other people have also made, that while the American Revolution is very near the hearts of many people, from a worldwide perspective its loss was not particularly significant to Britain, because for them the war was just another of a series of wars with France, Spain and the Dutch Republic where it had to ward off an attempted invasion, and it held onto its main objective of Gibraltar and the valuable West Indian islands. It also improved its position in India, and after the Battle of Saintes was in the acendancy, so much so that France & Spain were actually grateful to end it. I could probably find plenty of other evidences of this not being mainstream if I wanted to. I actually think the article itself is pretty good, is accurate and does a better job thanmost of being neutral. IMO having these 'first' and 'second' empire headings actually devalue it, and if I don't point this out someone else will. Is this not really a case of trying to find a snappy heading for the sections? I'm sure we could find some other headings, but using them with some kind of caveat is not the way to go. --Godwhale (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * What do you suggest for alternative headings? Not sure "early" and "consolidation" work too well.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The first/second distinction is perfectly mainstream. A book published last year with "Second British Empire" in the title has already been cited. The Portuguese empire is often divided into a first, second and third with no prejudice either against its continuity or for the centrality of Brazil. It's a periodization useful because empires change in both geography and "feel". (The original post's reference to the First and Second French Empires is odd, since they had nothing to do with colonial changes.) Srnec (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It is not mainsteam, just a modern fad that some writers like to use, and there is nothing to stop them doing that. Just because someone uses it does not take away the fact that hundreds and hundreds of books do not, and the really authoritative publicatins never. On this logic we would talk about a second Roman Empire (or some other enumeration) when the legions left Britain in 410 to defend the homeland from the Goths, but we don't, because it was just one of the ups and downs of the empire. But we do talk of a later Byzantine Empire after the fall of Rome to denote a very distinct ending of the original republic and a new empire which shifted its political centre of influence distinctly to the east. The original French empire, based around North America, India and the west coast of Africa ended in 1815 because practically all of it was gone. There was then a second, later empire, based in a completely different geographic region, specifically northwest Africa, Southeast Asia and later The Levant. I don't see the reason for any distinct separation between the 2nd and 3rd sections, they are all as one, therefore the question of what to call the sections is an unnecessary distraction.--Godwhale (talk) 10:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it is "mainstream" (arguably it's not) if historiographical usage is contentious. We have to maintain NPOV. If we're aiming for a narrative history then referring to named periods is probably wrong. The title of the entity and the dates the section covers ought to suffice. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Godwhale, let's be very clear,
 * "the really authoritative publicatins (sic) never [use it]". That claim has already been proved to be false.  The Oxford History of the British Empire is probably the definitive publication, with multiple expert authors contributing to the topic, and there is a chapter in the Historiography volume (read it online here ), discussing historians usage of the terms by P.J. Marshall entitled "The First British Empire", followed by a chapter "The Second British Empire" by C. A. Bayly.
 * A few select quotes:
 * "By 1929 the tradition that British Imperial history could be divided into phases, with an 'old' or 'first' Empire separate from what was to follow, was long established." (note: long established, your claim that it's "recent" or a "modern fad" is shown to be hogwash)
 * "Throughout its long usage there has been a rough consensus as to what is meant by the term 'first British Empire', even if some points have been contested.". (note: long usage, again)
 * "For all its lack of precision, the concept of a first British Empire has proved to be a useful and even indispensable one for some 150 years. While the chronological volumes of the Oxford History of the British Empire do not explicitly use the terms first or second Empire, the divide between the second and third volumes is the traditional watershed - the turn of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries."
 * "...the historiography of the second British Empire of the period 1783-1860 was already in vigorous debate at the very time when that Empire was being established"
 * "Over the last generation (1950-1980) the new breed of professional historians of Empire have concentrated much effort on two related issues: first, is it possible to periodize major changes in the Empire as a whole?" (note: again, it is the revisiting of these terms that is recent, not the invention of them)
 * "The question of timing is to some extent semantic, but the debates over whether there was a second distinct 'second British Empire' after 1783 or an 'age of imperial reform' after 1830 have also helped to uncover some major differences of method and perspective among Imperial historians"
 * Personally, I don't see why we can't keep the current situation, "first" and "second" in quotes in the headers, and a statement that "some" historians refer to these terms, though I think it's fair to add a clause stating something along the lines of "though the more recent generation of historians have argued against demarcation into two distinct periods. (insert reference to P.J. Marshall chapter)
 * The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, note Ashley_Jackson_(historian)'s Very Short Introduction to the British Empire published in 2013 (not saying this introductory text itself is usable as a source for the article, but Wikipedia would prioritise the words of a Professor of Imperial and Military History at King’s College London over "Godwhale": "Historians have written of a 'first' British Empire all the way to a 'fourth' in seeking to describe the changing nature of imperial power and the shifting geography of the imperial estate. The first British Empire was largely destroyed by the loss of the American colonies, followed by a 'swing to the east' and the foundation of a second British Empire based on commercial and territorial expansion in South Asia."  No mention of this apparently huge controversy plaguing the community of B.E. historians.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The simple idea of the empire shifting east because of the thirteen colonies loss or this fact founding the "second" empire is absurd.Uspzor (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Your opinion could not be more irrelevant, Uspzor. All that matters is what RS say. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

This periodization is present just in two lines in the article:

This period, until the loss of the Thirteen Colonies after the American War of Independence towards the end of the 18th century, has subsequently been referred to by some historians as the "First British Empire" The loss of such a large portion of British America, at the time Britain's most populous overseas possession, is seen by some historians as the event defining the transition between the "first" and "second" empires

IMO these quotes are good enough, the key being the word >>some<< in them. But, using these standards as headlines imply a historiography consensus that really doesn't exist here. Uspzor (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You do like making statements bez źródła, don't you, Uspzor? We have The Oxford History of the British Empire directly contradicting what you have just said. And nothing in the phrase "by some historians" implies a "historiography [sic] consensus" (surely, historiographical?); indeed, quite the opposite. Take the tone of this response as a request to turn down the arrogance. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, you've obviously been feverishly going through every source you can possibly find over the last few days in order to now come back with some more ammunition to suit your side of the argument; I could no doubt do the same, and find a whole load of sources to refute them, but I can't be bothered. I'm not going to keep repeating the same arguements, and I'm not going to get into an edit war, I have far better things to do. You clearly care very much about this and I can see from the edit history you've had a lot to do with making the article what it is. On the whole its a very good, consise article, IMO. I know from personal experience that it can be quite irritating to have someone who has not had any involvement in an article to come along and pick holes in what you've done, and so I'm going to conceed. On the whole you seem to be doing a pretty good job. Sorry again about earlier and good luck in the future with the editing process.--Godwhale (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Godwhale, I hope you understand why I am going through every source I can possibly find, because that is how Wikipedia should work. It's what the sources say that matters, not what we personally think, and you're of course welcome to feverishly go through whatever sources you can find.  If we didn't do this, we'd just be arguing on the basis of our own personal opinions.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how Wiki works. The only way Wikipedia has of settling disagreements is thru consensus. That's what the policy says. If you can't achieve consensus then unless someone walks away thats when the edit wars and squabbles and sockputtetry starts. It is not about who can assemble the most references to suit thier point, because there is no referee. One only has to type certain phrases into Google Books and you are taken straight to a list of books that you can go thru at your leisure - such as 'The Ideological Origins of the British Empire' which we have both cited. Often such books discuss the pros and cons of an arguement, and you only have to use the bits that fit your argument and ignore anything that doesn't, often elsewhere on the same page. You can even use published articles if necessary, but it doesn't make it any more mainsteam, because i know with absoute certainty, and i'd bet my mortgage on this, that I could find a thousand sources that do not use the first & second designation if i had to. But its pointless. I believe that this will come up again in the future and get changed at some later point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godwhale (talk • contribs)


 * I am old enough to remember books from the postwar era talking of the "Third British Empire" (implying that Britain - now basing her power in Africa and the Middle East - would rise like a phoenix from the loss of India just as she had earlier recovered from the loss of the American colonies, after which she had been "written off" as a world power for a brief period in the 1780s). I came here idly wondering if there was an article on that topic, but seem to have wandered into a minefield. The article does seem to me to be slightly at fault in implying that British decline was an inevitability from 1945 onwards and that only the wicked Tories of the early 1950s were silly enough to think otherwise - whereas in fact their views of Britain's world status were not all that different from the Attlee Government which preceded them. Am doing some work on biography articles of the period at the moment, so I don't really want to edit this one as well.Paulturtle (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

"Britain rapidly surrendered"
The line "but the manner in which the British rapidly surrendered irreversibly harmed Britain's standing and prestige as an imperial power". Is incorrect, Britain has never surrendered. This is misleading. Especially in World War 2. There were most definitely no surrender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.11.37.189 (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It's referring to the Far East - the rapid loss of Malaya and Burma, and especially the Fall of Singapore, where a large and well-garrisoned fortress was taken by a numerically inferior Japanese force. Even Churchill himself was privately dismayed by the apparent alacrity with which Perceval surrendered.Paulturtle (talk) 13:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, it refers to the surrender of territories. Which happened. So put yer flag away! --Shannon Dal (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Map: Bhutan and AUS/NZ Antarctic claims
Regarding the map again, a user added Bhutan and what are now the Australian and New Zealand Antarctic claims, which I'd like to open up for debate.

Regarding Bhutan (or indeed Nepal) which were 'protectorates' at best (in charge of their own internal affairs, foreign affairs conducted in consultation with Britain) I don't it should be included as part of the British Empire, though according to this map, perhaps they should.

As for the areas of Antarctica now claimed by Australia and New Zealand but which began during the era of the British Empire, I don't believe these should be included as they were claims at best. The only reason the British Antarctic Territory is included (which I now coloured in grey/pink stripes) is because it's one of the "British Overseas Territories" which are underlined in red.

Interested to hear other's thoughts. Obviously the main driver here should be what reliable sources say - can we find references that explicitly say these were part of the "British Empire". The sources I had used for the map originally - listed in the image's description page - did not.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * BAT has a proper flag, I recall that from times as Zealot (some wannabe-DMOZ), when I tried to figure out which of too many FotW-clones is the least spammy for a honourable entry in the Zeal (web)-directory of websites. Channel Is. + Manx excluded? Good job... ;-) –Be..anyone (talk) 04:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Updates, new input on c:File_talk:The_British_Empire.png about Antarctica. Looking at the historical map I think you should preserve Walvis bay separated from South-West, it was a special case until 1994. –Be..anyone (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)


 * IIRC the British Antarctic claims date back to the time of Robert Falcon Scott and Ernest Shackleton and were made prior to the international agreement on the non-exploitation of the region. Similarly Norway's claims were due to Roald Amundsen. The current Australian and New Zealand areas were transferred to them by Britain IIRC sometime in the 1950s or 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.196 (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Map doesn't include Hawaii
Wasn't Hawaii a British colony, and that's why they've a little Union Jack in their flag?


 * Please sign your posts, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a colony but have a read of Flag of Hawaii for more information. MilborneOne (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, I understand now. Sorry for the error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A901:C500:21FF:2E32:5109:9FFE (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Sentence
JuanRiley Please stop reverting edits that you have no reason do revert. I already mentioned my reason why I deleted that passage. Germany was the main cause for Britain's economic deterioration due to the nation's rapid industrialization and it's overseas expansion, leading to tensions between both nations eventually leading to WWII. Although the United States became a superpower after Britain, this comes in a later episode after WWII and the Cold War, but that's another story. You didn't explain your reverts so I hope I'm mistaken that your edit was nationalistically motivated. (N0n3up (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
 * You need to do more than assert a position you need to reference it Snowded  TALK 18:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your original deletion of consensus and, as far as I know, old text in the lede because it seemed germane (no pun intended) to the stage of history of the British Empire as the 20th century began. I also suggested on your talk page after you had reverted my revert that you take it to the talk page. Well here we are. Explain how "...and the United States..." is not informative in the context in which it was used? (Britain vis a vis other economic/industrial powers at the turn of the 20th century.) Juan Riley (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Snowded, JuanRiley I already mentioned why it should be deleted, why don't you tell me why I souldn't specially since that sentence has no source to back it up? But here's just a part of this to prove my point and this  is just how the conflict in which Britain and Germany followed to Word War I, which decreased Britain's power. Britain ceased from being a world power after WWII, but you can read that in the Wikipedia article of the US (N0n3up (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC))


 * Please indent your comments.  I've done it for you this time.  We don't use Wikipedia articles as sources.   You have given us one book cover and one extract that does not cover the wider situation so they don't support your effort.  The US was clearly emerging as a world power economically and military during that period so I'm not sure what your issue is  Snowded  TALK 19:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Snowded, The United States was in a stage of Industrial growth at the time, but that had nothing to do with the erosion of Britain's power. I was making reference to the US article of Wikipedia to pint out the widely accepted fact that the US was involved in Britain's fall after WWII, I wasn't using it as a source. And the sources I provided does prove that Germany was the main reason for Britain's power erosion and then WWI and WWII followed. (N0n3up (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC))


 * Snowded: Pardon an old fart who forgets how to, and indeed whether to, indent on occasion. N0n3up: my perception of the meaning of that sentence was purely as introducing the fact that near 1900 Britain's lead in industrialization was being "eroded" and most notably by "Germany and the United States". I think that fact is notable in an outline of the history of the British Empire. Juan Riley (talk) 19:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * JuanRiley, you haven't provided a source. I'm beginning to think your edits are a US nationalistic reason, I provided source, why don't you?. (N0n3up (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC))


 * N0n3up Sigh. Do you wish sources on world industrialization and trends near 1900? Go read Wiki articles typically entitled Industrial Revolution and Second Industrial Revolution. Shall I import them as references here? Why not call for the German erosion of Britain's industrialization lead to be sourced also? Juan Riley (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

JuanRiley I've already looked into that, yet it still doesn't add up what you want to prove, and you still haven't provided a source. (N0n3up (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
 * I'm here by request but I don't really understand the issue. Is the sentence in the introduction summarising material that is sourced in the main body of the article or not? If the former, it doesn't need a reference in the intro. If that latter, I don't understand why only the mention of the US is being removed and not Germany, because they'd both be unsourced. Or do you think that Germany was catching up economically with Britain in the early 1900s but the US wasn't? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Kudos Larry: aren't we all trying to understand that question? Juan Riley (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm here just because I happen to watch the talk page of a third party and saw this raised there. I'm generally with CordlessLarry on this one and I don't think either "side" of the dispute are bathing themselves in glory. Do we have sources for either of the claims that are made? It is no good effectively citing WP:CIRCULAR to N0n3up and then telling them to go read other articles about industrialisation. - Sitush (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sitush, I provided this source to prove my point: and this only gave a small detail of the conflict between Germany and Britain:. Snowded proceeded to say: You have given us one book cover and one extract that does not cover the wider situation so they don't support your effort. The US was clearly emerging as a world power economically and military during that period so I'm not sure what your issue is. I'm just pointing out that It's true that the US was emerging economically and military but it didn't really affect a competition to Britain as the Industrialization of Germany and the US role as a global power would not be seen until WWII. (N0n3up (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
 * You linked to a source, but I don't really understand what point you are trying to make. The sentence is "By the start of the twentieth century, Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain's economic lead". What do you believe to be incorrect about that sentence? Cordless Larry (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry I'm saying it's unnecessary to mention the United States because even though the US was growing as a power, it didn't really struck a blow to Britain as Germany did, why do you think Britain went against Germany and not the US? And the sources I provided reinforces that idea. You said that both weren't sourced thus none are right and supported that the sentence should remain there even though I provided sources as to why it should't be there. (N0n3up (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC))
 * The sentence doesn't say that the US "struck a blow" though. It's just saying that the US was starting to catch Britain up in economic terms. That could do with a reference, yes, but I don't see how your source proves it wrong, unless I'm missing something. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry, Other countries in Europe were beginning to catch up to the economic growth, specially during the Industrial revolution, and yes that includes the US but it didn't compete with Britain and didn't erode it's economic prominence but Germany was in a rapid process of industrialization. Why do you think Britain turned it's attention to Germany and not the US. Furthermore WWI proved to be fatal for British power with its war with the Central Powers, leaded by Germany. So I think Germany has way more to do with Britain's erosion compared to the US growing its economy. Keep in mind all the other factors that reduced British world power which the US had very little to do with. I explained myself and provided sources so I think this should fall in favor to my argument dont you think? (22:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)N0n3up (talk))
 * Once you've had an edit reverted, you need to gain consensus to be able to make it again. I think I now at least understand your rationale. Let's see what other editors make of it before deciding what to do. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * With the proviso that people can do anything with statistics (and often do when it comes to economics), it seems likely that the statement is verifiable and not fringe-y in nature. For example:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * I'm not saying these are the best sources to use but, really, it should be sourced in the body and does not appear to be at present. I do think it is true that other countries were beginning to catch up but it looks likely that sources tend to stress Germany and the US above those, and thus so should we. - Sitush (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, the chapter beginning p 143 of Gentrification and the Enterprise Culture: Britain 1780-1980 (OUP, 2001) by Prof F. M. L. Thompson gives a decent enough taster of how economic historians, erm, manipulate statistics in this particular context. Some of it can be seen on GBooks. - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Cordless Larry, I guess that concludes this conversation. And thank you Sitush for the sources. (N0n3up (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC))

Suez and other changes
I've just reverted several questionable edits made over the last few days. Given that this is already a stable, featured article it would be courteous to discuss changes before making them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The careful wording relating to the so-called first and second empires is deliberate. See the discussion in March;
 * "Further Reading" is further reading, not just a list of references that are used in the article;
 * The section on Suez and its aftermath is fine. It does not require unsourced commentary, hyperbole, US spelling, oversimplification or shortening. This is an important part of the narrative for this article.
 * the Suez section contains too much detail that is not related to the Empire. RS treat it as a symbolic event as far as the Brit Empire is concerned. Rjensen (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It's all related. Not sure why you think RS treat it as symbolic, but I guess you're entitled to your opinion. Since they all mention it... we do too. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Suez has massive significance and the level of content is about right for an encyclopedia. It is seen in Britain as the real end of the empire, in that it was the point when it was realised that Britian could no longer exert its will in the new east v west world without US support, and as such the US empire was now dominant. It is symbolic in this respect, which i think is was the RS is really saying, not that the events themselves did not carry important and far reaching implications--Godwhale (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure, if you look at the percentage of words devoted to each topic, there is far too much weight assigned to Suez, and I say that as the one who is originally at fault. Look at that versus, say, North America.  I think Suez could be cut down by half.  Remember, the beauty of WP is that you can read more by clicking on a link! The whole article in fact is weighted disproportionately to more recent centuries than prior ones.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Genocides perpetrated by the British Empire
It seems that the wikipedia article doesn't mention any of the genocides attributed to the Empire, apart of the Mau Mau uprising. There should be a a paragraph devoted to the subject. British Genocides - No Apologies from the Fascist Empire and No Prosecutions of the Imperial Operatives

NORTH AMERICA: Using Smallpox to Eradicate the Natives Speaking of the period 1754-67, Dr. Henderson, former Director of the WHO smallpox eradication program writes, "British soldiers distributed blankets that had been used by smallpox patients with the intent of initiating outbreaks among American Indians. Epidemics occurred, killing more than 50% of many affected tribes." However, they were exposed by American doctors to Yellow Fever along with young girls deliberately infected with gonorrhoea, specifically wiping their eyes with the virus to ensure the disease was successfully transmitted as well as deliberately infecting Filipino men with bubonic plague and finally intentionally infecting 24 prisoners with cholera, contaminated with the plague. All without the consent of the patients, all became sick and 13 died. Twobells''t@lk 14:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Nice try, we've all seen that Listverse racist propaganda, lets instead look at the facts shall we? It has been proven conclusively that the Sir Jeffrey Amherst never gave the disease to Indians, rather Indians contracted the disease unwittingly from mixing with Europeans.

NORTH AMERICA: Biological Warfare against Soldiers and Civilians During the American Revolution, the British army used infected civilians and soldiers - particularly black soldiers serving the loyalist cause in exchange for promises of freedom - to spread smallpox among the vulnerable American citizenry.
 * 1) Another nice try: black soldiers in their thousands served the loyalist cause in exchange for freedom and gained it, most certainly not by spreading smallpox. However, many black Americans who fought for the British were blinded and tortured by the rebels after their surrender. Twobells''t@lk 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) H

AUSTRALIA: Barbarism in Tasmania The first British colonists arrived there in 1803 - 24 prisoners, 8 soldiers and a dozen volunteers. The following year the killings began. The first massacre was by escaped prisoners - they randomly killed the natives and raped their women. The more sadistic killers chopped off the head and asked his wife to carry it round her neck...In 1829, prisoners were sent out to hunt down the natives and a £5 reward was offered for every native caught...In 1830, a chain of 5000 soldiers set out to corner all the natives into a small space. For several weeks the chain moved across the whole island. In the end just 300 natives remained.
 * 1) More toxic propaganda: 200 European colonists were murdered and between 600 and 900 Aborigines killed as a result of warfare between the two sides. Without a doubt this has to be one of the nastiest slanders and myths perpetrated on the British. Twobells''t@lk 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

KENYA: The Mau Mau Uprising "Dramatic evidence has unearthed such systematic British brutality in the former colony of Kenya that it may require the rewriting of imperial history. Hitherto secret files show that the then colonial secretary, Alan Lennox Boyd, sanctioned a policy of violence towards interned guerrilla suspects...The scale of suffering & death was far higher than previously thought and the Kikuyu death toll could have been as high as 50,000 [for some 35 European deaths]". John Nottingham, a district colonial officer at the time who stayed on in Kenya said: "What went on in the Kenya camps & the villages was brutal, savage torture...I feel ashamed to have come from a Britain that did what it did."
 * 1) Another twisted lie with a smidgen of fact. Twobells''t@lk 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

BENGAL, INDIA: Bengal Famine The British colonial masters used hunger and starvation as tools which lasted for about eighteen decades which claimed about 30 million victims. Bengal had 30 or 40 famines during 182 years of British rule in Bengal. The last big famine in Bengal occurred between 1942 and 1945. At least four million people died during these three years and the famine deaths were caused by British policies.
 * 1) This just gets better and better, the reason people in India starved was because the British massively improved public health, the famine was a unplanned accident of improving the health service. Twobells''t@lk 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

INDIA: British Indian Holocaust 1.8 billion excess deaths, 1757-1947; 10 million killed in post-1857 Indian Mutiny reprisals; 1 million starved, 1895-1897 Indian Famine; 6-9 million starved, 1899-1900 Indian Famine.
 * (see above) Twobells''t@lk 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

IRELAND: Irish Potato Famine The British caused the genocide of 2 million out of 8 million Irish subjects in four years. When it was "over," the British officials directly in charge of "Irish famine relief," particularly acting Treasury Minister Sir Charles Trevelyan, congratulated themselves and were decorated as Queen Victoria made her gala 1848 visit to Ireland.
 * 1) 70% of the landlords during the famine were IRISH, not British and it is a well-known fact that the rest were resident in England using IRISH representatives who treated their own people disgracefully. When the British landowners did discover what was going on they acted immediately. Twobells''t@lk 13:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

SOUTH AFRICA: Boer (Afrikaaner) Genocide 28,000 Afrikaaner women and children died in British concentration camps, 1899-1902.

IRAQ: British Suppression of the Arab Revolt in Iraq British invaded in 1914. Bombing of Kurds using poison gas in the 1920s.
 * 1) The nonsense moves ever onward, the 'poison gas' referred to was tear gas and was never employed irrespective of attempts by an uneducated American senator to allege it was. Twobells''t@lk 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

INDONESIA: A Million Deaths Bloodbath in Indonesia begins as army moves against supporters of Indonesian Communist Party, reaching around a million deaths. Declassified documents show Britain aids the Indonesian army in conducting the slaughter through covert operations and secret messages of support.
 * 1) Moving onward, you mean of course the AMERICAN Army and CIA support for the Indonesian Army which fanned the flames of hate against the PKI. ) Twobells''t@lk 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

OMAN: Military Intervention by the British SAS fights covert war and RAF conducts wide-spread bombing of villages and strongholds.
 * 1) You mean of course the Dhofar Rebellion, no 'war crimes', no 'wide-spread bombing of villages and strongholds', mainly support of the legitimate government in targeted strikes such as the Battle of Mirbat which resulted in six men from a British Special Forces regiment, the Special Air Service holding off, then defeating 400 heavily armed men. Twobells''t@lk 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

NORTH YEMEN: Dirty British War In 1962, MI6 and SAS begin covert operation in North Yemen that eventually involves providing arms, funding and logistical support to royalist rebels in dirty war against pro-Egyptian republican forces. Around 200,000 die in the war.
 * 1) You mean of course the North Yemen Civil War, where the British supported the legitimate government against the rebels. Twobells''t@lk 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

AFRICA: Gukurahundi Massacres Britain was behind the 1980s massacres that left nearly 30,000 innocent civilians from Matabeleland and the Midlands dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:120B:2C3E:73A0:21B:77FF:FECC:E4ED (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, it sounds like you may have a bit of an axe to grind. Better see WP:NPOV and WP:OR and satisfy yourself that a range of reliable sources have described these actions as 'genocides' before doing any editing, although by the sounds of it you are so far from having a neutral point of view that you may struggle to edit this article in an NPOV way. Thom2002 (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The lack of sources aside, there's as much of an axe to grind as the whitewashers have an axe to grind against any people invaded, conquered and subjugated by the empire. 173.176.137.97 (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

What a farce, Robert Mugabe ordered the killings and this is where this gets so twisted, who happens to be Mugabe's greatest critic? The British.Twobells''t@lk 13:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, if you include this the denizens of Wikipedia might be persuaded to think that the British can be equated to Nazis, which they most certainly aren't - the British liberated Nazi concentration camps and let Jewish children into the UK (i.e. Kindertransport). War crimes are committed by every country. And let's not forget Britain's positive legacy, such as being the first modern country to abolish the slave trade (I recommend you read about the West Africa Squadron) and introduce comprehensive laws against cruelty to animals. Good day to you, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.4.43 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that people should not get that information because they can not handle it and that you are in a position to decide what people should think? That is a very elitist position. I think that idea runs pretty much contrary to the fundamental idea of Wikipedia. EriFr (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Speaking of Nazis. The British Empire was hardly steeped in the idea that all people are equal. EriFr (talk)

To follow up on my last comment, all this stuff about British atrocities in the Mau Mau rebellion is a total myth cooked up by rebel propaganda people. If you so desperately wish to spread stories of real genocides, talk about the Nazi holocaust, in which 12 million people were brutally murdered by Hitler's barbaric hordes. That's a lot more real than your cooked-up stories about Her Majesty's Glorious Empire. By nature, Britain is incapable of being the "bad guys." Good day to you, sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.4.43 (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also antibiotics, discovered and developed by the British in the 1940s and feely given to the world without patent, which saved and continues to save god knows how many millions of people worldwide, and counting. --Godwhale (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * True and I think you should add information about that. But remember that also the Soviet Union, China under Mao Zedong, Chile under Pinochet, the Mongol Empire and the Aztec Empire, among others, had positive sides, but I have never heard anyone say that that we should keep quiet about their atrocities because of that. EriFr (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * totally agree, and just ignore the equivocators...... but you missed one, albeit one not widely known about and only recently "proven" to have been instigated by colonial officials, the Great Smallpox of 1862-63 in British Columbia, a massive depopulation which set the stage for appropriation of native lands (that are still native according to recent Supreme Court decisions) beyond what had already taken place with the initial gold rushes that led to the colony's founding; Americans were involved but the plan was enacted by British colonial and military officials (including the governor).Skookum1 (talk) 03:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't also forget that in the revolutionary war the British burned a church full of women & kids to the ground. I know this to be true because i saw it in that Hollywood film 'The Patriot'--Godwhale (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * You seem to have a bone to pick with people who do not eat at the trough of empire boosterism. And the Institut Pasteur definitely did more than the empire's butchers. "The Patriot showed nonsns therefore we did nothing wrong, ever" is infantile jingoism that has no place outside of gentlemen's clubs. "Antibiotics" in the 40s? Penicilline was discovered in the 20s at the latest and Pasteur was working in the 19th century. 173.176.137.97 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Its quite true that it was known that the mould could treat wounds in antiquity & Roman soldiers often carried mouldy bread etc with them into battle. And its true others did work in the 19th Century, but it was Fleming's team who worked out a way of manufacturing it as a drug that could be massed produced near the beginning of the war. As with much else, this was passed on to the Americans who were able to manufacture it in bulk.


 * Works of fiction are not reliable sources and if it was true it is not genocide. MilborneOne (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @OP the Irish famine was not a genocide, and you completely failed to mention China. Funny how everyone forgets China in the scheme of Western (but not Japanese) imperialism...--Shannon Dal (talk) 09:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Never mind, these countries all have their independence now, and so one is free to visit them and see the earthly paradises they have since become.


 * ... that's if you are feeling lucky and have good Life and Health insurance. Many are not the happiest of paces to visit, e.g., Burma, Zimbabwe, etc.


 * ... come to think of it, since independence many of their citizens have made great haste in moving to the UK, at least the ones who were lucky enough to be able to - until quite recently all Empire subjects had the right to abode here. It's called 'voting with one's feet'. The rest just have to put up with things.


 * BTW, you need considerable organisation and resources to commit 'genocide' and at no time did the British have the personnel or time to spare to do any such thing, even if they had wanted to, which they didn't. Britain ran the whole of India with less than 20,000 people, and India had by far the greatest British presence inside the country compared to the other colonies, protectorates,, etc.


 * ... and you don't build local infrastructure like schools, allowing some 'natives' to attend your own prestigious universities back home, hospitals, roads, railways, etc., if all you want to do with the local population is to wipe it out. If they just wanted to exploit the local population then why did the British do more than anyone to get slavery abolished, and set up a naval squadron at great expense to ensure that the trade in it ceased. Surely they could have just have kept slavery, and worked all the 'natives' to death like some other countries I could mention. Instead the British stopped it everywhere they found it.


 * Besides, you need a considerable proportion of any 'native' population behind you to commit 'genocide', usually on other local people they are unfriendly with.


 * .. .and you don't attempt germ warfare against someone using Smallpox unless all your friends and allies are safely vaccinated against catching it themselves. And as Edward Jenner had only comparatively recently discovered the technique it is highly unlikely that the whole white population of Canada had received them. Smallpox is virulent and nasty, and only a fool would attempt such a thing without protecting his own people first. You see, the people trying to distribute the virus would get it themselves, and then spread it everywhere they went. To anyone. I'll leave you to decide how likely to be true that little 1862-63 'factoid' mentioned above is.


 * .. .oh, and at least two countries - Rhodesia and South Africa - declared UDI from Britain precisely because their white leaders at the time didn't agree with policies on more self-determination for the 'natives' that Britain was following in it's other colonies. And it wasn't Britain that instigated apartheid in SA either.


 * ... and why did over two million 'native' men in two World Wars from countries like India, Ceylon, Nigeria, Kenya, Jamaica, Fiji, Rhodesia, South Africa, Gold Coast, etc., of every colour, creed, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, Sikh, Buddhist, voluntarily join up - there was no conscription of 'natives' in the non-White colonies - to fight for the British and their empire. And not just to fight, but to fight with in most cases, great distinction. You don't do that for a bunch of 'genocidal' 'foreigners' you don't like.


 * The Indian Army BTW was over 2,000,000 strong in WW II - all of them volunteers.


 * And some of us Brits appreciate the sacrifice that many such peoples made for us in two World Wars, and will never forget it. "Thank you" seems hardly sufficient.


 * A historian was talking with a Belgian colleague in the 1980s on the differences between the British and the Belgian empires, and the Belgian replied, "The difference is that you British sent out your best people to run your empire, while we Belgians sent out our worst". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * This discussion is entirely unnecessary on Wikipedia. If a user wants to add information about atrocities committed by the British empire and has reliable sources for the information, he or she may do it, regardless if you are of the personal opinion that the British Empire was overall positive. Then it is your job to add different information, with reliable sources. EriFr (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Twobells: your talk page interpolations result in confusion. More notably you just lost me at blaming irish landlords for the famine. Please define irish? Nah. Let's not go there..perhaps too nuanced for you. Juan Riley (talk) 19:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for even commenting. This has devolved into a forum. Perhaps for a separate article. Who knows. Not productive. Juan Riley (talk) 19:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Eroded
Original version: By the start of the twentieth century, Germany and the United States had eroded some of Britain's economic lead,..

User talk:Calidum and User:JuanRiley say that the "some of" part of the sentence is necessary but it deforms the sentence's meaning and implies an incorrect concept to the sentence. (N0n3up (talk) 03:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC))
 * How is it incorrect to to say simply eroded? The word means "to diminish or destroy by degrees" . I'm not sure how dropping the redundant "some of" changes the meaning and you haven't explained it either.  Calidum   04:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And in response to this comment on my talk page (the part that's not a borderline personal attack) the U.S. had caught up to the UK economically by the turn of the century . Unless you think the BBC is a flag-waving, pro-American propaganda outlet. Also check out Economic history of the United Kingdom and Economic history of the United States.  Calidum  


 * "Some of" qualifies "eroded". To "erode" implies that something is being diminished or destroyed by degree; "eroded" (past tense) implies that something has been totally diminished or destroyed at that point in time. Britain's economic lead had not been totally diminished at the turn of the 20th century so taking away the qualification is wrong. Your second reference (the WP article) contradicts your first reference (BBC): Growth rate, manufacturing output, and GDP (but not per capita) remained higher until after WWI, as indicated further on in the introduction. The consensus version is fine. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources tell us that a certain degree of lead was lost to Germany and the US and as Wiki-Ed clearly states, to remove 'some of' would imply that all the lead had been lost when it had not, regards. Twobells''t@lk 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wiki-Ed, Twobells'' Thanks guys! (N0n3up (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Though I agree with Calidum, I guess the consencus on the connotation of the phrase in question has to stand. Juan Riley (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Juan Riley Apart from the reached consensus.. It was never incorrect from the start. Your edits here and here are the same types of edit that started this discussion from the start. Even though the sentence are well placed with their meanings, you rearrange the words as you see fit and replace them with other words that might seem to you correct but are incorrect in reality. Thats the problem with making edits like these like you always seem to do. Not to mention  you stalking my edits like here after our dispute here. (N0n3up (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC))
 * This is not a forum - if you have issues with each other please discuss elsewhere. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Latest edits
Despite our discussion above, User:Rjensen decided unilaterally to change the entire paragraph. First point: Britain had not lost its economic lead by the turn of the century. That it did so at some point in the first 20 years of the twentieth century is clear, but the 'when' depends on which measure one uses. However, no-one could argue that the First World War caused a decisive change. Second, this is an article about the British Empire so the focus should be on that, and not how to relate it to the US; superfluous references to foreign relations and US tax policy are not required, at least not in the introduction. Third: the sentence Britain "remained dominant for trade within the British Empire"? I could pick holes in the concept, the assertion and the implication, but it's simpler to say that this is not an improvement over the original text. Fourth: "rapid rise"? 135 years is not rapid. Finally, it's worth proof-reading an edit before pushing save. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The clear and concise version which was altered to push what seems to promote a US pov has now been reverted, thanks to the watchful eye of Wiki-Ed, thanks Wiki-Ed. Twobells''t@lk 08:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Recent WWII edits
The recent additions seem at the very least to be excessively detailed for this article. They turn what was a brief, objective, well written and stable section into something of a thinly veiled apologia. "vicious"????? Oh my. I am reverting once to allow time for others to chime in on each of the many additions (err....contexts). Juan Riley (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies now for my fumbling around with reverts...oh my...3RR's perhaps? 21:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You have RUINED all my work! ruined it! Twobells''t@lk 22:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about my clumsiness. Just go to last of your versions and copy and paste. However...let me quote a Wiki-Ed line from June when reverting large edits to this article: "Revert to consensus version. As a courtesy please discuss significant changes and take the time to acquaint yourself with the talk page history before making contentious edits. This is already a FA." Juan Riley (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Now the lede, User:Twobells? No discussion? Juan Riley (talk) 22:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would hope that some editor with reason would revert to Wiki-Ed's last version after User:Twobells has finished his edits. Juan Riley (talk) 23:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Twas a finger click away from doing the above (once I figured out how to). Best if someone else. I have been accused of too much lately. Juan Riley (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was trying to repair YOUR damage and add a bit of uncontentious context, but oh no it seems that no-one can add anything without passing it by you irrespective of the fact any editor can add no-antagonistic, reliably sourced edits at any time. I suggest you leave the article alone until you know how to edit correctly, thank-you. Twobells''t@lk
 * At the risk of seeming a wee bit unfriendly, your edits are laughable. But proceed with them if you will. Juan Riley (talk) 23:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uncontentious? No..pretend I didn't ask that. Juan Riley (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems that you do not favour standard wiki policy in regards to manners so I will lay it out as simply as I can, my edits are all reliably sourced, so with the greatest respect what is your problem? Twobells''t@lk 12:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with User:JuanRiley here. The additions might be sourced, but that doesn't mean they are neutral or the right level of detail for this article. For the WWII section I don't think we need a justification for why British colonies and outposts were overwhelmed: If it's not already covered in the article on the British Empire in WWII or related campaigns/battles then User:Twobells could relocate this material to some/all of those articles. And the same with Suez - Roosevelt might have rued his actions, but that's something for an article on him or US foreign policy in the 1950s. I think we should revert to consensus. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I, obviously, agree with Wiki-Ed. Juan Riley (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Guess up to me. Reverted to last consensus version. Obviously User:Twobells can bring up his desired edits one at a time here. Juan Riley (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No comment yet on User:N0n3up reverts other than that there is another typo to fix. Juan Riley (talk) 00:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2015
Correct century XXI

JCostas (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 15:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2015
Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies Subheading:

Multiple spelling and grammar mistakes. Revised paragraph listed below. Spacing errors corrected and typos edited out. Last paragraph, Treaty of Ghent, phrase reworded due to grammatical errors.

Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies Main article: American Revolution During the 1760s and early 1770s, relations between the Thirteen Colonies and Britain became increasingly strained, primarily because off resentment of the British Parliament's attempts to govern and tax American colonists without their consent.[66] This was summarized at the time by the slogan "No taxation without representation", a perceived violation of the guaranteed Rights of Englishmen. The American Revolution began with rejection of Parliamentary authority and moves towards self-government. In response Britain sent troops to re-impose direct rule, leading to the outbreak of war in 1775. The following year, in 1776, the United States declared independence. The entry of France to the war in 1778 tipped the military balance in the Americans' favor and after a decisive defeat at Yorktown in 1781, Britain began negotiating peace terms. American independence was acknowledged at the Peace of Paris in 1783.[67]

Surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. The loss of the American colonies marked the end of the "first British Empire". The loss of such a large portion of British America, at the time Britain's most populous overseas possession, is seen by some historians as the event defining the transition between the "first" and "second" empires,[68] in which Britain shifted its attention away from the Americas to Asia, the Pacific and later Africa. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, had argued that colonies were redundant, and that free trade should replace the old mercantilist policies that had characterized the first period of colonial expansion, dating back to the protectionism of Spain and Portugal.[65][69] The growth of trade between the newly independent United States and Britain after 1783 seemed to confirm Smith's view that political control was not necessary for economic success.[70][71] Events in America influenced British policy in Canada, where between 40,000 and 100,000[72] defeated Loyalists had migrated from America following independence.[73] The 14,000 Loyalists who went to the Saint John and Saint Croix river valleys, then part of Nova Scotia, felt too far removed from the provincial government in Halifax, so London split off New Brunswick as a separate colony in 1784.[74] The Constitutional Act of 1791 created the provinces of Upper Canada (mainly English-speaking) and Lower Canada (mainly French-speaking) to defuse tensions between the French and British communities, and implemented governmental systems similar to those employed in Britain, with the intention of asserting imperial authority and not allowing the sort of popular control of government that was perceived to have led to the American Revolution.[75] Tensions between Britain and the United States escalated again during the Napoleonic Wars, as Britain tried to cut off American trade with France and boarded American ships to impress men into the Royal Navy. The US declared war, the War of 1812, and invaded Canadian territory as Britain invaded American territory, but the 1914 Treaty of Ghent reaffirmed the pre-war boundaries, ensuring Canada's future would be separate from that of the United States.[76][77]

Brb8910 (talk) 16:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ unsurprisingly, being about the British Empire, this article is written in British English, so summarise, favour and the other words you have changed are all correct, whilst you are introducing an major error by changing the Treaty of Ghent from 1814 to 1914 - Arjayay (talk) 17:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I made a couple grammatical corrections in that section as well. Cannolis (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you were correct in those 'corrections', existing language got through a Good Article review and it looks right to me Snowded  TALK 17:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True enough, have reverted what you did not. I did re-instate the only change I made that was a true correction - "because off" to "because of". Cannolis (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Second set look good Snowded  TALK 18:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

British Empire as realm

 * What you would suggest Ghmyrtle is? If the references are correct then the section goes ahead, like listening. KING (talk) 02:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * -{This paragraph is some over-written with attached, associated fact and is however worthy of note after "End of empire", that the British Empire continues with relevance as realm in which your Queen is head has rule. Though not realm for trade, territories being lands retain that a monarch has rule in their independence.
 * Expansion may assist, as inclusion of further articles may also.} Other than local print without title, James HRMH was originally issued in print as Wills after some of his 10th year English class began writing to magazines around 1990, and being of many formal English title is entiled.

In March 2015 the British Empire was re-written as realm by King James M under the headship of Queen Elizabeth II. For this realm British Empire additional lands are written to realm by the inclusion of land area by designation (to example, capital cities are easily and well written to a capital city of the realm) as given significance in this realm British Empire.

--KING (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Eh? Can't tell if serious. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * -Mind if you gave me a hand Wiki-Ed with references first, am not satisfied that every bit of detail is necessary.\\Thank you for moving section. KING (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


 * -Beleive I have sorted reference formats, will you open on further suggestion to this section - am I to suppose seperate article ought be written first, then this section attached? KING (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rather than as additional section, inclusion of the following is suggested as closing paragraph in section titled End of empire with annotations/citations as given here: The following has been shortened.
 *  In March 2015 the British Empire was re-written as realm by King James M.  

--KING (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies
Currently this section states:

"The loss of such a large portion of British America, at the time Britain's most populous overseas possession, is seen by some historians as the event defining the transition between the "first" and "second" empires,[68] in which Britain shifted its attention away from the Americas to Asia, the Pacific and later Africa."

The first sentence could be clearer - it is conflating what was British America with what would become the US. The 13 colonies were not (geographically) the largest component nor were they the most valuable (economically). A simpler way of saying this would be:

"The loss of Britain's most populous overseas possessions is seen by some..."

In the next paragraph, again, some terminological inexactitude: "Events in America influenced British policy in Canada..." should be "Events in the Thirteen Colonies influenced British policy in Canada..." I think we also need something on the Caribbean colonies which did not significantly change. We touch on them earlier, but then they are marginalised in favour of developments in countries which have become significant since; at the time of the American revolution they were still important and their fate at this juncture ought to be mentioned, if only briefly. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Problems with the article on the Historiography of the British Empire
I rediscovered the article on the Historiography of the British Empire recently following a discussion on another topic. I was surprised by the content, which is being used to support contentious claims elsewhere, seemingly away from the scrutiny of the editors who watch this page. The article appears to be (mostly) the work of a single editor. It lacks structure; replicates content from other articles (e.g. mercantilism) without touching on the historiography or showing why it is relevant; and misses (e.g. Africa (!?), genocide/famines, decolonisation) or glosses over some pretty important debates (e.g. definitions, periodisation). Moreover it is not neutral - the coverage is unbalanced - and is very thin on in-line references in many places, despite the contentious style. Often it appears to be advancing a particular point of view (especially from a US perspective)- not quite OR, but definitely selective synthesising.

I can't decide on a good way to tackle this. Should we rewrite-by-section or delete and start again? We'd need experts on each niche (ideally more than one). Or we could cut it right down to the further reading list (removing the commentary on the quality of certain RS) with a very modest introduction summarising the various debates? There may be other options. Any thoughts?

Also, it needs tagging. I've identified quite a few which could apply to the article (POV, unbalanced, OR, geographical imbalance, globalise, disputed, duplication, cherry pick, generalise, expert attention, recentism, undue weight) with more applicable to individual sections. Again, views welcome.

I've raised this here in order to get views from editors. It only gets about 100 visits a day (fortunately) so probably stays below most wiki-radars. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Its a coatrack article - material rejected here. Also it is an alternative British Empire article, it is not about historiography.  Suggest nominate for deletion, but I tagged for the moment.  Prime author self-identifies as a historian interestingly  Snowded  TALK 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Ironic that. I had been thinking AfD, but that seemed a bit extreme. I feel there should be an article on the topic, just not with that content! Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well a hard edit to remove all material which is 'history' rather than 'historiography' might be a start - that would clear out 80%!  Snowded  TALK 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Interestingly the prime author seems not to understand synthesis per se (although I might be wrong), we could do with some more engagement please Snowded TALK 19:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you start by reading up on the historiography of the Brit Empire: Winks, ed. Historiography (1999) vol. 5 in Oxford History.  historiography is all about how historians have dealt with key topics and their debates. None of that in this article, which is very old fashioned in terms of topics (do a search on terms like for  example 'economics', 'women', 'medicine' to see what it ignores). The historiography article is  entirely about the historians--there is no "synthesis" (a 'synthesis' is a proposition not stated in the RS). Rjensen (talk) (signed for him/her)
 * Old fashioned? May I remind you that this is an encyclopaedia, not a book, a PhD thesis or a university lecture handout.   Someone looking up "British Empire" wants a factual historical, political and military overview of the subject, which is exactly what they get here.   No, it's not complete, but it can never be complete, because it's an overview.  But at least it's a decent read, unlike that utterly disjointed historiography article.  A bunch of random poorly written paragraphs thrown together doth not a Wikipedia article make.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest that all this discussion be moved to the talk page of said article. A lot easier then to follow. Juan Riley (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've responded to the above point on the said article's talk page.  Posted here for engagement by other editors.   Snowded  TALK 03:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * We have a few ownership issues and an ANI report if anyone wants to take a gander Snowded  TALK 08:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Wording in lead
Snowded reverted to the version of the article here. The word Envious seems debatable and is not supported in the sources and the source that is next to the sentence doesn't mention anything about envy, something too up for debate whereas "As a result" seems more fitting due to it's uncertain/variable nature. And Snowded's comment on "wording implies a single cause which is wrong" applies to his version when it implies that the single cause was "envy", whereas "As a result" doesn't imply a single cause. It would if it was "As 'the' result" or "the result". (N0n3up (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC))
 * The word "envious" is in fact used on page 3, not page 2 of Ferguson's 2004 edition of Empire. A terrible oversight, now corrected. And using the words "As a result" would suggest that the Spanish and Portugese paid for the English, French and Dutch empires. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks Wiki-Ed . (N0n3up (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC))

An erroneous interpretation of events
QUOTE: Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Plassey established the East India Company as a military as well as a commercial power. END OF QUOTE

QUOTE: This should be re-drafted at: Robert Clive's victory at the Battle of Plassey led to the liberation of millions of slaves in the Indian subcontinent from the oppression of the native feudal lord slave-masters. END OF QUOTE

What is being doled out as history is the version of the feudal oppressive classes of the land. There is an un-mentioned version. The real experiences of the underdogs of the land. Read books like the Travancore State Manual, Native life in Travanore etc. to get a glimpse of what could be the un-uttered version of history here.


 * So, you mean that his victory did not establish the East India Company as a military as well as a commercial power? /EriFr (talk) 09:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It is elementary that the United Kingdom was part of the British Empire
See e.g. the article in the Britannica q11th edition  Ttocserp 18:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't agree with your edit, I also agree that it read better before. WCM email 18:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No good reason to change established text Snowded  TALK 20:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Which of the cited pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) doesn't agree with my edit: page 606 (which says that, of the total population of the British Empire, 41.6 million lived in the United Kingdom)?; or page 607 (the map showing the British Isles as part of the British Empire? If anyone can find a reputable work asserting that the British Isles were not part of the British Empire, let her cite it. Ttocserp 21:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * First of all this is a GA class article, which has gone through a great deal of scrutiny. The opening line was:

The British Empire comprised the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom.
 * Which you changed to:

The British Empire at its height comprised the British Isles[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] and the dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories ruled or administered by the United Kingdom.
 * We don't as a rule put cites into the lead, yes I'm aware you'll see articles with cites in the lead but that is not compliant with policy - again this is a GA. Putting a ton of cites in the lead, all of which are badly formatted on a GA class article isn't likely to win you any plaudits.  The line you've changed doesn't materially alter the content and is not as well written.  You've had 3 editors now point this out to you, so trampling over a GA article, shouting I've got a bunch of cites and you can't stop me is not particularly helpful.  Its the sort of behaviour that'll get you blocked from editing.  Your choice. WCM email 22:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, according to WP:LEADCITE, citations are not prohibited in the lead. clpo13(talk) 03:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * "We don't as a rule put cites into the lead" Where did I say they were prohibited? My point is correct per WP:LEADCITE we shouldn't need to. WCM email 08:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you asked: "yes I'm aware you'll see articles with cites in the lead but that is not compliant with policy". There is no rule for or against cites in the lead. That's all. clpo13(talk) 10:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Style and such is all well and good, but according to reliable sources, were the British Isles part of the empire or were they not? The two statements are not equivalent: one clearly claims they were, the other strongly implies they were not. Not wanting to "change established text" is not really a good reason to avoid amending text if sources corroborate the amended version. Neither is, of course, the fact that citation don't normally belong in the lead ("not compliant with policy" is very strong wording, I wouldn't say that). So again, before you all quibble over style and policies, please do check and make sure the lede text reflect what sources say, because that is the number one policy. LjL (talk) 22:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, as you say WCM, my choice. Now kindly provide either  (a) reasoning or (citations) that show the British Isles were not part of the British Empire (and I've cited 7 that say they were).  Style I don't mind; accuracy I do mind about.  Depending on your response, so I will take it further.  Ttocserp 22:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Whenever editors make implicit threats when they don't get their way, I usually suggest they do take this further, let me draw your attention to WP:BOOMERANG. Threats are never particularly persuasive and are usually a tacit admission the originator knows they are on dodgy ground. I have actually laid out the reason why you're reverted. The reason being your edit didn't improve the article and actually detracted from article quality. You assert your edit is about accuracy, it doesn't materially make one iota of difference to accuracy but introduces some rather tortuous wording that effectively says the British Isles were ruled by the country in the British Isles. Your sources don't back your claim up either, they don't explicitly say what you assert they do. You have inferred a conclusion from them, not made by the original author, which is WP:OR and WP:SYN. Now perhaps you would allow others to comment, rather than insist on the WP:LASTWORD, after all that is what the talk page is for. WCM email 23:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC) PS WP:CONSENSUS you have it backward, the onus is on you to convince other editors that your edit is an improvement. Its not that other editors have to convince you it isn't. WCM email 23:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Here's one question about too long and detailed an insertion into the lede: "The British Empire at its height...". I think I usually hear that that would correspond to immediately after WWII. In which case Ireland (loosely assumed to be one of the British Isles..let's not go there) was NOT a member. Thus we now have to define "height" etc, etc, etc.... The original (and now restored--thank you ) lede sentence was succinct and to the point and well written. The suggested replacement is a trap for edit war arguments without end. Juan Riley (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Y'all can wikilawyer to no end, but the fact remain that the British Isles legally being or not being part of the British Empire makes a difference, is not the same thing, it could have had ramification in law in its time, and so on. So why don't you all stop quibbling on alleged threats and attitudes and look at whether it's justified by sources to state that the British Isles were themselves part of the Empire, or instead they ruled it without being part of it? Building an encyclopedia is mainly about getting facts straight and well-sourced, while this thread seems to be about something else entirely. LjL (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Were the "British isles" (please define this contentious phrase) a part of the British empire (the first or the second?) and when (please select date)? Do you see now why the lede of this article is not the best place to put such a statement? Juan Riley (talk) 01:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I could concede that the lede may not be the best place to decide this one way or the other, but the current phrasing of the lede basically rules out the British Isles being part of the empire (because they are not "dominions, colonies, protectorates, mandates and other territories"; note that "territories" links to Dependent territory specifically). So the lede is already making a statement about this. If you want it to make no statement, then change it to make it so. LjL (talk) 02:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Current sentence does not rule that out, nor does it make a statement on that, it says they were ruled by the UK. WCM email 08:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Given that, unless I'm mistaken, the UK itself was classified as neither a dominion, colony, protectorate, mandate or (dependent) territory of the UK, I'd say that by logic, the current sentence stating that the Empire was "comprised" by those things does rule it out. LjL (talk) 17:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Your logic is flawed and yes you are mistaken. WCM email 18:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A very constructive attitude, cheers. LjL (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Blunt maybe but not unconstructive. Yes your logic is flawed, the sentence includes the phrase "ruled or administered by the United Kingdom" logically including the British Isles.  Logically not ruling out the British Isles.  Ergo your logic is flawed and mistaken.  I'm surprised I had to explain this, is English your first language?  Plus imposing an edit, which several editors have objected to as not materially improving the article and detracting from its quality and while the discussion is ongoing - not cool.  WCM email 19:35, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with WCM. It is implicit in the wording that the UK itself was a part of its empire. However, the concept of a nation state is a modern thing. Territories would have been claimed and 'ruled' in the name of a monarch until relatively recently. The current wording may oversimplify things, but it is better than having a dissertation on the meaning of terms that statesmen (and historians) have only started using in the last two centuries. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording I have put in place now, which says in short "the Empire was comprised of the UK and its dominions", is no more a "dissertation on the meaning of terms", no less accurate, and no harder to read, than the previous (again, abridged) "the Empire was comprised of the dominions ruled by the UK". LjL (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Why "Portugal and Spain" and not "Spain and Portugal"?
Please, change the countries order. It should be "Spain and Portugal" according to the alphabet distribution. Typing "Portugal" before "Spain" just remarks the editor's awareness of British defeats against Spain and his attempt to hide such Spanish prestige with this subtle detail. Be objective and fix it.
 * In every alphabet I've seen, "P" comes before "S".  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2016
139.216.235.151 (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)