Talk:British Empire/Archive 17

A very unWikipedian aura of mystery
I'm told that something was discussed at some point or points in 2006, 2007 and 2008, that pertains to an edit I made recently. For some reason, I'm not being told what was discussed, nor exactly when, nor am I given any idea exactly what part of my relatively wide-ranging edit is pertinent to this eight-, nine-, and/or ten-year-old discussion. I don't believe editing Wikipedia is supposed to be this frustrating, and I'm disgusted that apparently experienced editors gesture vaguely at three years worth of archives and then snigger up their sleeves. I'd like the editors involved in reverting my edits to stop playing silly buggers and explain themselves. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You see the little star symbol at the top right of the article that says it's a featured article? There are about 5000 of them. The structure, content, and language have been assessed as among the best on this site. That doesn't mean they're perfect, but they certainly don't need major editing. So, instead of wading in and making "wide-ranging" edits you could perhaps try improving one of the ~5,219,000 other articles.
 * In this case you've tried to do four things
 * Added a wiki link. Fine, but unnecessary.
 * You've asserted that all the people who helped establish the plantations in Ireland were wealthy and justified that by stating that the stub on the West Country Men says they were wealthy. That might be true, but the sentence in this article doesn't say they were the only people involved (hence use of "particularly"). We can't say that about other people because they are not specified. Also, by inserting "wealthy" as a distinction it looks like you are saying more should be said about this, but it's not clear what.
 * You've asserted that settlement of Ireland was "mostly" by Protestants from England and Scotland. By extension you are, therefore, suggesting that some did not meet those criteria. Logically that's probably true, although it would need a citation since it could be challenged. Again, it looks like you're trying to make a point about something, but with no explanation of what or why.
 * And finally the contentious bit: the use of "overseas" was discussed at length in the archives. European countries had been colonising "outside Europe" for a very long time so this tell the reader nothing. We are using "overseas" to indicate distance from the mother country, which was a feature of the Age of Discovery. It was in this that England lagged.
 * If an "experienced editor" points you to specific talk page archives it might tell you that they've done you the favour of taking time to identify exactly where the issue has been discussed previously. You can return the favour by looking for discussions that relate to the edits you've made. Say, for example, discussions that involve "Ireland". On articles like this the discussions can be quite long and heated, and it may take time to get to a point. If you don't have the patience to read through then don't make changes. And finally, if you do want to make "wide ranging" edits to featured articles you may get an easier ride if test your proposals on the talk page before you make them.Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the FAreaks have claimed another victim. We can't have the unwashed masses sullying this inviolate article, now can we? 107.77.205.154 (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You missed the part where I added content, and referenced it. But the important lesson here is that both you and WCM have caused all this fuck-aboutery because you're neither able to conceive of a place beyond a sea as being overseas, nor to write non-cryptic edit summaries. You didn't point anywhere specific, Wiki-Ed; you mentioned archives that had scores of different discussions in them without feeling the need to let me know which one you were talking about. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone can find a reference for anything. That's irrelevant. I'm not going to reopen the discussion on the meaning of 'overseas'. It has been used specifically to emphasise a particular point.
 * As for finding the relevant section of talk page: it takes all of 5 seconds to click on a hyperlink, scan down an index and identify discussions which are relevant. There are three discussions on Ireland in the fourth archive and one of them even includes some of the wording you decided to change. Not difficult. Stop whining. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ugh. So you make a detailed list of almost everything I did in the edit, except the largest change, which for some reason is 'irrelevant', but you don't say why. Right. I actually did read the first discussion to do with Ireland, and found absolutely no relevance to any part of my edit. Despairing at your vagueness, I gave up. It wouldn't have been difficult to just tell me what the discussion had been about, but that's obviously not your way. I'll paraphrase the weird English. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you didn't look hard enough. I've done enough hand-holding as it is. As for the colonial lab addition - I don't have strong feelings about that actually - but I know that might others do and one source might not be enough. They haven't chipped in as I expected so let's see if it sticks. I've reinstated your text, but can you fix the reference (my other objection) to conform with the citation style being used in this article. I'd do it myself but your link doesn't actually open the book so there's no way to check its veracity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the colonial lab addition, i don't see it adding any value to the article. It's one author's opinion not a fact of any value. WCM email 10:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * What a shock. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see it adding value, as obviously did the other authors I've referenced. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If you could discuss content rather than making thinly disguised jibes at other editors it would be a refreshing change. Opinion dressed up as fact is not suitable content for an encyclopedia.  Regards, WCM email 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "I see it adding value" - I'm discussing the content. If the value jibes you, that's on you. If you don't believe that some techniques subsequently used in colonies further overseas were first tried in Ireland, can you explain why? I'm going to more closely paraphrase a source to quell your fretting about facts. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How does it add value? How does it make our readers better informed? And no I don't believe that Ireland was part of an experiment as to how the British would plan for world domination.  It's a ridiculous piece of hyperbole.  WCM email 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * How does it not? If you were planning colonies across the Atlantic, why do you believe it wouldn't make sense to experiment closer to home first? I don't believe your proposal that Ireland was part of an experiment on the road to world domination, and certainly none of the cited sources you removed say that. If you'd said a stepping-stone on the road to quarter-world domination, that'd be more like wording I could accept. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope you are good in whatever you do, you'll never make money as a comedian. Again, seeing as you keep ignoring it, Ireland was not some experimental laboratory in which the UK worked out how it would dominate the world. Its a fatuous, vacuous analogy, one academics opinion and does not add value to the article.  WCM email 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdent. Though arriving late to Talk, after needing to look following reversion of an associated but uncontroversial edit, I am pleased with the current result which generally should stand. Well done in the end Alfie, basically you nailed it; it's a learning and educational experience. Often, as you see here, the problem is not what is written, but how that content is stated; but in no case should content differences move to editors who make them. That treads upon the golden AGF rule, although I do commiserate with your frustration in learning how to get there in this case. Ed did a good job in time spent to point toward both problems and solutions in the overly spiced environment that developed. I was heading similarly and you beat me to it, but also spent sufficient time to realize that other relevant context appears improperly weighted or missing, despite the FA. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, CasualObserver. WCM, you might find it more profitable to try answering my questions rather than scanning them for your amusement. I fully intend to keep ignoring the straw man argument you keep asserting, in the hope that you will stop propounding it. Also, please stop making edits you know are contentious until you've achieved consensus, which so far you've signally failed to do. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WCM, you've reverted in the face of a consensus. Please stop this behaviour and make your case here on the talk page instead. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point Alfie, I would call that a stretch, based on the fact that things have not yet changed; when you are able to better develop your reference's thoughts, and how you state them, it should become consensus and should change naturally, hopefully. Your most recent edit assumes a better-stated but after-the-fact assertion of what one source says, but most others indicate that much the same people based their later, early NorthAmer thinking on their previous positive Irish experiences, not on everything. They did not use Ireland as a lab, they used it as experience gained, and took their best shot at what might work again, though under very different circumstances, e.g. far from home vs close, one religious thought vs an unknown or misunderstood religious other (in any case as a religious 'other' and barbaric to boot). What they tried specifically were those productive/defensive things that produced longevity, generally success, but in the proprietor's view, a profitable export commodity, hence a personal profit shared with the Crown. Also out of necessity and an unhappy Irish experience generally, they used timber-cribbed defenses for outside protection, a private army to enforce proprietary control inside, and ended up with the (similar) use of native labor, vs imported labor for production; though they had planned on the latter, they were short on those willing 'adventurers' with a work ethic. Initially, they were really looking for gold, but weren't that Spanish-lucky. Also and important, is that those Irish-experience considerations of the time are mostly relevant for Va and Md on either side of the Chesapeake particularly. Wholly different people and considerations were involved in founding New England settlements and most other plantings, though a proprietary profit (variously measured) remained in most. It would take early iterations of the BoT to assist the colonies toward success, but then, that entity is not even mentioned as part of the Empire's article. Regards, CasualObserver&#39;48 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There clearly isn't a concensus for this edit you're obsessing with Mr . Nor will I continue to repeatedly answer the same question, whilst you claim I didn't.  Surely you can find something better to do and I certainly have better things to do than deal with an editor behaving like a petulant child because someone disagrees with him.  I don't disagree with CasualObserver's analysis but wonder whether its too in depth for what is supposed to be an overview article on the British Empire.  It at least has the merit of sticking to facts rather than obsessing with shoving one man's opinion into the article even though it makes no sense whatsoever.  WCM email 18:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a bit difficult to follow your reasoning, CasualObserver. You now seem to be contradicting your previous post. No need to be petulant, WCM. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

How many people were killed?
I've read that nearly 2 billion people were killed by the British worldwide. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC))


 * OK, but where did you read it? MPS1992 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Here are some sources you could look into, taken from Historiography of the British Empire:
 * David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century (1998) pp 440-64.
 * Mark Harrison, Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine 1859-1914 (1994)
 * MPS1992 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An article in "The Guardian" said the British Empire was responsible for the deaths of 1.8 billion people worldwide. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC))
 * MPS1992 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * An article in "The Guardian" said the British Empire was responsible for the deaths of 1.8 billion people worldwide. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC))


 * If you mean this article, it's an opinion piece, and marked as such. Also it doesn't contain the word "billion".


 * The same google search that found that, also found this piece, by Johann Hari of all people, but that's an opinion piece too. And no mention of billions there either.


 * Ideally you should provide some more details of the Guardian article that you are talking about -- publication date, author, title, page number perhaps -- and also, please explain how it relates to improving this British Empire article that we are talking about. MPS1992 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I read in "The Guardian" today that Clive killed at least 60 million people in India. Therefore the 1.8 billion figure is highly plausible. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC))


 * Right, but this is not a forum to discuss what you think is plausible. Anything without a source can't go into the article. MPS1992 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Do any records survive from the 18th and 19th centuries on the number of people who were killed, or did they only count the soldiers? (86.180.135.164 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Why don't you go and look it up. Preferably in reliable sources (i.e. not the Guardian). And while you're at it, consider other factors like the total world population, which only reached ~2bn in the mid 1920s. If the British had killed 1.8bn over the preceding century there wouldn't have been many people left. Similarly, if Clive had killed half the population of India one would think someone might have noticed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * While the Guardian's reliability may be questioned, the first Guardian link I gave above does link to the author's website, which in turn has a properly referenced version of the article which lists a number of reliable sources. Such reliable sources -- detailed modern studies of the topic -- will draw heavily upon analyses of original 18th and 19th century records, many of which do survive, and do not only enumerate losses of soldiers. Imperial bureaucracies, like other bureaucracies, love to keep records of things. MPS1992 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if you mean circular links back to the Guardian and to other pieces by the same author then yes. it's referenced. But I'd argue that's not quite the standard we should be looking for. Drawing on the Elkins book he refers to "many tens of thousands" rather than billions. That doesn't excuse the behaviour of the individuals involved, but it's a significant difference and calls into question his comparison with the Holocaust. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The British killed far more people than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union. Perhaps the world population did not reach 2 billion until the early 20th century because so many hundreds of millions had been killed by the European and Russian colonial empires? (86.180.135.164 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC))
 * So it slaughtered billions of people, covered it up so no one remembered and hid all the evidence so no one would ever find out? Or maybe it was (partially) responsible for global population increase through, for example, the introduction of smallpox vaccine to India (by Robert Clive no less)? Which of these alternatives is supported by reliable sources? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I too do believe that the British Empire was responsible for millions of deaths. Doubtless, millions of so called excess deaths. However, I think it is impossible to quantify the number of deaths. Simply because they were the result of countless different events (military campaigns, repression of revolts and resistance, etc.) happening every year all over the British Empire (as opposed to a single genocide, such as the Holocaust, which also happened during a period of only four years). For me, it is extremely annoying that many of these events, are probably too "small" to be properly remembered, or too "small" to get any attention (I bet that some British historians would rather describe them as isolated "incidents"). But they are all part of the same system, the British Empire (which in the end, relied on violence and repression). And the number of dead as a result of this system deserves attention. However, sadly, I think it is practically impossible to calculate a number of total dead. I would like to suggest a book on this subject: "Britain's Empire: Resistance, Repression and Revolt" by Richard Gott. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/07/britains-empire-richard-gott-review /EriFr (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, not really a balanced source. I don't think the problem is so much the recording of history as how it is put in context. The simplistic narrative put forward by sources at extreme ends of the spectrum (like the Guardian or Gott) are trying to push a particular point of view. They don't attempt to balance their explanation (WP is actually pretty good at this - all credit to Wales for his three pillars) and they don't explore counter-factual history (and indeed most historians shy away from it). However, one has to consider what would have happened if the British Empire hadn't existed. Would there have been no violence or repression by local governments (e.g the Mughals)? Would millions of people have survived famines in India and Ireland? We could reasonably conclude that millions of people would have died anyway - as they do today from all sorts of causes - so the question is really whether it would have been more or less - your "excess deaths" point. That's a really difficult question that requires consideration of (among other things): global environmental factors, contemporary types of government (both local and regional) and their internal social/economic policies, population increases from introduced medical advances and the suppression of intra-regional wars, improved agricultural science, the known intentions of other empires (c.f. the Third Reich's Generalplan Ost). Maybe someone has tried to do this, but ultimately there is no right answer because it is counter factual, so inevitably we get polarised views. And since those views are not neutral, we don't represent them in this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so. In case the person who asked the original question is still interested and is perhaps perplexed at the argument they have provoked, I will mention this. They have been presented in this thread with a wide number of sources that they could further investigate. If they would like to request an "answer", they will find Reference desk/Humanities far more accommodating than this article talk page. Although, they should be careful of phrasing the question as "I read this in the Guardian but I refuse to cite that source properly, is it true?" The Humanities reference desk exists to answer reasonable questions about facts or about recommendations of sources that might provide facts. This talk page exists only to facilitate discussions that might help improve the article about the British Empire. MPS1992 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This thread was started by the banned editor HarveyCarter as part of his usual trolling. As a quick reminder, please remember Wikipedia is not a forum, and don't engage with this kind of trolling. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately trolls don't come with labels attached, and calling them out leads to accusations that one is not AGF. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


 * With the exception of India for most of the Empire's history the two British cities of London and Manchester together had a greater population than all the other empire territories combined.


 * The larger population figures of today were only achievable due to the Industrial Revolution and the arrival of the railways. Before these it was not possible to feed larger populations, as the fresh food had to be brought into the conurbations from the surrounding countryside, and unless this could be done relatively quickly, the food went off and spoiled.


 * Presumably if the British rulers were that callous towards their colonial subjects they would not have introduced railways, along with schools and hospitals, in all of their colonies at the earliest opportunity, conducive with the logistics and great distances involved.


 * The British Empire may have had some faults but if anyone could have suggested an easier and less painful way of dragging many of the Empire constituent territories out of at best, the Medieval Period, or at worst, the Stone Age, into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, I'm sure the Empire's leaders would have been delighted to have heard it.


 * BTW, during WW II over two million (2,000,000) Indians joined the Indian Army, every one of them a volunteer. There were also considerable number of other races who joined their relative Empire military forces, again all voluntary. There was no conscription for 'natives', only for the white colonists. One could reasonably assume that if their 'British' rulers were that unpopular such would not have occurred. I put 'British' in quotes simply because all Empire citizens, with a few exceptions such as Protectorates, etc., of any race, creed, or colour, were all in fact British Subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.77 (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And a curious fact for all those people with an axe-to-grind to ponder is that why was it that whenever the two phrases 'fleeing refugees' and 'British Empire' were ever mentioned in the same sentence it was always in the context of the 'refugees' trying to get into parts of the British Empire, and not out of it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.135.170 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

While the railways probably did help in the dramatic increase of human population, there was already an increase in the world population before they became a major factor. It is estimated that the world population first reached the 1 billion mark c. 1804. There were 791 million people c. 1750, and 682 million people c. 1700.

Meanwhile "the first full-scale working railway steam locomotive" was only created in 1804, by Richard Trevithick. Technological changes were a bit more gradual during the Early modern period. According to the History of rail transport, wagonways were already in use since the 16th century and iron rails were in use since the 1760s. But it is not clear this had much to do with the increase in population. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)


 * You may be right. Perhaps I should have written steam railways. It was steam that allowed the rapid and regular movement of large quantities of food and heavy goods and fuel such as coal, etc., into cities. I should also perhaps have clarified that 'the larger population figures of today' I was referring-to applied to the former 'Empire' territories, excepting what-was India.


 * FWIW, from around 1700 London was the biggest city on earth and it was only exceeded by IIRC Mexico City as late as the 1960s.


 * The Empire had its bad points but if the 'faults' of the empire are to be pointed out then at least it would be a good idea for the said 'faults' to be actually true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

While London had a significant population for quite a while, I am not certain of its status as the most populous city on Earth. The list of largest cities throughout history contains estimates of historic city populations since 8,000 BC. The listing for London includes:
 * London, 1825. Population estimated to 1,335,000 people. Slightly smaller than Beijing, which had a population of 1,350,000 people.
 * London, 1841. Population estimated to 1,948,000-2,235,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
 * London, 1850. Population estimated to 2,320,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
 * London, 1851. Population estimated to 2,362,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
 * London, 1861. Population estimated to 2,803,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
 * London, 1875. Population estimated to 4,241,000 people. Slightly larger than Saint Petersburg, which had a population of 4,000,000 people.
 * London, 1900. Population estimated to 6,480,000-6,600,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
 * London, 1914. Population estimated to 7,419,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
 * Surpassed by the New York metropolitan area in 1925, with a population of 7,774,000 people.

According to the World's largest cities list, London is still growing. The city proper has a population of 8,673,713 people. The metropolitan area has a population of 9,787,426 people. The urban area has a population of 13,879,757 people. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Unconstructive
WCM. I've linked the first mention of Dominion in that section rather than the second, changed the description of Australian and NZ involvement in WWI from an "occasion", and avoided linking Ottoman Empire a second time in one section. What part of this edit do you oppose, and why do you describe it as unconstructive? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

WCM, what part of this edit do you oppose, and why do you describe it as unconstructive? Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I refer you to my previous answer. Have a nice day.  WCM email 02:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not constructive. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing
Famine in India goes into (referenced) detail about how economic policy combined with natural causes to cause famine, but Wiki-Ed and WCM are removing any reference to man-made causes. What gives? Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. You've made three edits, not one.


 * 1) The first one in relation to the role of the East India Company in evicting/expelling/defeating the French forces in Egypt was simply wrong. It is now sourced in line as well as at the end of the line.
 * 2) The second asserts military strength comes from wealth, an oversimplification which is contentious at best.
 * 3) The third cherry picks POV elements from the article on Famine in India, ignoring the balanced views of other scholars which said article represents. In any case, the "man made causes" are explained - in context - in the subsequent sentence. And you forgot to bring the sources in your hurry to introduce some sensational 'new' content.
 * This is really quite tiresome. What about those other 5m articles that need your attention? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sigh, Wikipedia is not the place to right WP:GREATWRONGS, if you see this as "whitewashing" then by all means feel free to start an RFC and get outside opinion. Try WP:3O, try WP:DR if you feel so strongly about it.  But please stop the melodrama, the finger pointing and yelling about other editors and stop revert warring.
 * Now lets look at my edit summary:
 * "rv it was written in NPOV before - rs some relevant text removed for no good reason"
 * Part of the reason I reverted this edit was there was some relevant text removed for no good reason. So it is not simply as claimed "whitewashing" but down to the fact, as noted above, the edit removed information and replaced it with incorrect information.
 * The second part of the reason for the revert. I didn't see your edit as neutral, placing great emphasis and assigning blame on one factor.  The text you removed included the fact it was climate related but also due to economic mismanagement by the East India company.  The charge that any reference to man made causes was removed is fallacious.  A neutral balanced text was replaced with an unbalanced statement.
 * If we're going to continue with accusations of misconduct can we please cut the crap and go straight to WP:ANI as I'm getting bored with it. Discuss content not editors.  WCM email 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Rubbish. Famine in India explicitly states that the famines had both natural and administrative causes. You've emphasised the former and reduced the latter to political failings in dealing with the famines, rather than political decisions that helped create them. You're both entitled to your view of the Empire, but there's no point trying to right history's great wrongs here just because you feel it's been unfairly maligned. WCM, you're describing the exact opposite of my edit. I didn't assign "great emphasis and assigning blame on one factor"; that was what was done to me. I included a factor given equal emphasis by the main article. Aren't there other empires you social justice warriors must defend? Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The text doesn't attempt to assert a cause for the famines - it is contentious and explaining it fully and neutrally would take up a full article. Fortunately we have one - linked for convenience of the interested reader - but your selective reading of said article - as outlined above - and your desire to inflict your interpretation on others is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. If you don't understand and/or are unwilling to follow the core pillars then don't act surprised when other editors revert your contributions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What text, exactly? What's contentious? Why do you describe the explanation of the Indian famines given at Famine in India as my interpretation? Why do you inflict this lack of clarity on me? I want to challenge you on your ridiculous 'core pillars' ramble but I shudder to think of the result, so let's park that. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, let's not "park that"; it's pretty fundamental. If you don't understand what you're doing either make an effort to learn or go away. "What text exactly?" The bit of text you keep trying to change. "What's contentious?" (a) the subject as a whole; (b) your selective editing which places weight on a particular interpretation of said subject. The text you have been inserting does not reflect the (relatively) balanced view taken by the other article and it does not reflect the view of the source we are using to support this paragraph in this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I knew I'd shudder, because I knew you'd follow with a screed totally lacking in self-awareness. I'm not placing weight on any of the reasons for the Indian famines; I've simply put an end to the whitewashing of one reason, which seems to drive you wild. In doing this, I was guided by the main article. The text (and references) I added reflect the main article; your whitewashing does the opposite. It would surely strike any neutral observer that what you're doing is nakedly political and is not supported by the sources I added but which you then removed. Stop this. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lack of self awareness? That's rich. Either you're lacking self awareness yourself or you're deliberately being disruptive. The pattern of your previous edits and your statement above (that you are attempting to drive editors "wild") suggests the latter. This is supported by your failure to realise that you didn't actually insert any sources, just references to sources which are not listed or used in this article. You don't seem to know what you are doing, and you don't seem to be familiar with the subject. I'd say "try harder", but please don't bother. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that you like the thought of me shuddering. I didn't say that I was "attempting to drive editors wild", I noted that slightly altering this article to more accurately reflect the content of the main article seems to drive you wild. I assure you, that wasn't why I did it. You haven't addressed my point that I'm not placing weight on any of the reasons for the famines, but ending the undue weight currently placed on one reason. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protection
It's clear there are some major edit wars going on here.....don't see how blocking those involved would help resolve this so have asked for the page to be locked. Best no more reverts as the log is indicating blocks are due.--Moxy (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You don't have any right to threat any user who wishes to express his opinion, this is just pure nonsense. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * First, please take the time to review Wikipedia's core policies. This is not a place for anyone to express their opinions. If you can't grasp that very simple principle you shouldn't be editing at all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take the time to review WP:BRD. --Moxy (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The second part of that is very popular here. The third, I've found, not so much. See above. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you guys are having problems solving this pls see Dispute resolution.--Moxy (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a good step for them to work through - they might learn something about how WP works. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Them"? Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "them" is those that don't seem to have a working understanding of the well defined policies, in addition to WP:BRD, check WP:CONPOL WayeMason (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that include you? Because I'm fairly bemused at a party to the dispute suddenly standing back and talking about "them". Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Tinkering
Hi, WCM. I made changes to reflect that some white colonies had already become independent by the 19th century, I linked articles that hadn't been previously linked, and I removed a reference to an event that occurred after 1914 and is thus out of the chronology for that section. You've also reverted another editor who linked the Canadian rebellions. What part of these edits do you oppose, and why do you describe them as tinkering? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please take note, I'm only replying once. Your edits are mainly small changes tinkering with words here and there.  When I reverted you it was because they didn't improve the article, you can add grammar Nazi to your list of epithets if you like.  I just reverted you again for a similar reason, your "fixes" weren't fixes.
 * Secondly as I said earlier, your edits have a distinct POV slant and its obvious you have strong views on the legacy of the British Empire, seeking to emphasise what you view as WP:GREATWRONGS. That's good we need people of disparate opinion, however, we shouldn't be imposing our personal views on articles and one of the strengths of a good editor is that their personal opinions aren't discernible from their edits.  To be blunt you're failing in that respect.
 * Finally, your attitude toward other editors sucks. To be brutally frank I feel very disinclined to engage with editors who make every response a personal comment about other editors instead of content.  WCM email 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hard to blame you for only wanting to reply once, seeing as you've signally failed to defend any part of your revert. To top that, you defend your strong views and terrible attitude by ascribing these things to me. Your talk about "personal comments" is really the last straw; my comments above are rancour-free and to the point, in stark contrast to yours. Stop it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh please, save the protests of innocence, every response from you accuses other editors of acting with dark motives. Just pack it in.  All people care about is maintaining this article at its current high standard.  Whilst you continue to scrawl all over it you'll be reverted. Try reading WP:OVERLINK for a start. WCM email 17:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hi, WCM. I made changes to reflect that some white colonies had already become independent by the 19th century, I linked articles that hadn't been previously linked, and I removed a reference to an event that occurred after 1914 and is thus out of the chronology for that section. You've also reverted another editor who linked the Canadian rebellions. What part of these edits do you oppose, and why do you describe them as tinkering?" - where are the accusations of "dark motives"? Don't you see the irony of your saying I do this with "every response", after coming out with a response like your first above? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I started this section, I explained my edit in detail and gave my reasons for making it. I then asked you what part of the edits you opposed. You completely ignored that question, and now you're attempting to debate it (not here obviously, because that's what talk pages are for, and how can you right your great wrongs that way?) in the edit summaries. Please stop. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That lack of awareness again: The chronology/geography of each section is not strictly applied, so your argument for tinkering with that element is void. Although... if it did then your attempt to make a reference to the US would be out of place. As it is, the subject of this section is the colonies that formed the British Empire at the time and the process by which they evolved into something else. Suggesting that the American War of Independence was part of this process is misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with Alfie Gandon, but WP:GREATWRONGS says "we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources". You seem to be suggesting that the abolition of slavery, the Canadian rebellions of 1837, and the Irish Easter Rising are not covered by any such sources.--Quality posts here (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That lack of self-awareness again. Your text implies that no white colonies had become independent before this time; mine corrects this. I'm not suggesting any war was part of any process, merely correcting bad history/English. If you want to alter the text to a clearer version, I'm sure I could smile on that. I don't see the logic in referring to the '16 Rising and not the more definitive violence that followed, but I should have known better than to look for that rarity in this discourse. Can you see that you're contradicting yourself with the chronology argument? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, you were just making it more complicated - implying a link to something that didn't exist.
 * I said in my edit summary that the article doesn't come back to Ireland - of course it does - post war - and makes brief reference to the 'definitive violence' you are talking about. So that is covered. If this were an article on Irish history then it would make sense to run events in 1916 through to 1921/2, 1937 etc. But it's not and there's a fairly important event which happened in the middle that is relevant to the subject of this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hate to read such bickering. "Pack it in," etc. And I don't think I am alone. Anyway, I am glad to help out with this article. It looks pretty good the way it is,but it can always be improved. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions
This is a great article. It's full of good information, very educational and pleasing to the eye in terms of structure and layout. I enjoyed reading it because it has a great flow. I also made a few minor improvements to the text and the layout. I have a few comments.

1. "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."

Would it be possible to add information on reasons why it happened? It's not very clear. I assume it was in retaliation to the American Revolution.

2. "Overseas colonies were attacked and occupied, including those of the Netherlands, which was annexed by Napoleon in 1810. France was finally defeated by a coalition of European armies in 1815."

Which oversea colonies? Please clarify.

3. "British gains in southern and East Africa".

It would be more consistent to say Southern and East Africa or southern and east Africa.

4. "Over 2.5 million men served in the armies of the Dominions, as well as many thousands of volunteers from the Crown colonies."

What Dominions? If we are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion, please update with link. It's unclear.

ICE77 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a note.
 * I added a note.
 * I capitalized both and added links.
 * It's linked in the WP:LEAD already, but sure. I added a link. TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the help TompaDompa.

ICE77 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

"Former empire"? - Imperial soft-power today
Currently, the article contains the category of "former empires" and the article acts as if it simply vanished into thin air when Hong Kong was handed over to China in the 1990s. Indeed, in the introduction the Empire is spoken about in the past tense. But the British Empire still continues to exert a lot of influence on the globe right now through "soft power" and other manifestations, which should be mentioned in depth in the Wikipedia article. All it currently talks about in the legacy section is a few obscure islands and cricket.

(1) the Commonwealth of Nations. Vast swathes of Africa, the Indian Subcontinent, North America and Australasia are beholden to an organisation headed up by the British monarchy. The article simply presents it in passing as a "equal association", but does not mention other aspects such as ideological conformity to British values (and forms of political organisation favoured by them) being a part of the program and the soft-power of foreign aid and other carrots which are part of the process.

(2) the Anglican Communion. 85 million people across the globe are beholden to an organisation and religious system created by the British Empire, which is de facto obliged to look to Canterbury for policy direction to this day. In many of the societies where it exists, this exerts real social power as religion has not declined there yet.

(3) various "think tanks" and "scholarships" such as Chatham House (the second most influential in the world), the Rhodes Scholarship (which has even groomed the likes of US president Bill Clinton), government sponsored media such as BBC World News (which shapes the views of 76 million people across the world a week), etc.

(4) various heads of state belonging to the Order of the Bath headed up by the British monarch (including the Qatar, Oman, Jordan, Brunei monarchies, Anglophile French-presidents; Nicholas Sarkozy and François Hollande; Jacob Zuma of South Africa).

(5) the so-called "Five Eyes" (UKUSA Agreement) network of global surveillance and collection of the world's data, which exclusively contains the United Kingdom and "former" British Empire countries.

(6) the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and its primarily British orientation as a policy to keep "the Americans in, the Russians out and the Germans down."

This does not even begin to touch on the economic side, such as the financial influence of the City of London, the promotion of neoliberal economics as normative and the role played in the creation of globalising institutions such as the United Nations (continuing membership as a major power on the Security Council), etc. I think at present the article very much underplays the situation of the British Empire today and we should have more focus on it's influence now as a world power. I agree it no longer has a program of settler colonialism, but Empires have never just been about that; the Raj wasn't. Claíomh Solais (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It's an interesting perspective although I'd argue against placing too much emphasis on any of those things as levers of influence. The British Empire certainly laid the foundations of things you have listed, but I think these are now facets of Britain's soft power, not of a larger political/legal/military entity that no longer exists. Cultural 'imperialism' is slightly different - there might be an argument for inclusion there - but I must confess I'm not well read on that area. Two questions: (a) Are there sufficient sources out there to support the line of argument you've suggested (b) would this belong in the legacy section of this article or an expansion of the last sentence of the Politics > Foreign Relations section of the article on the UK? Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The Commonwealth of Nations was established in 1949 and currently has 52 member states. Of them, 21 are monarchies and 31 are republics. They are all considered sovereign and have different constitutions and political systems. They do not look to London for leadership.
 * The Anglican Communion was established in 1867 and serves as an association of independent churches. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the traditional head of the organization, but "does not exercise authority" over the other member churches. His role is designated the primus inter pares.
 * Chatham House was established in 1920 as an international affairs institute, the founding members being the British delegates of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919. Influential as it is, it does not actually dictate policy.
 * The Rhodes Scholarship was established in 1902 by the will of South African politician Cecil Rhodes, with the goals being "the furtherance of the British Empire, for the bringing of the whole uncivilised world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for the making the Anglo-Saxon race but one Empire." The original goals seem to have been abandoned. Rhodes Scholars have been openly critical of the scholarship's colonial past, and their membership has been diversified. Women started being eligible for the scholarship in 1977, and black people started being eligible in 1991.
 * BBC World News was established in 1995 and renamed in 2008. It is not government-sponsored and does not receive financing from television licensing in the United Kingdom. The television channel "is funded by subscription and advertising revenues". While a subsidiary of BBC, this channel is under a different ownership and administration.
 * The Order of the Bath is an order of chivalry established in 1725. Membership is not really open to foreigners, though they can be created Honorary Members. "Honorary members do not count towards the numerical limits" in membership of the order. The List of Knights Grand Cross of the Order of the Bath mentions honorary members from Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Oman, Poland, Brunei, the United States, Brazil, Italy, Jordan, South Africa, Lithuania, Estonia, Turkey, France, Slovenia, Indonesia, South Korea, Singapore, and Germany.
 * The Order of the Both is considered junior to the Order of the Garter (established in 1348), the Order of the Thistle (established in 1687), and the dormant Order of St Patrick (established in 1783).
 * The Five Eyes were apparently established c. 1941, as part of negotiations concerning the Atlantic Charter. They have little to do with the British Empire. They serve as an intelligence alliance between the governments of 5 countries: Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They share intelligence information and co-operate on matters of global surveillance. According to various recent revelations, the alliance is looking to expand its membership through various negotiations. Potential members mentioned so far include France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Austria, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Japan, Luxembourg, Poland, Portugal, South Korea, Switzerland, Turkey, and Singapore.
 * NATO was established in 1949 as a wide military alliance. I am not certain why you think it is British-oriented. It currently has 28 member states. The latest to join were Albania and Croatia. Dimadick (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * All the points raised are (or could be) mentioned in the Legacy section of the article. None of them imply that the British Empire exists now.  It doesn't.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the contention was that these 'soft' legacies of Empire allow Britain to project influence globally, perhaps as a counterpoint to the 'hard' power strategies it employed in the past. I agree with Dimadick's objections insofar as they relate to the projection of political power by the British Government (i.e. that these thing don't materially help), but I wonder whether they (and many other similar things) have some cultural influence that makes Britain more relevant than it would be otherwise. We would need sources to support this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

How do we define "former empire"? After all (due to British overseas territories) the sun still does not set on it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

[], so not it is not a former empire.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is a BBC article, which covers the British Overseas Territories as remnants of the Empire. The problem is that these are not conquered territories. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 has granted their population full British Citizenship. Quite an upgrade for most of them. As for the collection of current overseas territories:
 * Akrotiri and Dhekelia. British military bases and installations in the island of Cyprus. They were not included when the rest of the island gained independence in 1960. Currently the area is inhabited by 8,000 British people (military personnel and their families) and 7,700 Cypriots.
 * Anguilla. An island area in the Leeward Islands. Administered as a separate colony since 1980, as the locals did not wish to join the rest of the colony of Saint Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla in gaining independence. It has an estimated population of 15,000 people.
 * Bermuda. An island area in the north Atlantic Ocean. It has been an English colony since 1609, when it came into the possession of English companies. Permanent settlement and city-building started in 1612. It passed into the administration of the English Crown in 1684 and the British Crown in 1707. It has an estimated population of 64,237 people.
 * The British Antarctic Territory. The areas of Antarctica claimed by the British, unified into a single area in 1962. The territorial claims overlap with Argentine Antarctica and the Chilean Antarctic Territory, though a treaty ensures that none of the three countries maintains a military presence in the area. The British claim has been recognized by Australia, France, New Zealand, and Norway. No other country has officially recognized it. There is no permanent population in the area, though an estimated 250 people live and work there in the summer.
 * The British Indian Ocean Territory. Areas of the Indian Ocean under British control. It mostly consists of the Chagos Archipelago. The territory was formed in 1965, by separating it from Mauritius and the Seychelles. The only local population of the area, the Chagossians, were forcibly evicted by the British government between 1967 and 1973. The only currently inhabited island in the territory is Diego Garcia, where Britain and the United States maintain a joined military base. An estimated 4,239 people live there, though Americans outnumber the British.
 * The British Virgin Islands. An island area of the Caribbean, representing the British portion of the Virgin Islands. They have been an English colony since 1672, though they were only granted separate colony status in 1960. An estimated 28, 054 people live there.
 * The Cayman Islands. An island area in the Caribbean, part of the Greater Antilles. England controlled the area since 1670, though permanent settlement started in the 1730s. The Islands were formerly part of the Colony of Jamaica and gained separate colony status in 1962. An estimated 56,732 people live there.
 * The Falkland Islands. An island area in the south Atlantic Ocean. The Islands have a complex colonial history, but they have been under permanent British control since 1833. There is a long, ongoing territorial dispute with Argentina, though there has been no military conflict over the dispute since 1982. The Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, 2013 demonstrated that most locals favor the continuation of the Islands' status as a British territory. An estimated 2,932 permanent residents live there, with the rest of the population consisting of British military personnel and their families.
 * Gibraltar. An area in the Iberian Peninsula. It has been under permanent British control since 1713. There is a long, ongoing territorial dispute with Spain. The Gibraltar sovereignty referendum, 2002 demonstrated that most locals favor the continuations of Gibraltar's status as a British territory. An estimated 32,194 people live there.
 * Montserrat. An island area in the Leeward Islands. It has been an English colony since 1667, though it was occupied by the Kingdom of France from 1782 to 1783. A series of eruptions from the volcano Soufrière Hills between 1995 and 2013 have destroyed several local settlements and depopulated Montserrat. An estimated 4,900 people live there.
 * The Pitcairn Islands. An island area in the south Pacific Ocean. The Islands, previously vacant for centuries, were permanently settled by mutineers from the HMS Bounty in 1790. The Islands became a British colony in 1838. An estimated 49 people live there. The islanders apparently have a reproduction problem, with only 2 births recorded between 1991 and 2012. The islands are increasingly off-limits to children from the outside world, following the Pitcairn sexual assault trial of 2004. Apparently much of the male population in the Islands favor sexual relations with underage people and have protested against the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
 * Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha. A grouping of three islands in the south Atlantic Ocean, with equal status between them formalized in 2009. Saint Helena has been an English colony since 1657, controlled by British companies. It became a crown colony in 1834. Ascension Island was annexed by the British in 1815, and Tristan da Cunha in 1816. An estimated population of 7,729 people live there.
 * South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. A grouping of mostly uninhabited islands in the southern Atlantic Ocean, established as a separate territory in 1985. The British have claimed South Georgia as their own since 1775, and the South Sandwich Islands since 1908. There is an ongoing territorial dispute with Argentina, though there has been no military conflict in the area since a British victory in 1982. There are an estimated 30 people living and working there, but no permanent population.
 * The Turks and Caicos Islands. An island area in the Lucayan Archipelago. The islands had been claimed by multiple colonial powers, but not actually settled. The British started settling the islands in 1783 and formally annexed them c. 1799. They have been governed as a separate colony since 1973. Canada has repeatedly proposed annexing the Islands since 1917, but negotiations have been fruitless so far. An estimated 31,458 people live there.Dimadick (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The term "Empire" was never defined, so it is ambiguous when it began or ended. There was no British Emperor or Empress for example, monarchs from Victoria to George VI were emperor/empress of India.  So whether it ended in 1948, 1965, 1982, or 1998 is unclear.  But no reliable sources refer to it as existing today.  That is no to say that the modern UK has not been accused of imperialism in its treatment of developing nations, some of which are Commonwealth members, or in its retention of Gibraltar and the Falklands.  But the view that it controls the Commonwealth nations through the Commonwealth bureaucracy is fringe.  TFD (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. If there is such thing as British imperialism today, then surely there must be a British Empire (a domain within which this imperialism takes place?). The Economist; one of the main pro-imperialist publications; has published an article here which says that the UK is the world's most powerful "soft-power."


 * Empire is about controlling other people outside of the normal boundaries of the nation state. Are we seriously saying that Nauru and Fiji are "equal" to the United Kingdom within the Commonwealth? Why was Zimbabwe removed when Mugabe started to reclaim farm land controlled by Anglo-Saxon settlers? (ie - reversing the legacy of British Imperialism). If all member states are equal and free to run their own countries however they please, in the interests of their own people, then that seems a bit of an odd one.


 * The British Empire may for the most part be a bit more sneaky about it today, but stick-and-carrot diplomacy, neoliberal economics, "culture" (if it can even be called that), language, "think tanks" and so on are not to be underestimated in the scheme of global power politics. The ruling class of the British Empire was never dissolved in a way that the French and Russian Revolutions overthrew those prior systems. I think it is just naive to act as if it has all just gone away. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You have defined Empire as being "about controlling other people outside of normal boundaries of the nation state". Soft power is about influence, not control. Britain today may be able to influence people outside its borders, but it cannot compel them. Witness British Government attempts to influence 27 states in the EU to do what it wants... Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well in terms of the honors system (and thus in a sense the constitution) []Slatersteven (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

ME
See Middle_East and the subsequent sections. I know where Southwestern Asia is, because I know where Asia is and I understand cardinal points. It's unclear whether you're using 'Middle East' in its (quite vague) modern meaning, or its contemporary one, which is quite different (if not quite as vague). Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And South-West Asia is rarely used - per its definition. Middle East is the term used in the press, in most books and articles so the easiest for people to understand.  You can always add a footnote if you think there is a serious issue  Snowded  TALK 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, on some Islands in North Western Europe... Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Not for me, because I don't know where you're talking about. You still haven't addressed the lack of clarity I brought up. Wiki-Ed, just go away. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Snowded? Modern or contemporary? Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Try and make a case for a change if you want to engage other editors to engage Snowded  TALK 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe 'Middle East' ought to be used here, as it's unclear what area's being referred to, a lack of clarity accentuated by the term's changing definition. I'd rather be more specific. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

South Sudan
The Sudanese autonomous region of South Sudan gained independence in 2011 following a referendum, marking it the true official end of the British Empire.2602:30A:C0FF:A6E0:B8B3:325F:2A7B:783D (talk) 02:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how, given it gained independence after Sudan gained it's independence. Also to make it official the UK government would have to have said so.Slatersteven (talk) 08:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

WWII
I'm not happy with the current text. Firstly, "Britain and the empire stood alone against Germany until the entry of the Soviet Union to the war in 1941" ignores Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia, and comes across as Anglocentric. Secondly, it strikes me as an unusually extreme POV to characterise the phrase "all peoples" as ambiguous, and in Wikipedia's voice. Thirdly, independence movements are usually referred to as independence movements, rather than nationalist ones. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The first part's easily fixed by swapping Germany for Axis powers or something similar. — Jon C.  ॐ  12:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I did, and was reverted. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well, I don't see any reason for reverting that particular point. Pinging … — Jon C.  ॐ  13:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * How about: "...were the principal adversaries of the Axis powers...."   ?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Was Italy fighting Germany in 1940? The text should read something like "after the fall of Greece and Yugoslavia...".13:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Slatersteven (talk)
 * Probably because that isn't what you did Mr Gandon, you simply re-imposed the text that was objected too. Italy was not on the allied side in 1940 and both Greece and Yugoslavia were not invaded until April 1941. The phrase stood alone is actually accurate and its a reasonably common observation so relevant to include. WCM email 14:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, I thought we were talking about including Italy in the Axis powers, not on the Empire's side… — Jon C.  ॐ  14:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I read the OP as saying that it is wrong to claim that only Britain fought Germany, otherwise it is not "anglocentric" to ignore Italy.Slatersteven (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Japan also a part of the Axis didn't enter the war till December 1941. WCM email 14:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WCM, Alfie didn't just change to Axis power he reinstated a whole bunch of changes hence the revert. I think the current phrase makes more sense for most readers.   Snowded  TALK 15:21, 9 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Italy was not opposed to Germany in 1939-22 June 1941. Greece was not an allied nation.  Greece was attacked in 1940 and quickly subdued.  Yugoslavia was attacked in 6 April 1941 and quickly overcome.  TFD (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No-one said Italy was on the Allied side, and no-one mentioned Japan. Greece and Italy were at war from October 1940, and Germany was at war with Yugoslavia two months before it invaded the USSR. The UK had been involved in the Greco-Italian War almost from the start, and Germany joined the same April it invaded Yugoslavia. "Britain and the empire stood alone against Germany, until the entry of the Soviet Union to the war in 1941" simply isn't true. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to be reading things into the sentence that it does not say. We are using the word "stood" in the sense that Britain remained steadfast. Greece and Yugoslavia did not withstand German aggression. They fell. The Soviet Union was attacked but stood firm. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right in that I wasn't reading it the same way as you. History seems to be showing us that it's a lot easier to withstand German aggression and remain steadfast when they don't actually invade your country. Nevertheless, I repeat; "Britain and the empire stood alone against Germany, until the entry of the Soviet Union to the war in 1941" simply isn't true. Greece stood, and fell. Yugoslavia also stood, and also fell. That means the UK wasn't always standing "alone" between the Fall of France in April 1940 and Barbarossa in June 1941, as your version confusingly implies, but only part of that time. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Alfie G, to the extent that, while technically correct, the phrasing is more than a tad jingoistic. I also agree with him that 'independence movements' is both more accurate, and clearer in context. These were movements that didn't want any longer to be part of the Empire, hence their different interpretation of "all peoples". Pincrete (talk) 01:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If they fell, then they did not stand. And they never stood with the UK in the sense that nations of the Empire did:  sending assistance (money, food, equipment, soldiers) and accepting refugees.  One would not say if he were assaulted by someone who had assaulted other people in different places that those other victims stood with him.  And you did imply Italy was on the allied side in your paragraph opening this discussion.  ("ignores Italy, Greece, and Yugoslavia").  Was that an error?  If so, then please correct.  TFD (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD, I pointed out that Italian involvement in the war was being ignored as well as Greek and Yugoslav; why anyone would take the implication you have taken simply because I put the countries in the same sentence is beyond me. How does one fall if one has never stood? Greece and the UK stood beside each other as they fought side-by-side in the Mediterranean in 1940 and 1941, no? Almost as if it was another nation of the Empire, the UK sent assistance, i.e. soldiers and equipment, to its ally in his time of need. In this light, your allegory is pretty thin. I agree about the jingoism, Pincrete. It wouldn't be the first phrasing I've come across here that leans in that direction. Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is hard to see how saying that not including Italy in the list of countries the UK was fighting is Anglocentric if you were saying the UK was fighting Italy (that would be NAzicentric).Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Funnily enough Alfie Gandon, I read the sentence exactly the same way as The Four Deuces did.

jingoism ˈdʒɪŋɡəʊɪz(ə)m/ nounderogatory noun: jingoism extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy. "the popular jingoism that swept the lower–middle classes"
 * Accusing other editors of jingoism is demonstrating bad faith. And looking at the dictionary definition of jingoism, I don't see the phrase as jingoistic in the slightest; it seems more an accusation to put other editors on the back foot to try and prevail in a oontent discussion.  Its a fairly commonly used phrase for this period of the Second World War and I don't see a valid reason for its removal.  Moreover it seems solely down to a case of WP:IDONTLIKE and again the comments above imply its down to the editor's own POV/deep dislike.  I would strongly suggest if you wish to convince other editors of your content proposals, you wind back the rhetoric and stop being an asshole. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Slatersteven, Anglocentric in the sense that because the UK's main war was against the Germans, the other theatres (even those where the UK was also involved) don't really count. Worm, no-one's accused anyone of jingoism, so I reckon your talk of bad faith, trying to put editors on the back foot, POV etc. would be more usefully applied to editors accusing others of assholeism. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You really are a sad little man aren't you. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense as the UK was fighting Italy in that theater.Slatersteven (talk) 11:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not the user.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Really and calling another editor "worm" isn't being an utter asshole? Seems like someone needs a lesson in manners. BedsBookworm (talk) 11:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replied on your talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If by 'theater' you mean the whole of Europe, then perhaps I ought to have used a different term. My point was that the Anglocentric view focuses on northwestern Europe, where the UK was fighting its main enemy. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So you mean German-centric.Slatersteven (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Glad we can move on. Secondly, it strikes me as an unusually extreme POV to characterise the phrase "all peoples" as ambiguous, and in Wikipedia's voice. Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you still not learnt how Wikipedia works? The little numbers in superscript at the end of the sentence point to references at the end of the article. I've only checked one of the two listed in this instance; this debate is discussed in detail. If you try reading the sources being used you won't keep running into walls so often. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The words may have been portrayed by some as ambiguous; that's no excuse for you putting that position in Wikipedia's voice. Alfie Gandon (talk) 01:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems you haven't learnt how Wikipedia works. Go away. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite your faults, you have a certain reliability. Thirdly, independence movements are usually referred to as independence movements, rather than nationalist ones. Alfie Gandon (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliably right? Reliably not reverted by other editors? All independence movements are nationalist, but not all nationalist movements lead to independence. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Reliably fond of unlikely requests. Nor do all independence movements. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * The only non-British Empire country that voluntarily stood alongside the British all through the war was actually the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. The others, Greece, etc, where all attacked, and Britain went to their aid. Prior to being attacked they were neutral, so did not 'stand alongside' Britain, if anything, Britain stood by them.


 * BTW, Egypt and Palestine were protectorates and not officially part of the Empire, however Britain fulfilled its treaty obligations in defending them too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Fork off
Much as I have POV forks maybe we need an article on "Crimes of the British Empire", and link to that form here (assuming we can actually populates such an article in a NPOV way)?Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Bad idea, it will become a POV fest of OR and SYN. WCM email 16:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * AS I said I am not too sure about it, just wondered what people thought.Slatersteven (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it also has the problem of completely changing the approach taken to this sort of thing. We don't have articles on Crimes of the United States of America or Crimes of the French Republic or Crimes of the Ottoman Empire or Crimes of the Russian Empire or Crimes of the German Empire, nor articles filling those functions. We do have United States war crimes, Japanese war crimes, Italian war crimes, German war crimes, Soviet war crimes, and British war crimes, plus various sub-articles of some of these. Some already-existing articles of this nature could perhaps be linked to. MPS1992 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, but we have article like this Torture during the Algerian War of Independence so maybe what we need a similar articles for the crimes of the British empire.Slatersteven (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * British war crimes seems to fit that, and has links to more specific articles. CMD (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But it only applies since 1899. Alfie Gandon (talk) 10:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I assumed the suggestion is that we expand the article.10:48,Slatersteven (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Torture during the Algerian War of Independence is after 1899 too. I don't think anyone has opposed articles about notable instances before 1899. CMD (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

"Much as I have POV forks" You have already created POV forks? Could you name them? Dimadick (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That was presumably a typo that was meant to read "Much as I hate POV forks". TompaDompa (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You would need to show that there is literature about the subject. Not just literature about individual crimes, but literature that treats the topic as a whole.  And there is ambiguity about what the Empire was and the definition of crime.  There is a topic about British war crimes because there are laws of war written into British statutes that the government of the UK is obliged to obey.  There is nothing comparable before the 20th century.  TFD (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For the 'crimes' to be judged as "Crimes of the British Empire" the 'crimes' would need to have been deliberate and sanctioned as official policy by the government in Westminster, which most claimed 'crimes' certainly were not. In cases where crimes were committed by individuals then when evidence and witnesses were available the accused were in most cases arrested and charged and put before a court of law or courts martial, such as with Breaker Morant, who was subsequently found guilty and shot.


 * Accusations of such 'crimes' would also need to be supported by evidence or statements from impartial observers, not by unsubstantiated claims made by people or political organizations with an axe-to-grind, nor by people who's ignorance of the conditions and customs of the time and geographical area make such accusations laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Use of the reference to the country of England after 1603.
Suggest: Use of the reference to the country of England should be "The UK" ("The United Kingdom" after 1603 (Union of the Crowns of Scotland and England). After 1707 there was an United UK Parliament. This shouldn't therefore be referred to as English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB15:249:8A00:B062:D9A5:E135:3C72 (talk) 11:19, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * although the crowns were united England and Scotland remained separate nations until the act of union. Adn does ther article say "English Parliament" for events after 1707?Slatersteven (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The two countries were separate. England has had other foreign monarchs, from Normandy, Holland, Hanover, but remained separate from them.  TFD (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * They weren't 'foreign', they were all related by descent or by marriage. Monarchs didn't/don't possess any form of citzenship.

Wikipedia's voice
Thatcher may have been right when she argued that Britain did not recover until the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982. Or she may have been wrong. Either way, we ought not put her opinion in Wikipedia's voice. I've fixed this. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Read it again, the wording is directly attributed to Thatcher and it is not in Wikipedia's voice. Original text restored.   Oh and the 'very' was appropriate as well  Snowded  TALK 19:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The quote is directly attributed to her, and is then followed by an unquoted assertion which isn't attributed to anyone. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the context is clear. But lets see what other editors say  Snowded  TALK 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with on both counts. The "very" in that context seems like editorializing to me, and following up the attributed quote with regular text gives the impression of making a distinction between Thatcher's views and factual observations. TompaDompa (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "Very" is fine, although I'm not sure I'd draw a big distinction between "publicly" and "very publicly". The 'unquoted assertion' is attributed to the Economist - that's what the little numbers in superscript at the end of the sentence point to. Oh, deja vu. I feel like I said the same thing two weeks ago. Oh. That's because I did. I'm sure User:AlfieGandon will pick up this whole concept of references. One day. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * This is what The Economist says: "Some talked of a “Suez syndrome”, where, in Margaret Thatcher's words, Britain's rulers “went from believing that Britain could do anything to an almost neurotic belief that Britain could do nothing”. Certainly, much of Mrs Thatcher's prime ministership, particularly the retaking of the Falklands in 1982, was an essay in exorcising the demons of Suez. Tony Blair has not been afraid to take advantage of her success, by deploying British power in Sierra Leone, the Balkans and Iraq." Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I count that as a success. Finally checked a source and proved himself wrong. There is hope. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty faint from here, so far. The Economist speaks of "Britain's rulers" and their demons. You've conflated Britain with its rulers, going against the source's meaning. Looking at your edit history, I have no problem accepting this was accidental. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * From your failed-edit history I have no problem believing the conflation is in your head. The meaning is clear. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Economist's meaning is very clear. It speaks of Britain's rulers, but the text of the article omits 'rulers', thereby conflating Britain and its rulers and distorting the paper's meaning. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd call that sophistry, but it's not very sophisticated, just your opinion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Economist's meaning is very clear. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WCM - anything you'd like to add? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you expecting someone to suddenly agree with your interpretation of the text? You still have no consensus for making a change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add I agree with, the conflation is in your head, I don't agree with your edit. You appear to think having the last word gives you carte blanche to go ahead.  It doesn't.  WCM email 21:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In my head? What do you mean? Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

RfC Laissez-faire link
Should "Laissez-faire" be linked to it's article in the lead? "Laissez-faire" is found nowhere in the page and vital to better understand the article since not many people might understand french terms for economic systems, not really an overlink in my opinion. N0n3up (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (quick side note) The reason there was no discussion before the RfC was because I simply wanted a quick public reasonable opinion rather than going to go deep into the topic since it's not a major issue. I'm curious though as to how people get informed of the RfC, do they get pinged or just happen to stop by on the talk page. Oh and linking an article to a French-language term is not overlinking. Most readers are unlikely to be familiar with the concept, might as well unlink the terms already commonly known. (N0n3up (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I see that the decision seems somewhat polarized in terms of who oppose and support the link. But most here did make a fair point that at least we should include a way to make the term understandable for the common reader since obviously not all aren't "first year college" or better. We should at least change the term for the definition instead to avoid overlinking, which in my opinion doesn't seem an adequate enough argument against the proposition. (N0n3up (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC))


 * In favor. (N0n3up (talk) 06:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Comment Why are you setting up an RfC before even discussing the topic? I suggest you withdraw the RfC and just post the question or make the change and see what happens.  TFD (talk) 07:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In favor Linking an article to a French-language term is not overlinking. Most readers are unlikely to be familiar with the concept. Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Overlinking. Per TFD this RFC is premature, there should have been a discussion in talk first.  WCM email 08:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the lead is supposed to be a summery of the text why is it even in the lead?Slatersteven (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Another pointless proposal from User:N0n3up that wastes time. Again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Wiki-Ed That's a very childish uneducated response coming from you. But who am I to judge. I'm not a critic. (N0n3up (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Oppose Its not a major issue but at the very least it should be discussed first. Also N0n3up in a somewhat incoherent post on my talk page said that he was raising this RfC simply to make my life difficult.  Sorry, but that is not constructive behaviour.   Snowded  TALK 22:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * @Snowded Completely untrue, that's not what I said. What I said was that any revert from you will be processed more attentively to snuff out any suspected doubts to ensure a fair edit on the article. (N0n3up (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Well you have previously insisted that English is your first language so I can only assume the normal meaning of the language you used. Thanks for clarifying your intent. In that context you might want to consider not making comments such as "So expect a long storm if you revert my edits, this only applies to you" in future.  Snowded  TALK 05:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Snowded I'll keep that in mind. Then again you've made some comments in the past that are noteworthy so keep that in mind. I's still funny how you got blocked long after lecturing me about not using talk pages and edit warring and got blocked for doing you did just that, never been blocked long since. (N0n3up (talk) 06:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Be careful, the one block on my record was more or less immediately reversed with the comment "Please ignore the previous block imposed by myself. It was an error, and it should not impact any evaluation of Snowded's behaviour". Try and check your facts before making statements  Snowded  TALK 06:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Snowded You still got blocked tho, intentional or not, there was still a reason for it. And you still haven't provided a concrete reason to oppose this, try to make some sense at least. (N0n3up (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC))
 * You might want to read up on the word "error" understanding it would have more general utility for you Snowded  TALK 05:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Cute, but you still haven't stated why you're against the linking nor have responded to my reasons in favor. (N0n3up (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC))
 * TFD and others have done it. You opened an RfC not a discussion on the talk page.  Wrong order, and a very very minor issue.  Snowded  TALK 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Snowded A minor issue indeed. So next time don't make a big deal about it. (N0n3up (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I reverted what I considered an overland (as to many others here) - you are the one who failed to use the talk page in consequence, and then raised a RfC which most editors think was the wrong thing to do. You also make false accusations (and don't apologise), carry on long arguments on an RfC, plague my talk page to the point where I have to ban you from it.  As I said there it really is time you talked with your mentor again.  This type of behaviour will not help you in the long term  Snowded  TALK 05:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Snowded Okay, let's hypothetically say I am a dreadful editor as you say I am. Sure, I've had my share of few mistakes but the fact that the only people I've ever had problems with were you and JuanRiley who turned out to be a troll thus indefinitely blocked, and the fact that you hunt down edits with people you've had problems with and come up with petty arguments really makes me wonder who's really the one in fault here. Btw, considering our past history it would've been a bit wiser of your part to had a simple talk and come up with a simple solution and have a more docile personality instead of opposing and branding as a bad editor, pretty sure you need a mentor as well, and if it were a minor issue, why not let it go and let it be. And the fact that you're asking for an apology makes it hilarious. (N0n3up (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Sigh, no one has hunted you down, I've been editing this article since way before you even appeared on the scene. You made an edit, I reverted it and even since you have been making mountains out of molehills.   Snowded  TALK 08:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * @Snowded But you did hunt down my edits in two articles you never edited before . Not to mention that even in articles you often edit, you constantly never assume good faith. (N0n3up (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC))


 * Comment - Opening of an Rfc on this matter appears premature. But since it's in progress, it may as well play itself out 'til mid-February. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per "What generally should not be linked": Do not link "[e]veryday words understood by most readers in context."  On the other hand if you think it is a concept readers would not easily understand, then "General points on linking style" applies:  "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so."  In other words, if you think the reader may not understand the term, use another one or provide an explanation in the article.  Only use links where the linked article provides additional information if they want more in depth information on the topic.  For example, we should provide links to each of the colonies of the Empire because they are part of the topic.  A book on the British Empire would have entire sections about each of the colonies but would not have a section about laissez-faire.  TFD (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD To replace the term with the definition or brief explanation is what you're saying, right? (N0n3up (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC))
 * That is possible if the term is not expected to be understood. TFD (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFDSo how do we determine that? (N0n3up (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I do not know what level of education one would typically have to understand the term or what level of education we are targeting. I think it is A level or first year college in the U.S., which would mean the reader should understand the term, look it up or understand it in context.  TFD (talk) 06:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD Then again, not everyone, are obviously "first year college" or better, if not, have majored in economics to understand the term, so something must be done to make it more understandable for the common reader or reduce the other obvious links instead. (N0n3up (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Students in freshman year of U.S. college haven't majored in anything. They have completed their high school education or received GEDs.  82% of Americans complete high school, some obtain GEDs and others are able to read at this level.  TFD (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD But that's not the point, the point is that not everyone will understand what a Laissez-faire is unless they click on the link to know what it is. And if it's not linked, then how will users know it has a Wikipedia article unless it's linked. (N0n3up (talk) 05:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC))

Not everyone knows every word they come across, which is why we have dictionaries. Links are not there to explain what a word means but to give further information about the topic. TFD (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD Even a bigger reason to link or define the term. Linking will give a further insight into the topic. And if this was a hard-cover book, then your argument regarding the dictionary would make sense, but this is an online encyclopedia which should facilitate the understanding of the article by linking or defining words that are not widely known. This is the advantage and reason why online encyclopedias exist. (N0n3up (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC))
 * The term is widely known. While reading the article would provide further information about laissez-faire, it doesn't provide them with further information about the British Empire, which is the topic of this article.  If this article were about liberalism, then the argument would make sense.  Laissez-faire is part of that topic, it is not part of this topic.  TFD (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD Not everyone. I myself didn't know the word until I looked it up on the article, and it's been a decade since I finished college and am pretty sure that's the case for a lot of people. And you somewhat contradicted yourself by first saying that "not everyone knows every word they come across" but later saying that "the term is widely known" when that's not really fully true nor the case. Again, I think the term should be linked and other more known terms delinked or replace the term with the definition itself, either one is fine. (N0n3up (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Just because something is widely known does not mean everyone knows it. Anyway, Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, which is used to teach history in middle and high school in the U.S. uses the term "laissez-faire" without defining it or using it is the glossary.  So we are talking about most people with a grade 6 education, although of course not all.  Again, we need to follow the guideline for links and not link "Everyday words understood by most readers in context."  TFD (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD In that case, can I simply delink the other more widely known terms (like India, Asia, Latin America, North America Everyone knows these) and link Laissez-faire instead? (N0n3up (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC))
 * I do not see any point in continuing this discussion. TFD (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Mild support - I link words I suspect someone might want to look up. On the other hand, this assumes that your average reader does not know the word.You could also link to wiktionary, incidentally. I am the wrong person to decide whether the average reader of en.wikipedia knows the word, since I am a French speaker and it seems blindingly obvious to me. I do not know if this is true of an average adult who does not speak French Elinruby (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Not being a French speaker I don't know if this applies in this case but often when English adopts foreign phrases it uses them in a way more specialised than their original language would. On the other hand, as this version of the encyclopedia is primarily intended for English speakers, the language criteria should be how obvious the phrase would be to English speakers. Somehow I doubt that general readers would know the term but as pointed out earlier most of them would know how to look it up. Kiore (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment The lede of this article is very long and has a large number of links. Perhaps we should be considering trimming it first and linking all appropriate words and phrases in the reduced version. Before anyone suggests it, I'm not volunteering for this job as I am far from being an expert. Kiore (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment All this fuss over "laissez-faire" overlinking, and we've linked "19th Century" in the next sentence. On the other hand, we mention 19th Century in the article body (never linked there mind you), but don't mention laissez-faire, which argues against its inclusion in the lead. Kiore makes a good point, the current first paragraph reads like a lead for the lead, and perhaps the whole thing could be made more concise. That's a different discussion however. CMD (talk) 04:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. My opinion, the term is a specialized term, and will help readers to link to an explanation. I don't think any harm is done. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support linking the term. The readership of Wikipedia are obviously not all "first year college" or better, so our text should either be readily understandable to our audience, or else should have the capability for them to easily enlighten themselves. And what do we lose by having the link? Not much. MPS1992 (talk) 22:56, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This should be discussed in Talk before an RfC is called. Summoned by bot. An important part of the wikipedia editing experience is discovering what happens when you discuss things with people who don't agree with you. It's important because there can be no wikipedia without the ability to find consensus. Not discussing this issue on this page is a missed opportunity for those involved to learn, especially when the stakes are small and the cost of compromise so low. Also, it takes time for people called to an RfC to forming a careful opinion and !vote, so it is courteous for the editors involved to first spend the time trying to find a solution first. (No !vote from me.) Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 07:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support – This is a reasonable and informative link to a term which has a more precise meaning than what a reader could guess from its French etymology. This is not an "everyday word" so the WP:OVERLINK argument does not hold water. I also don't understand the outpour of negativity about such a simple suggestion. Perhaps the OP has irked some regulars on this page earlier, but this is no reason to reject their request off-hand. They opened an RfC, so what? Oh the audacity! — JFG talk 10:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - Really a term should be avoided if it isn't readily understood. But in this case I think it is the correct term to use and some readers may be unclear as to its precise meaning so a wikilink is fine. Shouldn't really need an RfC for this. Polyamorph (talk) 14:14, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment There is an article on The Guardian website today, "Marine Le Pen leads gathering of EU far-right leaders in Koblenz'" It quotes Le Pen as saying, "I believe that is what also brings us together is a rejection of the European Union’s laissez-faire policies.”  Neither Le Pen nor The Guardian see any need to explain what the term means.  Le Pen speaks at a vocabulary level aimed at the general public while the Guardian aims is comprehensible to secondary school students.  For readers who find below that level, Wikipedia provides an article in "Simple English."  TFD (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * TFD I gotta admit, that made an impact on my opinion on the matter, especially regarding the general public aim of The Guardian. At the same time, I think that The Guardian is a news outlet to simply inform rather than to thoroughly inform or educate someone as the level an online encyclopedia does. (N0n3up (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC))
 * Readers don't read articles in order to be fully informed on unrelated subjects. The article "Laissez-faire" does not expand one's knowledge of the British Empire.  We might just as well provide random links in "See also" to the general theory of relativity, body-building and The Young and the Restless.  TFD (talk)
 * There are over 2500 links to the Laisse-faire article. Though I've not looked at every one :-) but I suspect the majority of the uses are the same as what we have here. Anyway, I see no harm in linking the term, is better to help a reader who doesn't understand the term than have them unable to fully comprehend the meaning of the article.Polyamorph (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Polyamorph Agreed. I think that the term needs to be linked. I have currently delinked two other commonly known topics so I think it's safe to fill in that one for Laissez-faire. (N0n3up (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC))


 * There is overlinking on Wikipedia. "A 2015 study of log data found that "in the English Wikipedia, of all the 800,000 links added ... in February 2015, the majority (66%) were not clicked even a single time in March 2015, and among the rest, most links were clicked only very rarely", and that "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention."  A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked...."  Note that most of the articles listed are about liberalism or economics.  If I am reading about 19th century liberalism and want to know more about the topic, then the article on laissez-faire is useful.  OTOH a link in that article to "19th" or "century" or "19th century" is just a distraction, even though some readers may confuse the 19th century with the 1900s.  TFD (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I sincerely doubt there is overlinking, as I keep discovering articles that have not been wikified. And the article on the 19th century gives a decent overview of events in this century, providing context. Why would readers confuse the 19th century (1801-1900) with the 1900s (1900-1909)? I fail to see a connection. Dimadick (talk) 20:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not think there is overlinking, and the study period of links added in Feb and clicked in Mar2015 is too short a time interval to get valid measurements for overlinking. Also I often hover on a link, not click, to get the term's meaning displayed, like I did to relearn the term "Laisse-faire" in this article.CuriousMind01 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - I understand the argument for WP:OVERLINK but this is a term not all readers understand. If our biggest concern is overlinking, there are several other WLs in the lead that we could do without that are not as important. Meatsgains (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * oppose not appropriate to overlink in a Lede. Try to keep Lede simple & uncomplicated summary in your own words instead of introducing unnecessary diversions & over-complicating it.J mareeswaran (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * additional comments I've read thru the entire article, & don't remember seeing any links/references to Lassaiz Faire influencing British Imperialism. The Lede has to summarise what is discussed in main article & not introduce its own points. J mareeswaran (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The term itself is not used again, but the concept of changing economic policy is touched on in the relevant part of the eighteenth century, where the transition is most apparent. Arguably more could be said - we gloss over some of the causes and related events like the South Sea Bubble. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I was invited here by a bot. This RFC is inapproptiate, poorly formed, and very unlikely to result in consensus. Please close this and initiate a normal talk page discussion. If that fails to reach consensus, then start a proper RFC, following the recommendations at WP:RFC (neutral question without opinion, !Vote section, Discussion section without preloading with originator's opinion). Jojalozzo (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Jojalozzo, Too late at this point. The reason for the RfC without discussion was due to the simpleness of the problem that should not have taken this long to solve. I think it's fair to determine the outcome by the number of supports and oppositions until the RfC expires, including or excluding the side comments made. (N0n3up (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC))
 * To the contrary. We !vote (short for "not-vote") because decisions are made by consensus not by vote counting. If the minority is unsatisfied with the outcome and can point to policy to back up their position, then there is no consensus. Drawing out this flawed process is simply delaying the formation of a proper RFC with a good chance of achieving consensus. Jojalozzo (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)


 * No !vote per Chris vLS and Jojalozzo. People should only set up an RFC if consensus cannot be reached on the Talk: page first. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:01, 7 February 2017 (UTC)