Talk:Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War

Welcome
As of June 2016 this article is being expanded to cover the full scope of the Commonwealth war effort. Almost every section requires a through re-examination and rewrite. Please jump in!! As a great deal of the content that could go here is already in Wikipedia in other articles, this article is generally oriented to summary information and pointing readers to additional information found elsewhere. Robert Brukner (talk) 16:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Title
I notice the "British Commonwealth" thing is back in the title. Considering British Empire in World War II has been redirected here, I think it's only fair that the outcome of the (huge) discussion we had on this exact naming topic back in 2014 at Talk:British Empire in World War II. The outcome was no consensus to move, meaning that this article should be "Military history of the British Empire in World War II" (World War II is also standard, see Template:WWII history by nation and Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II). I have moved the article accordingly. If this is disputed, we can discuss moving it back on talk. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I'm also not convinced that the current article is any improvement on the original British Empire in World War II. Personally, I suggest a (temporary) restoration of the original article's title and content. If wants to add more material to it then fantastic, but frankly an article should be expanded on sandbox first if the intent is to totally re-write it. To my mind, the current state of the article is little more than a list and thus little better than the original. I also do not see the narrowing of scope to "military history of" as necessary.
 * I notice that no notice of the author's intent to change the article's title and scope was given before the move and lists were added which, in itself, probably makes this a WP:BRD matter.
 * I think the contributors to the original article should also be notified: apologies if I have missed anyone. Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all points. It should be reverted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are all on about. But if someone doesn't start getting polite quickly and speak to me directly I'm going to get miffed. Robert Brukner (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My apologies for going to far with British Empire in World War II. I have reverted the old article back to before my edits. Keep it. As per the notice that was present -the article is incomplete and needs work done. So go do it. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * DO NOT revert or change this article without discussion. This article is part of the "Military history of..." series. It is specific to the topic of the prosecution of the war by the Commonwealth. It is not about the British Empire -that is too narrow a definition- it is not about the British Empire in the war -which is generic and covers multiple non-military topics. It also utilized British English - so leave the British English alone please. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Again, my apologies for tripping over the issues raised above. Henceforth please refrain from any edits whatsoever to this article. I too have requested input from other senior military topic editors into the matter brought to my attention by Brigade Piron, and request everyones patience. The former article British Empire in World War II has been reverted to its original condition prior to my edits. I note that this current article is a substantial expansion of the topic of the military history of the Commonwealth during this period, touch upon in British Empire in World War II, and that given the huge scope of the topic it is designed, intentionally, to be extremely summary and to point the interested reader to the extensive body of material found in many other articles. Robert Brukner (talk) 01:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, obligatory question; what here is the main issue and ? the change in the name of the article or the change in content? since both have been questioned but one actually seems contentious (name). I took a glance at the original RfC on whether or not to change the article's name, it was controversial to say the least.  as you were the other party who supported the move to British Commonwealth over British Empire, and an actual senior editor, your input would be appreciated, also I think you are the only person not pinged. As far as I can tell, this topic could do with a new RfC, the outcome of which should supersede the old one. Right now, we have two articles for what is realistically the same topic, this is fine for a temporary measure while we work out what to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wait, hold on... do we have a WP:Content fork situation here now? Those are not good! and it looks that way. We have two articles, British Empire in World War II and Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War and they seem to overlap too much.

Both are fine articles BTW and skill and effort has gone usefully into making them. Lack of quality is not the issue here, possible duplication is.

As to the name, after reading thru the entirety of Talk:British Empire in World War II (and summarizing it), it's clear that at this time the consensus is to use "British Empire" to refer to all the colonies and dominions -- and I speak as pro-"Commonwealth" person.

So what do we want to do?

I would say
 * Merge Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War into British Empire in World War II, then
 * Discuss renaming that article to "Military history of the British Empire in World War II", (since both the new and old article are really about military history primarily and note that 100+ other articles begin "Military History of...") and
 * Then have a formal WP:RM to settle the Empire/Commonwealth thing once and for all.

Right? Or is there another suggestion?


 * We all fought under one command structure. I would nominally say that it remain Empire at this point, as the vast majority of the nations mentioned in the article were still ruled by London. Canada, though, had a lot of say into where it's forces were deployed comparative to other nations. We were also the only Allied nation other than the big three to command an entire operational area (in the Battle of the Atlantic). Though referred to as the Commonwealth, we did not have any say in the direction of the overall strategy of the war. That was between the big three with Churchill and Brooke and so forth representing Canadian and other Commonwealth nation's interests militarily and they argued on behalf of the Empire because there is no way Canada would have deployed its soldiers to Hong Kong or the Caribbean territories if London hadn't said to do so. Ditto for Australia and New Zealand to North Africa. Llammakey (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

, I ought to mention why there are two pages that overlap. Robert took his work from the article British Empire in World War II, which he had renamed, Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War and separated it to this article when his work was challenged. The two articles now stand separate but were originally one and the same. What is happening right now is, first, what article name should be used, and second, how should we merge the articles back together.
 * Now for the name, since that issue should be more easily settled, the way I see it, we have three possibilities, not two.
 * 1. British Empire in World War II - The original
 * 2. Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War - Robert's renamed version
 * 3. Military history of the British Empire in the Second World War - The original but reformatted to be part of the "military history of..." series of articles that fall under MILHIST's project.
 * I am not overly fussed about which name is the best, but, I do like the idea of using "military history of..." and then either British Empire or British Commonwealth. However, I am absolutely amicable to doing a content merger, and then, naming the article. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * A non-issue issue; I apologize for my severe lateness, I had not actually watchlisted the article even though I thought that I had. Sorry, Mr rnddude (talk) 12:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the input. Content merger is a fantastic idea. "Empire" works for me with "Military history of...". I am more concerned about WWII vs Second World War. The later is the war citizens of the Empire and Commonwealth Dominions fought in. Second World War is dominant in British and Commonwealth scholarship about the war. WWII is dominant in the US and public press. I prefer to use the term most closely tied to the contents and social context of the article. But I will of course defer to the opinions of the majority as this discussion continues Robert Brukner (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I said all I wanted to say on the issue of British Empire or British Commonwealth back in August 2014 in the section Talk:British Empire in World War II. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert Brukner please see the article Monument to the Women of World War II, the use of "World War II" and "Second World War" is not strictly a US UK (Commonwealth) split. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for approval to merge
Let's do this:
 * 1) Merge this article (Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War) into British Empire in World War II, since its a content fork. I volunteer to do the work if y'all want. If it was me, I would start by copying all of the sections below "British Empire, Colonies and Dominions in 1939" inclusive, which are good and useful, into the British Empire in World War II, and as for the text I'd have to look at it.


 * 1) Then have a formal WP:Requested move discussion over whether or not to rename British Empire in World War II to "Military History of the British Empire in World War II". During this time the Empire/Commonwealth question will be off the table, with the clear understanding that it will be decided later. After all arguments, some uninvolved admin will make the decision.


 * 1) Then have another, separate, WP:Requested move discussion to move the article (which will either retain its name British Empire in World War II or be under its new name "Military History of the British Empire in World War II", depending on the outcome of the previous requested move). The question will be whether to change "British Empire" in the title to either "British Commonwealth" or "British Commonwealth and Empire". A pointer will be made to the previous discussion Talk:British Empire in World War II so that the person closing the requested move may also cogitate on that material. But let's not jump the gun here and get this confused with the entirely separate issues above. There's no hurry and we'll get it sorted out in good time.

After that, if someone wants to create a new and separate article about the colonies of the British Empire specifically, and the totality of their experience during and because of the war, both non-military (Bengal famine of 1943 and trade issues and Indian independence movement and so forth) and military (King's African Rifles and exploits of Indian divisions and so forth) that's a separate thing and of course anyone is welcome to do that, but I wouldn't recommend doing it until the other issues above are settled. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

OK!

 * OK! as proposer. Herostratus (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Sounds constructive. For the record (the empire/commonwealth thing notwithstanding), the title "Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War" is TOTALLY unworkable regardless. "Military history of Foo during World War II" is standard (see Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II and Military history of France during World War II).—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, you a review of article titles shows that you are correct about that, and when the first WP:RM come up I will propose "...during World War II", and thanks for the correction. Herostratus (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

No objections having been made, I will now proceed to pull the trigger on this. I'll do a merge as best as I can, I'll let you know when I'm done and others can then add or subtract or edit what I did. Herostratus (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Brilliant. Great solution. I appreciate your input and suggestions. Robert Brukner (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - This looks to be a good way of tackling each individual issue separately. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. This article remains as a redirect, anyone can mine the history to improve on the merge. Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , perhaps you should merge this talkpage to that one as well? anybody interested in this discussion would miss it if they went to the other article's talkpage instead. Also, thank you for performing the merge. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure. I've never heard of a talkpage merge before (which is not to say its not done). Since this page and its history continues to exist, I guess I'm going to leave it here. Anybody who disagrees is free to merge the two talk pages with no objection from me. Herostratus (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Whether there is or is not an article on the military history of the Empire/Commonwealth is something I will leave to to others. However if the articles are merged in to military history what happens to the social issues and socio-political issues that are not strictly military history? For example the stubby India in World War II mentions the Bengal famine and what about political issues like Beveridge Report, the breaking down of class in Britain (eg lack of domestic servants), the effect on society of women working in much larger numbers than previously--particularly those from the professional classes (many working class women had been working, before the war in certain sectors). The changes in fashion brought about by rationing, the same for rationing food and the social impact of that etc. The lack of capital investment in Britain and the larger capital investment in other counties in the Commonwealth/Empire far from the Axis bombers. These things do no easily fit into an article about "military history of ..." and are likely to be sideline or ignored. So I think there is a room for both a "military history of the Empire/Commonwealth..." and "British Empire/Commonwealth in ...". However if there is not yet enough information to justify two distinct articles then "British Empire/Commonwealth in ..." is the better name as it can more easily encompass both military and social/economic issues until such time as there is enough for two distinct articles. -- PBS (talk) 16:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * British Empire or British Commonwealth in the Second World War or WWII, is a very general title in my mind. It would encompass far more than military history. It would be about all facets of society, politics and events. The article British Empire in World War II was almost exclusively about the war. The article I developed Military history of the British Commonwealth in the Second World War, was about the "Military history of...". I fully support that the article titled British Empire in World War II should be developed into a general social history, while mine should continue along the lines of the military component.  Robert Brukner (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would think that the complement to "Military history of X in World War II" would not be just "X in World War II" but rather something like "Political, economic, and social history of X in World War II". This has the virtue being being more precise (while, granted, lacking conciseness). MY first impression of "X in World War II" would be, since it has a war in its title, that it's likely mainly concerned with military matters. "Croatia in the Napoleonic Wars", "Kentucky in the American Civil War" and so on... assuming that you don't know we prepend "Military history of" to the titles of our specifically-military articles (which outsider readers aren't expected to know), I think you're going to assume those article are going to be mainly concerned with the exploits of armed units from, and battles in, Croatia and Kentucky. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move over at British Empire in World War II
See Talk:British Empire in World War II. Herostratus (talk) 14:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)