Wikipedia:Featured article review/British Empire/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 20:21, 6 November 2010.

Review commentary

 * Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because... These users have been notified:
 * A few weeks back I noticed discrepancies in the article and some inapprorpitate language which I removed without too many objections.
 * Further problems with the article were pointed out by several different editors (User:John K, User:Yogesh Khandke and User:Zuggernaut) recently - these relate to gross discrepancies in two maps and some POV issues. I attempted to improve the article by removing the maps but they were quickly added back. The discrepancies were dismissed as minor on the talk page.  A user even suggested that the editors working to improve the articles be ignored and their comments deleted.
 * POV issues have been dismissed in a similar manner without providing any explanation on the talk page.
 * A review will help identify problems or inappropriate language that might not directly be seen by individual editors specializing in or having knowledge of one particular area.
 * Detailed discussions can be found on the talk page.

User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick User:Wiki-Ed User:Derek Ross User:Snowded User:Yogesh Khandke User:John K Empire WP:IN

Zuggernaut (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This Review is being requested by a user whos edit history clearly shows he has a political agenda on wikipedia. The guy has violated canvass rules in order to help his position in a debate, hes added POV material that has had to be undone or caused sections of articles to need neutrality tags, hes created pointless categories related to the British Empire and now he seeks to undermine the status of an article because he dislikes the subject. It is now almost impossible to assume good faith in Zuggernauts actions. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He also has obviously not familiarized himself with Wikipedia policies yet. Zuggernaut's "problems" with the article can be resolved on the article talk page - most of the problems he raises are not problems at all, just him misunderstanding policies or him not liking that he can't have his POV injected into the article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * A review is not necessary. This seems like a peevish attempt to disrupt following successive failures to make POV/OR changes to a very-well sourced article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, no review is necessary -- Snowded TALK  15:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Review is necessary. Reason (1) Graphics - maps are user created and not peer-reviewed. (2) Article is one sided - see sub-section below. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:15, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Image issues: I have tidied up the images as much as I could, but the following require further action.
 * File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg: pretty sure Zscout370 did not design the Union Jack or did it in 1801... filed a request to change it.


 * File:Location of the BOTs.svg, File:The British Empire.png, File:BritishEmpire1815.png, File:British Decolonisation in Africa.png, File:BritishEmpire1919.png: Maps can be copyrighted (see commons:Commons:Image casebook). Unless the maps in those books were not copyrighted (either using public domain maps or creation from data sets), retracing them would be a copyright violation.  Use maps such as File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg, File:CIA Political World Map 2002.jpg or other well-sourced maps as the base map (geographical features) and fill in the areas with the data from the listed sources.
 * The map used appears to be File:BlankMap-World3.svg again. The information from it has been copied on from an older version - which I shall track down shortly! Fainites barley scribs 22:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The older version is File:World map model.png. This blank map was used to create the BOT map which was then used to create the current map on a File:BlankMap-World3.svg base. Fainites barley scribs 22:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * File:British Colonies in North America c1750 v2.png: Source, "from Wikipedia", is not okay (be precise), where did the base map come from (similar issue to above)? Is  ?


 * File:British colonies 1763-76 shepherd1923.PNG: The map was printed in 1923, so this is more likely have to be checked on whether copyright was not renewed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Clive.jpg: Per WP:CITE, link to the page that displays the image, not to the image itself. Where comes the information of authorship and date then?


 * File:Yorktown80.JPG, File:Captainjamescookportrait.jpg, File:Grand fleet jutland.jpg: Needs a source per WP:IUP and WP:CITE


 * File:British Empire 1897.jpg: Link does not show or help to verify this map was created or published in 1897. Neither does it help to verify  since the cartographer might have created this map at the age of 25 and lived till he was 80 (1952), which would not be 70 years ago.


 * File:British empire 1886.jpg: The PD-old tag is wrong here (without knowledge of the author, who does 1915 apply to?). McClure & Co (the map's publisher) or its current owner should be contacted to ascertain the author (if they have no knowledge, then the map can be left on Commons with  and ).  Since no page number is supplied, I presume the uploader found the scan from a website, which should be given per WP:CITE.  Regardless, the Boston Public Library has supplied the same image at http://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/4404528478/ in a larger resolution even.  Unless the author is identified (or inquiry made with McClure), please upload it to Wikipedia with  (my current machine is blocked from downloading flickr images, otherwise I would have done it myself...).  Jappalang (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Author name wasn't showing up due to a formatting issue - the author is known and died in 1915. I've uploaded the larger-resolution image. The scan is not from a website - the image is a supplement from The Graphic, and simply doesn't have a page number. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just curious about one thing, where does it state Walter Crane was the author? Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The archival description for the map was fairly thorough: "Created by Walter Crane, The Graphic July 1886, 'Imperial Federation', - map of the world showing the extent of the British Empire in 1886. Statistical information furnished by Captain J.C.R. Colomb, M.P. formerly R.M.A. - British territories coloured in red. Insert, smaller map of the world showing the extent of the British Territories in 1786 (image 13)". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the "archival description"? It would be more helpful to have the links or instructions to access these information on the image page.  Regardless, it seems moot since I located an even bigger version of the map... (16MB, more than 9,876 × 7,346 pixels...) and Crane's signature is evident on the bottom left.  Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't found an online version of that description; the one cited here is from a physical archival collection. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:ImperialConference.jpg: What is the copyright status of this file in the US (relevant for storage on either Wikipedia or Commons)?


 * File:Imperialwarcabinet-bordonhu.jpg: The source does not state that this was published in 1917. Jappalang (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Added link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That link vouches more for the creation date than publication, since it does not state when the work was published but rather when the photograph was taken. Jappalang (talk) 05:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. According to this, copyright is expired. Does that help? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite, that is referring to Canadian copyrights. The publishing date is required to ascertain the image's US copyrights, which is mainly based on first publishing date (if published before 2003).  Jappalang (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Jinnah Gandhi.jpg: Copyright status in the US?  specifically states "enter the public domain 60 years after the date on which they were first published" (emphasis in italics), where comes the information this was published (distributed to the public in several copies) in September 1944?  Why are there two separate Indian copyright templates?  Which is the correct one?
 * Seems to have been removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:AREden.jpg: "Access: unrestricted" does not mean that there is no copyright. The IWM is like the Library of Congress, collecting material from government and private sources, and also advises on the existence of copyrighted items in its collection and for users to conduct their own research (and request for licensing from private copyright holders).  It specifically states that this photograph is "Commercial photograph, Portrait photograph (studio)", which means that this is not a Crown Copyright item.


 * File:P history.png: The figure of the horse and its rider is taken from the cover of this book (1974), which is copyrighted for 95 years since publishing per http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm.
 * Seems to have been finally removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * File:Masters of the Seas.jpg: What is this painting's copyright status in the United States, considering that it is still copyrighted in the UK on 1 January 1996 (the cut-off date for URAA copyright restoration in the US)? Jappalang (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems to have been removed. Jappalang (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There are serious image issues that should not be encountered in an FA. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To address the map issue: I did not "trace" any maps. They all used maps that can be found at Blank_maps as a starting point, and the references cited in the map descriptions were then simply used to ensure that we were not colouring in a territory as British Empire that cannot be verified in a reliable source.  Please let me know how I can update the description pages of these maps to make that clear.  Regarding this map  whoever transferred it from Wikipedia to the commons just put in "Wikipedia" as the source instead of copying the source that I had put in there - I'll fix.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The maps would have to state exactly which map or set of data (giving links if taken from the web) was used as the base. For example, if I took File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg and coloured a few nations in red (say the communist bloc during the Cold War), I would put in the Source field: "base map: File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg".  This will help other editors to verify the underlying work (File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg is in the public domain because it is a CIA creation).  Several maps in Blank_maps fail to state their sources and as such fail WP:IUP and WP:CITE.  Their non-compliance will extend to derivative works, so please do not use them (or have their creators reveal the sources used).  Off hand, I would say that File:World98.svg is safe to use as a base for future maps, and so are File:BlankMap-World6.svg and File:BlankMap-World6-Equirectangular.svg, which are derivatives of File:World map pol 2005 v02.svg.  Jappalang (talk) 04:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Clive is fixed, Yorktown has been replaced, Jutland has been replaced, AREden has been replaced, P history has been removed. I think ImperialConference now has the correct tag, but would appreciate a check. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * P history is still there (it is a portal image). Jappalang (talk) 15:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a clear policy: Verifiablity and not truth. What has been done has been confessed as research based on reliable sources, I will not contest whether the maps are accurate or not. But they are original research. British Empire is an ancient subject. There are sure to be maps circa early 20th century, which are bound to be copyright free. If contributors draw their own maps, such maps should not be included in a FA. Please take the maps off.
 * Maps drawn by editors

Please we need to improve the standard of Wikipedia. My suggestions are to be considered with the fact that we are dealing with a FA. Which is the best of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Before anyone gets into this further, read over Talk:British Empire where these points have already been raised and others have countered those points (effectively or not, up to reader to decide). Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It cannot be right to suggest that any map or table created by an editor from reliable sources is OR or synthesis per se. It is simply a way of presenting a substantial amount of verifiable information in an easily digestable or illustrative form. It is no more automatically synthesis or OR than any written summary of information.Fainites barley scribs 08:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yogesh Khandke has now three times (make it four) been pointed towards WP:OI. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The negative impact of BE is not dealt with. This article is completely one sided and does not address the negative impact of imperialism - slavery, exploitation of resources, racism, brutality, cultural and religious aggression. Very one sided article. Should not be a FA. FA is a showcase for Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Negative impact of BE
 * The effects of the British Empire are concentrated in the Legacy section, which covers everything in what I feel is a neutral manner. It doesn't praise whatever the British Empire did, and it does mention negatives, such as conflicts in Kashmir and Ireland that resulted. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Deceit, slavery, exploitation, racism, brutality, cultural and religious aggression, where is it? The near extermination of the inhabitants of North America, Australia, New-Zealand where is it? Slavery and indentured labourers where is it? Apartheid where is it. Signs like Indians and dogs not allowed where is it? Wonder how a puerile apologist article got through to FA, a serious flaw in the system?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I should have thought all these types of things are endemic to human societies in general, historically speaking, and probably all of the many empires there have been and still are, big and small, to varying degrees. An article on such a big topic can't cover all the details but other articles certainly can and do.Fainites barley scribs 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh for god sake. There is only so much that can be written in an article. I am sure you could write a long rant about your hatred of the British Empire, an equally long list of the benefits of Empire could be provided to counter your hatred, but we do not have enough room to include that either in a single article. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * At any rate, does this article go on about the positive impact of the Empire? I can't find anywhere where it praises the wonderful thing it's done, but I guess if the negative is added that can be too! You know, for neutrality ;) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is neutral. It does infact mention things like slavery, deaths from famine in India and Ireland, areas of conflict today such as Kashmir and Palestine and tensions between white settler populations and indigenous populations and the religious divide in Ireland. The reception minorities were granted when they arrived in Britain has nothing to do with the British Empire article. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

We periodically get editors crop up who argue we need to discuss the negative impacts and who want to right WP:GREATWRONGS. Every time, we ask, please quote where the article is portraying the Empire in a positive light, and we never get anything from them, unsurprisingly because nowhere does the article do this. It states the facts and lets the reader decide whether it was good or bad to, say, transport slaves or take land from the Maoris. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC) ps for the record, Yogesh Khandke made an unsourced edit to the article with the edit comment that 9/11 was Britain's fault.


 * Comment. I don't see very much wrong with this. It appears to me to a balanced, neutral, and fairly well written account of the British Empire. There's one request for citation that needs to be dealt with, and the first paragraph of the Cape to Cairo section needs to be cited, but they're small things easily dealt with. I see no justification for this FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Allright, thanks Malleus. At this point I think we're just waiting on the image issues being fixed, and then this can be kept without a FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment refers to what was written in the edit summary. Is 9-11 a holy cow. Please see talk page of BE. Where I have given references for appeasements of Muslim fanatics by British. and Rev. Wright. British Empire had effect as mentioned above by me for those over which it ruled and fantastic for the ruling class in Britain, why should I bother about the impact of other empires here. There is so much fuss about how big it was and all that irrelevant information. The events in India to the Queens proclaimation and later, and the Company's time earlier are covered in a very POV fashion. Kashmir is brought up in a POV fashion, the source being a map. Article looks like it was written by an apologist in the fashion of 18th century bards masquerading as scholars. As Zaggaurnauts has commented on talk page regarding choice of archaic scholars. Editors ought to address these issues to arrive at a consensus, or the FA status should be withdrawn which was in my o, rushed through (not in terms of time), but in terms of quality checks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Editor drawn maps not kosher for FA The original reasearch consession for images is just that a consession imo. Should not be allowed for a FA, which should be of the highest standard. No need to count how many times explanations are made, if what I wish to convey does not get across. User drawn maps are not kosher imo for a FA, unless the user/editor is a Is my point clear gentlemen?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response to Malleus's comment The article is well written in terms of language, presentation and produces a good account of the British Empire in many respects. Offensive language was introduced in the article by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick on October 28, 2007. After that, the article passed multiple reviews, became an FA and made the front page on June 13, 2009. It got 76,100 hits on that day alone. I have not been able to count the number of views it received in the three years between October 28, 2007 and today. School children of a tender age have been laying more trust in FA, A and GA class articles and they come back and ask questions about what they read. The account this article gives differs significantly (by excluding criticism of BE) from what mainstream historians will attest to. My recent well-sourced edit was quickly undone and it illustrates this (the sources provided are two very reputable newspapers). It is difficult to get any neutrally worded criticism of the BE in the article because the same set of vocal editors will vote it down as is illustrated by the responses to this FA review. I also discovered that the article is highly prone to vandalism when I undid this edit Unless criticism is allowed in the article, it should be considered a biased article and be given a B-class rating. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and sorry for airing my dirty laundry here but the same set of editors have followed me to the Famine in India article, added tags, just because I was being assertive in including well sourced material about 37 million deaths of Indians due to starvation under British rule. I've had to spend my time on non-content related edits and peripheral things like taking the matter to OR and NPOV noticeboards to get outside opinions before the  tag was taken off. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that you're a man on a mission, but I think it is you who is displaying a very definite bias, particularly when it comes to Indian issues. Just above you call this edit "offensive", but in your edit summary you merely said that the word "native" was redundant, which it probably is. But were the sepoys not native to India? Of course they were, so how is it offensive? I have no intention of being dragged into either side of your crusade, so I'll simply end by observing that it's my perception that unless this article reflects your own prejudices and biases then you want to see its FA status removed, which is unacceptable. Malleus Fatuorum 12:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Violation of 1(c) of WP:FA criteria Another example of a subtly worded construct that makes India look bad: "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India. "
 * Source used:


 * The source's meaning is twisted to meet The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's POV. The war of Indian independence was over religion not over efforts to Westernize India. Infact Indian social reformers such as Ram Mohan Roy were trying to westernize India themselves, having realized the advantages. These alternative and highly reliable sources were pretty easy for me to find:


 * BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' "In the rebels' own papers, they refer over and again to their uprising being a war of religion. There were no doubt a multitude of private grievances, but it is now unambiguously clear that the rebels saw themselves as fighting a war to preserve their religion, and articulated it as such."
 * BBC - This Sceptred Isle: EMPIRE "The reasons for the rebellion were long standing and included: attempts by British missionaries to convert all India to Christianity; ineffectual command of the army in Bengal; insensitive recruiting policy and "Europeanization" of the sepoy regiments and sepoy objections to serving outside their homeland and traditional areas."
 * Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny "More sophisticated historical readings find a range of causes for the bubbling discontent that led to open rebellion - the punitive tax collection system, a succession of British territorial seizures and the rise of aggressive Christian evangelism among them."


 * The yet-unsuccessful discussion on the talk page to rectify the content can be found here Talk:British_Empire

Zuggernaut (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Violation of 1(d) of WP:FA criteria Non-neutral statement - "India suffered a series of serious crop failures in the late 19th century, leading to widespread famines in which it is estimated that over 15 million people died. The East India Company had failed to implement any coordinated policy to deal with the famines during its period of rule. This changed during the Raj, in which commissions were set up after each famine to investigate the causes and implement new policies, which took until the early 1900s to have an effect. "


 * Note the subtly with which the British East India Company is made to take the blame instead of the British government. I took this up a few weeks back at the WP:SYN noticeboard
 * The responses on that board follow the same pattern - the initial responses were by the same set of editors who obviously rejected what I was saying. But other neutral editors are do notice the ambiguity and confusion. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The right places to discuss this are at the article talk page, and on the relevant noticeboards if you want to include outside opinion. You already took the famine wording to the OR noticeboard  and nobody agreed with you that it was either synthesis or POV.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is in fact an article on famine in India which cites the source (Bose) put forward. Also a section in British Raj. An article on the entire British Empire can't possibly cover all the arguments. Fainites barley scribs 18:34, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A quick look gives me the impression the article is well-written and of FA caliber. I would say, however, that there is a faint but detectable tendency to give a slightly rosier view of the empire in a couple of spots.  Aside from the examples already given the last line I think would be more neutral if rewritten and changed from "The makeup of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War due to immigration to Britain from the colonies to which it was granting independence" to "The makeup of Britain itself was changed after the Second World War due to immigration to Britain from its former colonies."  If stronger criticism is avoided to make the article workable and not to serve as a lightning rod for acrimony, then a higher bar of neutrality is warranted for statements that can be perceived as favorable even if innocuous.  Lambanog (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Olson an unreliable source not because of any specific bias, but this guy wrote a few books on the VN War and seems to go for quantity over quality and makes lots of random mix-ups everywhere. On a "dictionary of the VN War" there were blatant bloopers on every two or three pages, saying that the Tay Son Dynasty's surname was Tran, that most of the leadership of South Vietnam were descendants of the Nguyen Dynasty (presumably 40% of VN are descendants of the ruling family?) that Nguyen Cao Ky was a Nguyen dynasty prince, that Ngo Dinh Diem is a descendant of Ngo Quyen, that Nguyen Lords conquered Thailand, an randomly getting a lot of people's surnames, job titles and religions upside down. The guy is basically a joke and could have used a coin flip to determine content, really. Nothing related to claims to bias, he is just a clown, that's all  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  02:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson is co-editor not the author of these historical dictionaries. Individual authors write the entries. That you think you have found errata in a completely unrelated (subject-wise) dictionary authored by different people but edited by the same individual is neither here nor there with respect to the reliability of this source. By all standards set out at WP:RS it is a reliable source. If you have specific quibbles with specific claims made in the article for which this source was used then we can try to corroborate the source with other sources. You can't just wave your hand in the air and proclaim it unreliable like this though.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Lack of or poor editorial oversight with a dubious reputation of fact checking falls under Reliable_sources. Olson's claims do conflict with William Dalrymple (historian) as the BBC and Telegraph secondary or tertiary sources confirm. BBC - Indian mutiny was 'war of religion' Telegraph - Causes of the Indian Mutiny Zuggernaut (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No that's not how it works. Do you have a reliable source that states specifically that the source we are using is questionable? Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, this dictionary is co-edited by James S. Olson resume and Robert Shadle resume. There are seven associate editors and, by my count from the list at the back of the book, ninety contributors, from various universities in the USA and Canada. So that's nearly 100 contributors from academia to this publication. I'm afraid I couldn't contain any longer my despair that this thread was even opened at an FA review and have started a discussion at WP:RSN here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * His VN War dictionary also had dozens of contributors with universities listed next to them.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  09:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson is not as clean as it seems at first glance. For example the New York times criticizes Olson while reviewing a different work. It shows Olson is unable to detach himself from the subject matter and write in a dis-interested way. Some excerpts:
 * "THE book undermines its own theory -- that the man was interchangeable with the icon -- by being much more perceptive about his movies than about his life and politics."
 * Mr. Roberts and Mr. Olson write about their man with the devotion and indulgence of the doting parents he never had." Zuggernaut (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
 * My goodness. Devastating newspaper criticism - conclusive proof. Must be. Or not. Anyway, assuming Olson is "not as clean", what about the other contributors? Apparently there are about 100 of them. Does the newspaper criticise them too? Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it really is very ironic, isn't it. Even if we grant these utterly preposterous (not to mention offensive) claims about Professor Olson - who has been an academic for over 4 decades and is Distinguished Professor and Chair in the Department of History at Sam Houston State University - the fact remains that he didn't even write this entry in the dictionary.  We don't even know if he edited this specific entry, given that there are 9 co-editors.  So quite why Zuggernaut is so obsessed with him is beyond me.  Anyway, this all basically boils down to an Ad hominem attack, which is no way to go about things.  We should be focusing on the specific claims made in the source and - gosh, look at this - it also uses the same term "evangelicalism" as Zuggernaut's beloved Telegraph article.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Olson is the editor. He is responsible for checking his subordinates. I have read two other of his works, on a historical dictionary that he edited, another one he wrote directly on the Vietnam War. Both were strewn with mix-ups all over the place, none related to POV. Secondly Wikipedia is supposed to be based mainly on secondary sources, and FA is supposed to be more stringent, and I see that almost 30% is based on Olson, a tertiary source. Yes, it is a big blooper to preside over something that says that Nguyen Cao Ky is a Nguyen Dynasty prince as were large members of South Vietnamese leadership.  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  09:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your argument boils down to this:
 * Premise 1: There are mistakes in two publications on Vietnam by Olson.
 * Premise 2: If a mistake can be found in one publication, it means there are also mistakes in any other publication involving the same individual(s).
 * Premise 3: A single mistake in a publication makes the entire publication unreliable.
 * Premise 4: Olson was co-editor of the Historical Dictionary of the British Empire.
 * Conclusion: The Historical Dictionary of the British Empire is unreliable.
 * We only have your word for premise 1; however the truth of it is irrelevant because premises 2 and 3 are patently false; therefore the conclusion is false. As to your other points - 2ary/3ary and the %age for which a source is used, those are valid discussion points, but you did not raise that at the beginning, and what worries me is that you might one day be arguing a similar case against a secondary source used two percent of the time.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would a potential solution be to replace its use where ever its used to back up something controversial or possibly problematic/specific, and just leave it for the obviously accurate ones? So for example: "Events in America influenced British policy in Canada, where between 40,000 and 100,000[50] defeated Loyalists had migrated from America following independence." That is fairly specific so we could try to find a second source for that. But "''The elections were held the following year and won by Robert Mugabe, who became the Prime Minister of the newly independent state of Zimbabwe]'." Is obviously accurate anyway. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:13, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dalrymple's original work that the BBC and Telegraph reports are related to was very well received. The Guardian calls it brilliant - - Zafar the ditherer: Geoffrey Moorhouse applauds William Dalrymple's brilliantly nuanced account of the Indian mutiny of 1857, The Last Mughal Zuggernaut (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Zuggernaut, there is an argument for saying that inclusion of Dalrymple's thesis about the religious motivations for the uprising should be discussed but it's not a FAR point and hardly means that the article is POV. Anyway - surely you should be referring to the book, not newspaper reviews.Fainites barley scribs 14:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * 2c Quality of citations Olson and Olson are not differentiated, verification is therefore impossible. Olson (the Tertiary source) is incorrectly cited, individually authored articles ought to be cited, with their individual authors attributed. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1c Source unverifiability, reliance on a tertiary source Olson (the Tertiary) as currently cited in the article lacks any of the indications that it is an expert Tertiary source, as such it is unverifiable and the appreciation must lean towards non-expert Tertiary sources. In any case, an article like this ought not to be relying on tertiary sources, and ought to be relying on scholarly monographs.  Given the subject matter, suitable secondary source scholarly monographs in academic presses should be in abundance.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you mean the references don't distinguish between Olsen (British Empire) and Olsen (European Empires) that does seem to be the case. But what do mean by "lacks any of the indications that it is an expert Tertiary source, as such it is unverifiable and the appreciation must lean towards non-expert Tertiary sources" ? Fainites barley scribs 17:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no requirement for such an indication under the RS or FA rules, but since we rely upon the source relatively heavily (perhaps for very good reasons) and since some of the naysayers have focused on this it behoves us to prove it is in fact reliable. Unfortunately I'd never heard of it and I cannot find any reviews of the book in my country. Redhat... I believe it's your source. Can you make the case? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The requirement for high quality reliable sources, and fullness of coverage, covers the issue of reliance on a single tertiary source of undemonstrable quality. For a tertiary source demonstrated to be a scholarly compilation of original signed articles by experts, with articles of chapter / journal article length, each article would constitute a high quality reliable source.  Each article would need to be cited individually for verifiability.  A lesser tertiary work, signed short articles in themselves tertiary by experts, would be merely reliable.  In either case, over reliance on a source is reason enough to question a work in the domain of history at FAC.  The best way to make the case here would be full citation of all individually signed works, and of entries in unsigned tertiary source items.  The spelling cited in the bibliography is Olson at the moment. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with what you are saying in principle, but could you provide a link to the relevant WP policy which lays this out? I suspect the chap who provided these references was not aware of it, and I have not been able to find it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Featured article criteria 1c and 2c. Citing entries in a historical dictionary without indicating which entry is cited, and if that entry was individually authored doesn't allow for the verification of the material.   In relation to 1c "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources."  High quality reliable sources is an interpretation depending on the topic.  The HQRS for a comic book will vary from the HQRS for a historical article such as British Empire.  In the case of British Empire, the expected core sourcing basis is the variety of literature (ie: including the major academic view points, even if they disagree, as long as they have not been excluded by the academic community itself) out of scholarly monographs, chapters in scholarly edited collections, journal articles in peer reviewed journals relevant to the topic, and refereed conference papers from appropriate conferences.  In addition some further sources are generally acceptable, including monographs in the popular non-fiction commercial presses of note, where written by experts (ie: people holding research higher degrees, Doctorates or the equivalent, in a relevant area, or people with a long and consistent habit of publishing scholarly grade works in such presses), monographs in specialist non-fiction non commercial presses which hold themselves to a scholarly grade in that imprint, and signed articles by experts where the article is of journal article or conference paper length in scholarly tertiary sources where the articles themselves are of relevance (you don't source British Empire from the entry for "Mangroves" in the Historical Encyclopaedia of Trees).  Other Reliable Sources may supplement this material, but the material itself should be produced and reliant upon the variety of scholarly literature.   The HQRS standards themselves are evaluated by reviewers primarily at FAC and FAR/FARC, and occasionally by Reliable Sources/Noticeboard editors if you ask nicely. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well here's the list of contributors. The references are above this and the index in an appendix. Each entry is attributed to a contributor and each entry cites it's it's own references. As you can see the contributors vary from graduates to history lecturers to Emeritus professors. Olsen is described as the Chair of History at Sam Houston State University (or was then anyway).Fainites barley scribs 15:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations need to be provided adequate to check verifiability. For example, [Staff], "Khartoum" in Historical dictionary of the British empire, Volume 2 James Stuart Olson and others (Eds.) Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1996: 625-625 is not a reliable source, it is trivium.  Gregory C. Kozlowski, "Khilifat Agitation," in in Historical dictionary of the British empire, Volume 2 James Stuart Olson and others (Eds.) Westport CT: Greenwood Press, 1996: 625-626 is not a high quality reliable source, it is too short to be a work of scholarship and cites one reference: it fails to review the literature, and cannot account for the object of study.  Find the citations for each entry used in the article, and take them as a group to WP:RS/N giving the statements they're used to support in the article, and if possible a google link to the actual page in the Dictionary.  Also ask WP:RS/N if each of them is a High Quality Reliable Source for the purposes of FAC/FAR/FARC.  My impression from reading a set of articles, is that none of these are high quality reliable sources, as none of the articles I have read so far are scholarly works of original research.  Some, like the one paragraph Staff article, aren't reliable at all.  Fifelfoo (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any published reviews supporting your impressions? If not then my impression is that you are just asserting your POV and creatively interpreting the WP:FAC criteria. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The links from Olsen go to two different books, so they are differentiated, just not visibly. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This does not meet the standard required at FAC. I look forward to the citations being correct so I can modify my opinion below. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criterion of concern are POV, original research and sourcing  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll '')  00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Delist  Large amounts of tertiary sources (30%) and edited by a guy who makes loads of basic gaffes  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  00:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It was established at WP:RSN that your objections to Olson are no grounds in and of themselves to deem a source "unreliable". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Luckily RSN isn't the final word, as once some Tamil Tiger supporters had a vote there to deem some LTTE sites reliable. promptly chucked out at FAC. The part about tertiary source flooding remains, per the chunks in the policy pages saying that secondary sources are favored and WP:WIAFA being stricter than everyday wikistandards, ie, rubbish  YellowMonkey  ( new photo poll )  04:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Key word "favoured"; it does not say exclusively. Your judgement seems to be a little opinionated. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * as noted below the Olson source has now been completely removed to address the concerns about it and replaced with other sources. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No opinion There are no 1c/2c issues at the moment.  My lack of opinion is related to the summary style used which characterises the British Empire as an active subject worthy of our sympathy, and to the absence of an expected evalutations/criticisms/historiography section.  These criticisms are a) difficult to address b) related to core disagreements about the writing of historical articles on wikipedia c) not related to the core purpose of this FAR.  The article is adequate to remain a FA under wikipedia policy, but still lacking in some areas.  Additionally, it is late in process and I don't have the capacity to present a detailed review in these terms.  While Yogesh Khandke's criticism are perhaps problematic in some ways, conflicting with some ideas of summary style, article editors ought to inspect them in detail, and consider the addition of a Historiography / Evaluation / Criticisms section near the current Legacy section, dealing only with scholarly opinions (popular opinions wouldn't be relevant to such an article)... the idea of "Historiography and Evaluation of the British Empire" probably deserves a full article in its own right.   I hope in light of this, editors understand my absence of opinion. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC) Delist 1c/2c related.  Quality of citations does not allow verification (Olson ed. (1996) and Olson ed. (1991). undifferentiated; actual works cited, contained documents inside Olson (1996), Olson (1991) unable to be verified from citations, lacking authors and article titles).  Probably failure of verification as either reliable or high quality reliable sources for most works in Olson (1996) and Olson (1991).  Quality of research: reliance on Tertiary sources.  Quality of research: absence of expected scholarly secondary sources of recent derivation.  Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If all of the Olson sources are removed from the article and other sources are found to back up the contents, would it change your mind about delisting the article? BritishWatcher (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would need to reread the sourcing in the article in terms of the other two elements I'm concerned about in relation to 1c: reliance on tertiary sources, and absence of expected recent scholarly monographs. Fixing the citation of Olson (1991) and Olson (1996) would fix the 2c concerns.  If the article no longer causes me concern during the FARC process, of course I would strike my opinion to delist. Fifelfoo (talk) 08:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep listed - POV and OR were never demonstrated and nobody agreed with those claims other than the two editors who suddenly popped up and caused such trouble at the BE and who requested the FA re-review. We have people explicity disagreeing with tenuois claims of POV and OR above. Minor issues with sources can and will be fixed.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist for violation of 1(c), 1(d) and 2(b) of WP:FA Criteria, issues with maps still unaddressed - anachronistic maps, errors showing Portuguese colonies as British, etc.
 * Justification for 2(b) - Colonies that were the largest part of the Empire, had the largest population and generated the highest revenue are not given proportionate coverage in the article. For example, India receives 1.8% (1.13 kilobytes of 61 kilobytes) of coverage in one section "Company rule in India" despite generating revenue surpassing the combined revenue of the "white colonies".
 * Justification for 1(d) - The article seems to have a British nationalist's POV. For example my attempts to add mainstream views in a nation of 1.2 billion have been futile:
 * Poor legacy in India
 * India's share of global income shrank from 22.6% to 3.8% under the British Empire Zuggernaut (talk) 03:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Update: No opinion - some problems have been fixed, many remain. But these stem from a wider systemic and known problem that has manifested itself in this article in the form of a strong pro-British POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delist, serious sourcing concerns, poor quality of research, significant FA criteria concerns. -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep listed Am I missing something here? There only appear to be two issues: A user brought the FAR because he couln't gain concensus to insert his POV into this article, he also cannot gain consensus here to do that. Olsen is a tertiary source used in this longstanding FA article. No error of fact has been identified in this article based on Olsen. An error of fact has been identified in a work edited by Olsen but not used as a source in this article. Agree secondary sources may be "better" but with no error of fact identified we should delist - seriously? Outofsinc (talk) 08:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep listed' - No you're not missing anything. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:53, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep listed - Article contains many different sources, if one is a serious issue then time should be given to find alternatives. Nothing backed up by the Oslon source which is being rubbished by a couple of editors above based on his other work (not relating to the specific work sourced in the article) are outrageous claims, almost all can easily be backed up by an alternative if needed. Where on earth is the " POV, original research" issues? The main editor making such claims is busy engaged throughout wikipedia adding POV material based on his negative views of Empire. It is shocking he is able to cause such disruption by demanding a  review an it has resulted in this.  BritishWatcher (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would help if those concerned with the Oslon source actually listed some of the sentences backed up by the source in the article they question. Many of the cites are to cover basic stuff that could easily be backed up by other sources, if they need backing up at all. Like "In 1869 the Suez Canal was opened under Napoleon III, linking the Mediterranean with the Indian Ocean. The Canal was at first opposed by the British" and "Under the terms of the 1842 Treaty of Nanking, Hong Kong Islanditself had been ceded to Britain "in perpetuity", but the vast majority of the colony was constituted by the New Territories, which had been acquired under a 99 year lease in 1898, due to expire in 1997." These are not issues that are hard to find dozens of sources backing up if needed and given time. It is a shame the sudden jump to this vote.  BritishWatcher (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral I'm pretty unimpressed by the "concerns" above - if Olson keeps making mistakes, let's have examples! But if the article were at FAC now, the sourcing and comprehensiveness should be improved. There is very little analysis indeed, just a chronology of military and political highlights.  The empire included possessions acquired and run in very different ways, and with different motivations, and this side of the subject has little coverage, as does economics.  Obviously the subject is huge, but I think more than this is needed. I don't think the text suffers from general pro-British POV; in places it seemed to lean the other way. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes a POV can be expressed by omitting or excluding specific content. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And often including content in the way you want also expresses a POV. The article mentions Famines, slavery, losses and the negative legacy of Empire including a number of conflicts ongoing in the world today. These issues are not swept under the carpet, but there is only so much that can be said on the main article about a subject spanning 100s of years and including a large share of the world. All the more detail is found on the many different articles that can cover specific issues and the Evolution of the British Empire article which details all the former possessions and their status. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep listed'. The article has extensive sourcing. It does rely slightly too much on Olson, but that can be (and now will be) fixed fairly easily. I don't trust the stated reasons for bringing this article to review in the first place and note that the editor who brought it here did not notify me, even though I have frequently contributed to it. On such a large subject as the BE, there will always be controversy, but that of itself is insufficient to challenge FA status. At the moment, if anything, the article is too anti-British in tone (as with many WP articles on related topics), so at least some of the stated objections here and on the BE talk page are rather short on objectivity. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep listed Article is very well sourced, and the small issues brought up with sources can be fixed, and some have been already. Editors are currently working on the slight overuse of Olson, and I don't think it's a reason for removal of FA status. Additionally, some issues with pictures initially brought up have also been dealt with. The points and criticisms raised have been dealt with, and as a whole the article is a concise but comprehensive overview, well wikilinked to supporting more specific articles. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As Britishwatcher points out above, the referencing issues are considerably mitigated by the lack of analysis that I complain about in my comment above. Most of the current article consists of pretty basic statements of historical fact - see for example the para entirely referenced to Olson by (currently) refs 37-39. If there were more analysis it would need a higher standard of referencing, but this is really Subject-specific common knowledge. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I don't think much analysis should go into the article though. It shouldn't be a diatribe about whether the Empire was good or bad, the current "the empire was this, did this" allows the reader to make their own decisions. Analysis of specific events could go in those articles. If an analysis of the empire as a whole is wanted, then I suggest a new article for Legacy of the British Empire, which could contain that. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an extremely narrow view of "analysis", and not what I mean at all! The article is currently mostly like a timeline in running prose, listing major events but containing little on why and how the Empire grew, and how it worked. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies, that's true I guess. Do you agree with suggestions above that that information is better at Evolution of the British Empire or do you suggest it here, in maybe a shorter form, integrated into the current text? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Here; the evolution article is essentially a list. Johnbod (talk) 15:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't mean the evolution article has better information, just that it might be better placed there. Anyway, does the lack of such analysis in your opinion have a great impact on this articles FA status? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delist: I do not think this is one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. (1) The opening sentence presumes a level of knowledge - compare with Roman Empire, Nazi Germany, United States. (2) The article name purports to cover the whole subject but, comparing with say the Roman Empire content titles, I would say this is structured only to cover the history. (3) I do think there is over-emphasis on postive, as opposed to a neutral terminology: we have independent nations that arose from the British Empire; did no indepedent nations disappear? At least we are told that Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions - we are just not told "why not"? Even the redirect "Evolution of the British Empire" is value laden - "Evolution" is a natural process, Empire is a man-made construct. Finally Wikipedia itself is peppered with references to British Imperialism, the term is entirely absent from the article and I am not convinced that this aspect of the Empire has been covered. MacStep (talk) 17:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One query - this discussion now appears as an archive, so does that mean there is now really no further point discussing this? Bit confusing. On the above points by MacStep, there are some good points there. The question of imperialism and motives for Empire is not much discussed - but then again, it also isn't much discussed at for example Russian Empire. I suspect what you are seeing is the lack of depth in Historical Studies and Humanities that Wikipedia regularly exhibits. I found Roman Empire frustrating for similar lack of depth. There is a tendancy to merely cite the bare facts given the battles that inevitably ensue over different academic opinions on something like "imperialism" which is what it would boil down to - those are the sources on imperialism. That said, I think it compares well with other FA articles. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a little embarassed - I've been shadowing Chipmunkdavis since we both edited Malaysia - actually I'm very embarassed. MacStep (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Replying to Jamesinderbyshire, no, the discussion hasn't been archived. All FAC/FAR pages are originally located at pages edning with "/archiven" to make botifying easier. When the discussion is actually closed, an archive template will be put at the top and bottom with a clear message that the discussion has been archived and what the final decision (keeping or delisting) was. Dana boomer (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 *  Weak Keep Listed Withdrawn Not convinced the problems are as bad as suggested concerning the author under concern - WP:RSN acknowledged it a reliable source did it not? But may I make a procedural query, if referencing is the main issue User:BritishWatcher proposed a fix for that.  Does it not seem premature to delist whilst that work could be done relatively quickly?  22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "WP:RSN acknowledged it a reliable source did it not?" No, WP:RS/N castigated editors for failing to supply adequate citations, and loudly indicated that the [multiple] works were unverifiable as cited. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It did nothing of the sort. Your creative interpretation of FAC and RSN is not helping your case. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * OK thanks for explaining, I've withdrawn my comments. However, may I ask if User:BritishWatcher proposed fix, will address that?   Justin talk 23:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Another editor has already replaced about a dozen Oslon cites with others. So progress is being made to remove its reliance on Oslon. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Delist

I would like editors to look at the article on the other large empire in history the Mongol empire and the adjectives used to describe it. This (BE) article is insulated from such scrutiny. Please do not raise the wp:OR flag, all that I have written can be easily referenced, but I believe that is not necessary here, I hope the gentlemen who have written this article could contemplate on what I have written to understand my point. This article comes across as one sided as is illustrated above does not deserve FA status. This is not only about technicalities but also that the BE was like Nazi Germany to the inhabitants of its so called colonies. This view does not come across from this article, which presents only one perspective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) "...40 million died from Mongol conquest" why does BE not inform about the decimation of people in its colonies Australia, NZ, parts of USA, Africa and Asia?
 * 2) "...It attributes plague deaths to the Mongols 75 million dead." BE article does not mention deaths due to famines, godowns were full but the administration did not rush help esp. in Bengal.
 * 3) "...Mongols wiped out urban populations in times of conflict" What the British did in Delhi, Kanpur, Lucknow, Khartoum, not mentioned in BE article.
 * 4) "...After a 3 day-siege using heavy bombardment, the Mongols captured the city and massacred its inhabitants, then proceeding to destroy the army of the Grand principality of Vladimir at the Sit River." The British did that in Jhansi not mentioned in BE article.
 * 5) "While some cities surrendered without resisting, others such as Mayafarriqin fought back; their populations were massacred and the cities were sacked...", the British did not even spare places of worship looting valuables like the Nassak Diamond not mentioned in the BE article.
 * 6) "...The marauding Mongols burned down Tibetan monuments such as the Reting monastery and the Gyal temple in 1240..." The British in Nagpur raided and looted the personal property of the Bhosale queen, ripping carpets and silver, or that Kitchner desecrated the grave of the Mhadi in Omdurman, not mentioned in BE article.


 * Keep listed. Any genuine problems are being worked on, and they seem relatively minor anyway. (And I have no idea what the above is trying to say) Quantpole (talk) 14:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Simple! The dark deeds of the British Empire should find mention in the article on it just as the dark deeds of the Mongol empire find mention find mention in its article. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note - all Olson refs have been replaced by other sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India.[81]" needs rephrasing since the source does not clearly attribute the events of 1857 to "attempts to Westernise India". As stated earlier, there isn't a consensus in academia and scholarly works about the causes of the rebellion/mutiny where as this article clearly seems to chose one particular POV. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The source says, at various points, "Western legal reform" and "full scale Anglicisation" and "free trade, evangelism, western law and english education". It also mentions modern theories labelling it as "a rural revolt, a Muslim holy war, a Mughal restoration, a Hindu Maratha revival and an Indian national war". There were many grievances and many motives. It's difficult to summarise, but they would all be rooted in not wanting to have foreigners running your country and actively interfering with your culture. "Westernise" might be as good a summary as any though I think "Anglicise" might be better.Fainites barley scribs 21:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its best to focus on sources, content, avoid making assumptions and stick to proper nouns/third person rather than using terms like "your country", "your culture", etc. Just my opinion. Anglicize sounds better. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you focused on sources. 'We have pointed out several times that "Westernise" is used frequently in this context by RS. Whether you think "Anglicise" sounds better or not is immaterial if the sources prefer an alternative term. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It would be best if you didn't make assumptions about what I meant Zuggernaut. I was using "your" in the generic sense because the more grammatically correct "ones" is somewhat archaic these days. I didn't mean "your" as in you personally. One can work this out from the fact that it is highly improbable that anybody commenting here was personally involved in the event in question. I neither know nor care where you are from. Fainites barley scribs 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Good to see we agree on keeping the focus on sources and content. Sorry for any misunderstanding. The cited source does not unambiguously say that 'Westernisation' was the cause of the mutiny. Like you mentioned, it provides several causes. Several other sources confirm that. Please check the following:
 * Bandyopadhyay, Sekhara (2004), From Plassey to Partition: A History of Modern India, New Delhi: Orient Longman, ISBN 8125025960
 * Brown, Judith M. (1994), Modern India: The Origins of an Asian Democracy (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press,
 * Dalrymple, William (2007), The Last Mughal, The Fall of a Dynasty, Delhi 1857
 * David, Saul (2003), The Indian Mutiny: 1857, London: Penguin Books, ISBN 0141005548
 * Fremont-Barnes, Gregory, Essential histories, The Indian Mutiny 1857-1858, Osprey 2007
 * Mazumder, Rajit K. (2003), The Indian Army and the Making of the Punjab, Permanent Black, ISBN 8178240599
 * Metcalf, Barbara D.; Metcalf, Thomas R. (2006), A Concise History of Modern India (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521682258
 * Metcalf, Thomas R. (1990), The Aftermath of Revolt: India, 1857-1870, New Delhi: Manohar, ISBN 8185054991
 * Savarkar, Vinayak Damodar. The Indian War of Independence, 1857. New Delhi: Rajdhani Granthnagar, 1970; 1st ed., 1908.
 * Since there are several causes of the mutiny, it is the POV of the editors that is seeping through in the article when they choose the term 'Westernisation'. I have not yet examined the other replacements of the Olson source but several instances of re-wording or rephrasing would be required to keep the article in FA status IMO. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) Zuggernaut why are you ignoring Savarkar who wrote that Indians fought for Swadharma and Swarajya (I have provided reference on talk page of BE) Swadharma = religion and culture; Swarajya = self rule. You are again being blind to the other side's perspective. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No Zuggernaut. There were many many causes/motivations. "Westernisation" is a reasonable attempt to summarise rather than list them all - not a POV. What POV anyway? Fainites barley scribs 00:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The use of "Westernisation" is not a summary. Its a generalization and it conflicts directly with elements in Indian society at that time who were trying to use the same Western instruments to modernize India. It wasn't until Gandhi (who is reputed to have said "It would be a good idea" when asked by a reporter what he thought of the Western civilization) that there was resistance to Westernization. The POV which is underlying throughout the article assumes that the British Empire was good for those who got colonized. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see your point that "Westernisation" might not be the most accurate summary. This is one of the difficulties of trying to cover such a huge topic. The alternatives however, are either a list or a different summarising word which might have other failings. Don't at all agree about the POV though. That doesn't follow at all.Fainites barley scribs 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Savarkar has devoted a chapter to the causes of the events of 1857, perhaps with a qualifier like an Indian interpretation of the conflict is that it was caused by the desire for Swadharma and Swarajya (you can use original translations of these terms, or do your own. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Dalrymple suggests it was a war/rebellion/mutiny over religion. Savarkar and several others claim it was about independence. Your words which I misinterpreted ("your country", "your culture") seem to indicate that you understand this had something to do with being independent or free of foreign interference. Westernization isn't the correct word and I am open to other proposals. Anglicize seemed like a good summary. If others cannot agree, an alternative is to provide the top 2-3 reasons. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Washbrook gives a complex analysis of the motivations behind the rebellion but he particularly mentions Dalhousies reforms, citing him as an "uncompromising Westernizer", the "Anglicization impulse" and the "pressures of Anglicization". He cites Dalhousie's revision of property rights, taxation, aristocratic and estate-holder privileges, caste, military privileges, mass western education and evangelical christianity. He also talks of the "beating down" of the agrarian order under Company rule prompting regular rebellions of which the agrarian side of the Mutiny and Civil Rebellion was the apogee. There was a military mutiny, a civil rebellion and a religious uprising. One underlying impuilse behind all this was a desire to tell foreign rulers to shove off. How about something like due in part to tensions caused by attempts to Anglicize India and a desire for autonomy. Fainites barley scribs 20:41, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * but I'm not sure how long it will last since 100s of millions are taught in school that religion was one of primary causes. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather assumed that was naturally included in "Anglicize" and "autonomy". The trouble is, if it says "Anglicize, Christianise" + autonomy, then someone will say - well what about the military privilege aspect, or the educational aspect, or the ryot system, or the principalities reform, or or or. Tricky.Fainites barley scribs 17:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Had another idea. How about "a desire for autonomy and attempts to Anglicize India across civil, military and religious domains" ? I dare say this will be criticised though for getting longer and longer.Fainites barley scribs 17:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The dictionary meaning of 'anglicize' is "to make English in quality and characteristic". If Christianity is covered by the word, then we can stick to the previous, shorter version. If not, we can drop military from the second version to make it shorter? Zuggernaut (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure. England is a pretty pagan place now but I suppose it wasn't then. Not officially anyway. Also - the Mutiny part of the rebellion was pretty crucial and there was a lot more to it than those greasy cartridges. It was one of Dalhousies reforms. I was thinking of proposing our ideas on the talkpage as this is getting rather beyond a mere FAR point. Fainites barley scribs 21:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep listed Comments
 * Once again, kudos to the great work by Nikkimaria.
 * I note quite a lot of factual information still uncited, particularly at the end of paras. Examples (there are more than these):
 * "In 1888 Rhodes with his privately owned British South Africa Company occupied and annexed territories subsequently named after him, Rhodesia."
 * "A third bill was passed by Parliament in 1914, but not implemented due to the outbreak of the First World War leading to the 1916 Easter Rising."
 * "The subsequent non-cooperation movement was called off in March 1922 following the Chauri Chaura incident, and discontent continued to simmer for the next 25 years."
 * "...from which Britain did not recover until the successful recapture of the Falkland Islands from Argentina in 1982" (which also smacks of OR/POV - the notion that this event allowed Britain to "recover" from so-called "Suez syndrome")
 * "Britain maintained a presence in the Middle East for another decade, withdrawing from Aden in 1967, and Bahrain in 1971."
 * " Guyana achieved independence from the UK in 1966. Britain's last colony on the American mainland, British Honduras, became a self-governing colony in 1964 and was renamed Belize in 1973, achieving full independence in 1981. A dispute with Guatemala over claims to Belize was left unresolved."
 * Virtually the whole section "War with Napoleonic France" is uncited.
 * I can't imagine something getting through at FA with this degere of uncited material. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In general terms the simple answer is: because it does not need to be. WP:VER says: All material in Wikipedia articles must be attributable to a reliable published source to show that it is not original research, but in practice not everything need actually be attributed. This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question. None of what you highlighted was controversial, but I see that someone has been busy adding references anyway. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. But I'm also influenced by prevailing practice and guidance such as When to cite (which is just an essay, not a guideline). Some of the points I listed above certainly would qualify as "Subject-specific common knowledge" and would not therefore routinely need to be cited. But the extent of them in this article probably concerned me a little. nevertheless, my main concerns were points that did not meet that description, including the one about Chauri Chaura, particularly the claim about simmering discontent. I see someone has put a 'cite needed' tag on the other sentence i particularly wanted to query: "This came into force in 1904 and made the Canal neutral territory, but de facto control was exercised by the British whose forces occupied the area until 1954" (I would want a cite for the argument of de facto British force control; I'm not worried about a cite for the specific dates). As you say, the article has overwhelmingly been improved, and I'm sure that it will be a 'keep' thanks to everyone's great work. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep listed -- Snowded TALK  18:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Reaffirming delist vote above
 * 1) Please address issue in delist vote above by this editor, comparing BE article with Mongol mpire, compare the tone of that article with this one.
 * 2) Is this a FA or an Elegy with the lines in the lead regarding the sun and where it set. That gives it a bad start.
 * 3) Another problem is with user created images, shouldnt the concession given for images not apply to images used in a FA, either the user created images be withdrawn or FA status withdrawn.
 * 4) This article needs a 21st century treatment and not a 19th century one, that's what it looks like in its present form.
 * 5) 1857 has been mis-represented
 * 6) Information about units used is inaccurate and vague.
 * 7) Reference to Kashmir in legacy is not sourced, editor Redhat confessed that it is based on a map, which belongs to an atlas, comes across as synthesis and OR, is there dearth of good sources?
 * 8) This article is onesided consider these lines in the sixth standard textbook produced by Maharashtra State Bureau of Textbook Production and Curriculum Research, Pune (India): Before the British rule, our villages were self-sufficient. The affairs of the village - from collection of taxes to settlement of disputes - were managed by the villagers themselves. But all this changed during the British rule. The villages no longer remained self-sufficient. The British neglected our villages. They concentrated on the development of the cities for their own benefit. As a result, cities developed not the the villages. I am not saying that this text be incorporated in the article but without information like this the British Empire article is simply an article infected with strong POV undeserving FA status. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What was the point in voting twice. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh! I was not sure what title to give to my comments. Of-course count it as one. I wish to convey that the apprehension that I have raised has not been met. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling that there's some sockpuppetry going on here but I'm sure that wasn't Yogesh's intention. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of the points you have made there have been debated here or on the article talkpage. People have explained the reasons why certain changes you want to see should not be implemented. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I would modify Yogesh's list to include:
 * The impact of the British Empire on the economies it governed (India's share of global income fell from 22.6% or about equal to that of combined Europe in 1700 to 3.6% near the time of independence. Similar arguments for African nations can be sourced)
 * About 30% of the capital for Britian's industrialization came from India alone. Revenue from other colonies was diverted to the industrialization of Britain as well - this can be sourced.
 * Revenue from India alone exceeded combined revenue for the "white colonies".
 * Without appropriate summary coverage of the economics of the British Empire, the article fails criterion 1(d) of WP:FA criteria Zuggernaut (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, can I speak in support of Zuggernaut's comments on this particular point? I wasn't confident to raise it myself, but I thought the article was a little heavy on the politico-military-history side and light on the economic effects in the colonised states. If there are high quality sources in that area, I would certainly support the introduction of more material in this area. I'm not sure it should be a factor in the FARC though - I still think the article is good. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Presumably "revenue" here means profits from selling Indian exports elsewhere in the world, those exports being the bulk of economic flows to/from India throughout the period. I have commented on the lack of economic information above, but these entirely one-sided and Indiacentric comments are getting us nowhere. Johnbod (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamiltonstone - I attempted to add this to the article per WP:BRD, WP:RS, etc (see my 2nd proposal and 1st proposal) but it looks like the article and editors aren't ready for this yet. Johnbod - Revenue has the standard meaning. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you'll find there is no such "standard meaning"! The word needs to be used with clear explanation of whether it is net or gross, and in particular who is the recipient. And that's just for starters. Ask any accountant. Johnbod (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Zuggernaut, can you explain your above comment? Who are you suggesting is socking? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm AGF and not taking it to SPI but I suspect User:Outofsinc is a sock. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please take this to SPI, It is outrageous that you can post that you suspect me of being a sock, without a shred of evidence and then have the sheer audacity to use the acronim AGF, that is a very cowardly thing to do. I have nothing what so ever to hide. I'm sorry but this is quite upsetting Outofsinc (talk) 09:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Zuggernaut I take it from the lack of reply both here and on your talk page that you no longer suspect me of being a Sock. An apology and an explanation would be nice. Outofsinc (talk) 11:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Outofsinc and Zuggernaut, please take this to your talks (or the talk page of this review). Unless sock/meat puppetry is proven, the discussion has no place on the main review page, and only serves to add more length to an already lengthy review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - If/when any of the editors feel that another editor's concerns have been resolved (i.e., the Olson cites have been removed, so YM's concerns are theoretically taken care of), feel free to drop a note on that editor's page asking them to drop by and check the article again. Dana boomer (talk) 12:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Kudos to Nikimaria for resolving the issue of quality of citations. The remaining points (for example "westernisation" as a cause of the 1857 affair) are not FA/FAR points and can be discussed on the talkpage. Fainites barley scribs 13:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - There are still unresolved image issues from the FAR section. Please resolve these and ping Jappalang for a re-review. Also, please ping Fifeloo for an update on his sourcing concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've contacted the site hosting the 1897 map, and Fainites is taking a look at the infobox map. Other image issues should hopefully be resolved, and we'll ping Jappalang as soon as the final two are dealt with. Fifelfoo has been pinged, awaiting his response. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Jappalang has now OK'd the infobox map after some provenance additions. Fainites barley scribs 22:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for taking so long to respond. I've struck my delist, and detailed material which would help the article improve outside of a FAR process.  (Editors should be aware in relation to my no opinion, that I regularly merely "comment" on the Featured Article Candidate process, and very rarely offer support opinions there.) Fifelfoo (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

infobox map and Africa map now OKay'd by Jappalang. Fainites barley scribs 17:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note - both Jappalang and YellowMonkey have struck their concerns. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can not find any major defect, which would be incompatible with the article's status as featured. No requirement exists that images are original and not self made. I only want to point your attention to accessdates, which are not needed for books and other printed sources. Ruslik_ Zero 18:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.