Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
Featured articleBritish Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2009.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 24, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
April 2, 2007Good article nomineeListed
December 3, 2007Good article reassessmentDelisted
November 2, 2008Good article nomineeNot listed
December 12, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
December 27, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article

"More than 10 million Indians perished..." - WP:SYN violation

My recent edit related to the deaths of more than 10 million Indians was undone twice - [1] [2].

The way this paragraph is being phrased is a WP:SYN violation. It conveys to the reader that the British East India Company was the entity responsible for the starvation deaths of the 10 million Indians. In reality this happened between 1858 and 1900, a period in which the British government was in charge, having taken over in 1858. If you have a different argument, please discuss here before undoing my edit. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The famines did not suddenly start in 1858. For example, the famine of 1837-8 in which 800,000 died in the North West Provinces, Punjab and Rajasthan (see the cited reference from which this text was derived). Your edit has completely changed the meaning of the text, which I will repeat is REFERENCED - and your change here needs to be reverted. Also, please do not make alterations to the text without providing sources yourself, or they are liable to be reverted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the cited reference on Google Books and can read pages 132-4 in their entirety. Please read them and per WP:BRD discuss here rather than revert again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 07:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. 800,000 did die in the famine of 1837-8 and the famines certainly did not suddenly start in 1858. Here are the details from the same source:
Years of rule of the British East India Company - 1818 - 1858
Years of rule of the British government - 1858 - 1947
Deaths under Company
Years Deaths Province
1837-1838
800,000
 Punjab, Rajasthan, North-West
Total
800,000
 India
Deaths under Crown
Years Deaths (millions) Province
1860-1861
2
 Punjab, Rajasthan, North-West
1866-1867
1
 Different areas
1876-1878
4.3
 Widespread areas
1877-1878
1.2
 North West, Kashmir
1896-1897
5
 Large portion of entire India
1899-1900
1
 Unspecified
Total
14.5
 India
Again, the current phrasing [3] is a WP:SYN violation because it tries to imply that all of the deaths occurred under the British East India Company and not under the government. Here's a sample phrasing you could use to eliminate the WP:SYN violation:

A total of 15.3 million Indians died from the famines of the late 19th century. 800,000 of these deaths occurred under the East India Company whereas 14.5 million Indians died of starvation under the rule of the British Crown. 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.

Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it known how many people died in famines in the years before the East India Company took control? This would give some context to the figures, so that people could form an opinion on whether the situation was improving or worsening under the Empire. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that comparison is required in the original context (probably WP:UNDUE) but if there is consensus to expand the article to include that kind of material, I would be more than happy to research and provide new content per WP:Reliable sources. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that you are completely misunderstanding what constitutes synthesis. The current wording is absolutely not synthesis because it reflects what the source says. Your proposed wording, on the other hand, is complete synthesis. Nowhere does the cited source total up the deaths pre/post 1858 and contrast the figures like you are doing (also note that the source is not providing a comprehensive list of all famines - the author has picked the worst). All the source contrasts is the differing RESPONSES of the EIC (none, or at least nothing coordinated) vs the Raj (investigative commissions, following an acceptance that it was the state's responsibility to take action). And that is what the text says. If you have a source which compares the situation under the EIC vs the Raj, put it here and we can disucss. Do you? If you don't, you are just engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:09, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't agree. I've taken it to the relevant board. Let neutral eyes decide what this is about. [4] Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 04:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish, but please note that the NOR noticeboard is not some kind of arbitration panel who will "decide" on the matter. it's just a place for editors who are interested in that space to reply with their opinions. There are plenty of editors who look at this talk page too you know. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 06:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and most seem to agree that the proposed change is synthesis. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly concerned that underlying all of this is an attempt to push a particular POV into Wikipedia by this particular editor who has also inserted a bit of a diatribe into the India article about the British. [5] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:39, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I politely disagree with you yet again. I got interested in the topic after User:Derek Ross made a suggestion to compare relevant famine data before and after the British Empire arrived in India. I added one concise line of a few words to India [6] (this was my first edit to that article). I was then invited by a regular editor/admin to expand that one line. [7] I did so and things were stable until User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick Wikihounded me to the India article. The discussion now continues until we reach a consensus on the exact wording. What you call "diatribe" is a genuine attempt to find and document the reasons behind the disproportionate deaths (36 million or so according to the cited source) in India in the 19th century. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm... should wikipedia editors be attempting to find and document the reasons of anything using wikipedia articles? If it's that important, there will be a WP:RS out there about it. If its just mixing and matching here, then that's probably WP:OR. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, we should find and "document" everything relevant to an article as long as it's per Wikipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:UNDUE, WP:SYN. It's also important that we use secondary and tertiary sources per WP:Sources. I don't see anything wrong with that. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised the fact User:Zuggernaut has been canvassing to try and influence the outcome of this debate on the Admins noticeboard here. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 23:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not mention casualties

...that died for the British Empire. Military campaign figures are given; casualties not. That looks very biased to me; has a hint of glorifying nationalism. Why not show both sides of the coin?--85.179.146.183 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2010 (UThttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire&action=editC)

For the simple reason that this is an overview article of several hundred years of history across six continents, and therefore we can't mention everything. Fortunately, because this is an encyclopaedia, there is always a home for sourced material, and that is other articles specifically related to that topic. If someone wants to know how many casualties there were in the Falklands War, they can look at that article. The British Empire article doesn't need to state them - it's tangential to the subject at hand. If everyone's favorite "fact" was included, this article would be huge. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Height and foremost global power?

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and, for over a century, was the foremost global power."

When was this height? 1920? largest Empire in history?? does this include water territories? who calculated its extent and for what time the foremost global power? Who claims that? The British? --IIIraute (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that the British Empire at peak covered the largest geographical extent of any recorded empire. It might be worth giving that date - the territorial maximum extent is usually considered to be 1924. [8]. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is doubt indeed; the question is what areas the calculation is made of? For example: are water territories included? What about the Mongol Empire? But much more interesting: for what time (100+ years) the foremost global power? --IIIraute (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mongol Empire is usually cited as having 33m contiguous square km. [9] The British Empire in 1924 ruled over more than 33.7m square km of land surface, so it's not all that big a gap. There's a list of large empires page in Wikipedia with appropriate sourcing (although it's currently under an AFD process - for the fifth time!!). If you feel you have better sourcing, you can bring it up at that talk page and see if people take it up. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...at its peak, it certainly was not the foremost global power, or would the foremost global power need the entry of the United Staates to defeat a little "great power" like Germany? By that time the British Empire was already almost finished. Also, the claim of covering "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" is not really true, as this calculation includes water territories, great lakes, etc.. The earth's surface (land) is 148,940,000 km2. That does not include great lakes, etc. About 70.8%[1] of the earth's surface is covered by water... So, can you see my point? the rest is maths. How come nobody ever checked those numbers?--IIIraute (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The BE was overwhelmingly the foremost military power in the world in 1924 - don't forget, the US didn't re-arm until 1939-41 and Germany until after 1933. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe in 1924, what I very much doubt; I'd like to see figures. But what 100+ years period are we talking about? you still did not answer that. During the Great War they were certainly not the foremost global power, neither the foremost military power, as they could not defeat the Germans on their own. I think that is very obvious.--IIIraute (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Make an alternative proposal for that sentence and see what people say about it. The WWI stalemate as evidence will be contentious, since that was Europe; Germany never challenged British power during 1914-18 in, for example, Asia and only to a minor extent in Africa. The same is of course true in WWII, but I doubt that is counted as part of the "more than 100 years", or certainly not after the Japanese invasion. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am just not sure if some "Jingoism" claims, facts and figures should be included into the Wikipedia. They should be made more transparent. Largest Empire? ...not that clear, as I explained earlier. 1/4 of the earth's total land area? not true. And as I asked before: for what 100 years? Not in 1914, as by that time Germany, having experienced a spectacular industrial revolution was rapidly overhauling Britain as Europe's foremost industrial power. In 1913 Germany had reached Britain's export figures, milled more iron than Britain and more steel than Britain, France and Russia combined. Giant German cartels like Siemens and AEG dominated the European electrical market. German chemicals consortia produced most of the world's dyes and industrial acids. The population had increased to 66 million. This economic strength translated easily into military power. The German High Seas Fleet possessed 14 dreadnought battleships, compelling the British to bring their capital ships back to the North Sea. Although still smaller than the Royal Navy, Germany's fleet was far more modern and boasted superior shells and night training. Germany could mobilise almost 9 million men and benifited from superior staff training and advanced technology (especially heavy artillery). My point is... circumstances in 1914 were very differnet than in 1924. And maybe Britain was the foremost military power in 1924, but so much in debt and out of resources that this effectively didn't mean anything, as one was going to experience in WWII. But then again: what 100+ years period are we talking about--IIIraute (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression you aren't going to make a specific proposal for new sentences or change to sentences, so won't spend much time just "debating" with you. Just to clarify one or two points though. (1) The Earth's land surface area roughly 149m sq. km. - therefore the BE's 33.7m sq. km is roughly 1/4 of the land mass. So you are wrong in your assertion that it isn't true. Unless (I ask again) you can provide a contrary source? No? Then stop just raising empty debating points. (2) Comparison's with Germany in the first world war - yes, many scholars do argue that WW1 marked the turning point in BE power. Therefore it is valid to ask what period the "more than 100 years" of "foremost power" covers. I would suggest it is roughly 1750 - 1900 with a second phase, roughly, 1919 - 1935. The article would benefit from having this spelled out a little more. Care to make alternative sourced suggestions? If not, please stop raising empty debating points, Wikipedia is not a blog. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First point: "foremost" does not mean it was omnipotent. Second point - the sentence is slightly misleading - the period during which it was the "foremost global power" (1815 - 1914) is not the same as the period when it was at its largest (around 1924). I hadn't read it that way previously, but I can see that some people might do so. In terms of area we're just quoting the sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was no "Global Power".... what basically translates into "Superpower". The category of "Global power" does not even exist in the Wikipedia; and that for a reason. Up to the 20th century no "Global-or Superpower" did exist. Great Britain just did not have the means to execute such power, and certainly not from 1815-1914 (what would still not be for "over one century"). In 1812 Spain was still far too powerful, holding vast territorries in Northern- Middle- and Southamerica. The Austrian, Ottoman and Manchu Empire were extremly powerful; not to forget Prussia. The British could not fight Napoleon without help of other European allies, nor were they ever successful in any other campaign on the European continent on their own. In 1848 the Russian Empire stretched from Prussia to the Russian Americas.--IIIraute (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The (many) sources cited in this article disagree with your POV about "global power". Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about military strength but the capital was coming from British colonies. Here's a quote from the Indian Prime Minster at his speech while accepting a Honorary Degree from Oxford University in 2005: "As the painstaking statistical work of the Cambridge historian Angus Maddison has shown, India's share of world income collapsed from 22.6% in 1700, almost equal to Europe's share of 23.3% at that time, to as low as 3.8% in 1952." Gandhi has said "The British Empire is an Empire only because of India." Nonetheless this article is very POV biased and needs a {{POV}} tag. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a featured article, meaning it passed a series of checks to ensure it met Wikipedia's standard, but the same cannot be said of the POV edits you have been trying to make. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is static on Wikipedia and everything is subject to constant scrutiny. A variety of objections are being expressed, such as from an Indian viewpoint, a German viewpoint, potentially an Irish viewpoint, etc. The article is biased and promotes a particular POV. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's hard to define what a 'foremost global power is'. I mean, how do you define it? It's even problematic to discuss the USA today as the 'foremost global power'. After all, its global influence is checked by such powers as China and Russia, and the EU.Gazzster (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be hard to define for people editing Wikipedia, but it's not so hard for the sources we're citing. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1848 Australia was mainly still in the hands of Australian Aboriginal hunter-gatherers, half of India "India princely" and Rupert's Land mainly full of snow. How can that be a "Global Power"? --IIIraute (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to what exactly? German possessions in Africa in 1914? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Compared to the Russian Empire in 1848, that stretched from Prussia to the Russian Americas, for example; the Manchu Empire, or the Dutch territories. To be the foremost Global Power, so to be regarded bigger than one of the "Great Powers" one has to be able to execute Global Power and that on more than empty territories, the third world, or how we would say today: in the New Markets. The US or the USSR had the means to intervene into any affair, i.e. execute their power. The British Empire had no ability to intervene in continental european affairs; so they could not even execute their "foremost global power" in front of their own door.--IIIraute (talk) 23:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and please do not forget the German colonies in China and the Pacific. The development of the world economy (foreign investment in 1914) was the following: United Kingdom: 535 million $; Germany: 1050 million $. But, anyway, that is not the point. What 100+ years was the British Empire the foremost Global Power? In 1812 Spain held the Vice-Royalty of New Spain, basically the whole west of North America, basically the whole of Middle America, Florida, Cuba, large Parts of Haiti, Puerto Rico, the Vice-Royalty of New Granada (the whole of northern South America), the Vice-Royalty of Peru, the United Provinces of La Plata, The Falkland Islands, the Philippine Islands. At that time Britain had lost its colonies, Afrika consisted of the Cape Colonies and Sierra Lione, less than 1/4 of India, Jamaica, the Mosquito Coast, British Honduras, the Bahamas, New South Wales (a tiny fraction of Australia) and Rupert's land full of snow.--IIIraute (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note that New South Wales back then was not the current area of NSW, it covered over half of modern Australia. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong; in 1812 it covered a part of NSW, a small fraction of the south-east of Australia. Apart from that, Van Diemen's Land and the Bay of Islands, just next to the Maori chiefdoms were under british rule. I have a colonial map of 1812 right in front of me. The Blue Mountains were first crossed in 1813.--IIIraute (talk) 01:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesinderbyshire:(1) "The Earth's land surface area roughly 149m sq. km. - therefore the BE's 33.7m sq. km is roughly 1/4 of the land mass." I gave excactly the same figures!, but: the BE's 33.7 sq. km include bays, great lakes, rivers, etc. Apart from that; 149 divided by 33,7 is as much "roughly" close to 1/4, than to 1/5 of the land mass (especially without the water terretorries that are included in the 33.7 sq.m.). (2.) By 1715 the Spanish had the largest overseas possessions; The Russian Empire was by far the biggest one. By 1783 the British Empire was reduced to Rupert's Land & Quebec, Novia Scotia, Labrador, Newfoundland, the Bahamas, Jamaica, Bengal and Bihar, Madras, Bombay and the Northern Circas. British possessions altogether, apart from the parts of what is now Canada, were probably the size of Madagascar. Nothing on the African continent, nothing in South America. Belize and the Mosquito Coast in Middle America, no Australia, Middle East, almost ZERO.... I really do not know where you take your figures from? What "Global Power" are we talking about? Napoleon once said, that you are always as powerful, as you make others believe you are. Well, your figures seem to live of that idea. Spanish possessions in 1783 consisted of 1/2 of North America, almost the whole of Middle America, more than 1/2 of South America, the Philippine Islands, the Falklands, Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola, etc.. and of course Portugal was in possession of the Vice-Royalty of Brasil, Portuguese Guinea, Delago Bay, Mozambique, Luanda, Goa, Timor. And there were vast overseas terretorries held by the French and the Dutch. So I actually do care to make alternative sourced suggestions; that's what I am trying to do here. --IIIraute (talk) 03:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not think that trivial phrases like "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" belong into a serious Encyclopedia. It comes as close to 1/4, that "only 3,6 million sq.k. are missing". That's almost the size of the European Union. It actually comes as close to 1/5 of the land mass; so I guess it's a matter of interest and interpretation. That is the reason why such "1/4" figures should not be given. To give the size in sq.k. is enough. The same goes for "for over a century, was the foremost global power." This phrase is too subjective and just not based on empirical data.

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and one of the foremost Great Powers." something like that would make more sense. Then, it could also be linked with the "Historical Powers" and "Great Power" section.--IIIraute (talk) 04:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "global power" gets regularly discussed and is cited in quite a lot of sources. You need sources and references to make points in Wikipedia articles. Generally these are avoided in the introductory section of articles (the "lede") and referenced further down in the main text. If you look at the Britain's Imperial Century section further down, there are a number of good references on the subject. You could propose rewrites to that but not unsourced ones, or you could challenge the relevance, notability or truthfulness of the existing sources and statements. The phrase is always controversial, but I think most historians would accept that the empire was paramount for an extended period - the difficulty is around exactly how long that was and the article should reflect any such controversies. There is also a seperate controversy as to what exactly was the Great Power - the empire, or just Britain itself? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the British claimed more in NSW than just the tiny colony your map apparently shows. Of course they hadn't actually settled the whole area, but they claimed a large amount of territory. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is what you might be thinking, but it is still wrong. (1.) In 1812 they only held a fraction of NSW, from ca. Botany Bay to Newcastle. (2.) I already did write before, that they had not crossed the Blue Mountains until 1813; so claim what? the Unknown?? (3.) The Map of 1812 is showing the British territorial claims of 1812.--IIIraute (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why, even though nobody seems to be able to give clear information on why and from what period it was the foremost "global power" for +100 years, it is not possible to rephrase the sentence to "the foremost colonial power", for example? At least that would be historically acceptable and not just be based on, in my opinion, biased sourcing.--IIIraute (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...by the way; what source is claiming this anyway? maybe a citation would be helpful.--IIIraute (talk) 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion the sources are biased eh? You need to do better than that. There are lots of sources in the bibliography and a simple search of the term "foremost global power" on Google Books will return plenty of results. When you have your own sources that say that the British Empire was not the foremost global power please feel free to come back and restart this discussion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not just in my opinion, but as I have also given good evidence why this is doubtful. If you, on the other hand, do prefer to do your historical research by "search engine results", that's ok. Why then not google "British Empire foremost global power" on Google Books, with 566 results, while "British Empire foremost colonial power" leaves us with 4060 results.--IIIraute (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your empirical methods of reserch bring out even more interesting results on Google Books: British Empire Global Power, 62,500 results; British Empire Great Power, 1.510,000 results.--IIIraute (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(...and "Pete hates people quoting Google statistics to substantiate arguments" and then uses Google statistics to subsantiate his own ones? weird!)--IIIraute (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What I dislike is editors doing exactly what you have just done to validate OR. Unlike you I did not quote nonsensical stats - I simply pointed you to Google Books (not Google) because it displays secondary. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The global power is an interesting result, considering earlier you seemed to be arguing the British Empire was not even a global power. I am not too fussed if there is a slight wording change to that sentence so it does not say "foremost global power", but out of interest in the period stated who was? BritishWatcher (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(1) ...that is exactly the problem, as there is no period made clear in that sentence; I have given enough evidence why that "100+ years" claim is quite doubtful. (2) just because of the fact that there are search engine results, does not make it the truth. (3) The Wikipedia itself separates former Empires in "Historical Powers" and "Great Powers". The term "Great Power" in the sentence is linked to "Great Powers"; so why not call it a Great Power or set the link towards "Colonial Power"--IIIraute (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
There are also thousands of results on Google Books, that claim Prussia (i.e. The German Empire) or the Russian Empire to have been a "Global Power", yet still within the Wikipedia they are listed as "Great Power". I quote:". The steady expansion of Prussia during the 19th century is a major dynamic of European history, but Prussia did not emerge as a major GLOBAL POWER until after the Unification of Germany under Prussia led by Otto von ..." Peter N. Stearns,William Leonard Langer, The Encyclopedia of world history, New York, 2001.--IIIraute (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useful to have that pointed out - Prussia is obviously wrong, as by no stretch was it ever a global power. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the period its mostly covering has its own section "Britains imperial century", although i agree at the moment it does not mention it in the sentence in the intro so it may cause confusion. No one is saying the British Empire was the only global power, or that there was such a distance between the BE and the next power like America has today in terms of its superpower status. The specific wording about being foremost global power for over a century was in the article when it got FA status and has been stable (apart from what to link global power to recently, when someone suggested it should go to superpower but it was opposed) for a couple of years. Without any doubt the British Empire was a global power. Its open to more debate if for a period of over a century it was the "foremost global power" but i do not know what other power in the period covered could be considered the foremost one. Theres nothing wrong with "global power" though and its pointless to say "Great power", considering the United Kingdom is still considered a great power today. Thats the reason for saying global rather than just great. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Generally historians have seen the period of British global power as lasting from the defeat of the Napoleonic navy through to 1914; that's roughly 100 years. It is true that the German navy rose to try to challenge it, but you won't find a lot of, for example, world military history books claiming that the German navy surpassed the Royal Navy - indeed, for much of World War I, the German Navy was restricted to home waters, whilst the RN covered the globe. It is also true that phrases like "global power" are ill-defined but Wikipidia would be the poorer for avoiding them because they are hard to bear down on scientifically. In the meantime, I suggest that unless IIIraute can come up with a suitably referenced alternate proposal, we consider this discussion closed, particularly because having this argument appears at present to be the sole aim. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I already made this proposal. (1). roughly 100 years, to be more specific "99 years" are not " for more than 100 years"; so this part has to go. The British would have lost Waterloo in 1815 without siding with the Prussians. (... after Austria, Prussia and Russia had already weakened France tremendously in Dresden, Leipzig and the Six Days Campaign earlier; this is where the Napoleonic armies really were defeated, on what historians very much agree). How come that as the "foremost global power" they could not defeat an already weakened army on their own? (2) I already made the proposal to rephrase the sentence to "foremost colonial power"; and I have more than 4000 sources on this one, while there are far less sources for calling it the "foremost global power".--IIIraute (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...by the way; the Spanish Wikipedia writes of "almost hundred years (1815-1914)", the German Wikipedia calls it the "foremost colonial power", the French Wikipedia also says "the foremost colonial empire"; the Dutch Wikipedia only from 1880-1910.--IIIraute (talk) 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other wikipedias are not reliable sources, I dont think I have seen a convincing argument to change the current wording or a consensus in this discussion to change it either. I suggest we leave it as the status quo. MilborneOne (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...how can that be not convincing? how can one ignore all the sources and facts I delivered? 1815-1914 is just not for "more than 100 years"! This is ignorant and revisionist jingoism.--IIIraute (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes most of what has been put forward could be seen as ignorant and revisionist jingoism which is probably why most people dont agree with you and are happy to leave the staus quo. MilborneOne (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is still missing a citation; and one that proves, that it was the foremost global power for more than 100 years. It has to contain two facts: (1) The foremost Global Power? yes, maybe it was for a period, but NOT for more than 100 years and (2) for more than 100 years (what it maybe was, as foremost colonial power, but not as foremost global power during all this time). One cannot just combine one with the other!.--IIIraute (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne, you seem to execute your powers as administrator but you do not seem to bring any valid and valuable argument that proves mine wrong.--IIIraute (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I am just an editor in this context as far as I know I have not acted as an admin related to this article, I have no argument that it should be properly cited, remembering that the lead does not need citations as it should reflect the text in the main body. Between 1815 and 1914, a period referred to as Britain's "imperial century" by some historians, around 10,000,000 square miles (25,899,881 km2) of territory and roughly 400 million people were added to the British Empire has a reference. And at Though Britain and the Empire emerged victorious from the Second World War, the effects of the conflict were profound, both at home and abroad. Much of Europe, a continent that had dominated the world for several centuries, was now in ruins, and host to the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union, to whom the balance of global power had now shifted which also referenced. MilborneOne (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you are an entirely new user IIIraute? :) Anyway, to deal with the quotes issue. Why not quote from a US work to avoid allegations of British imperialism? We could start with Power and stability: British foreign policy, 1865-1965 By Erik Goldstein, B. J. C. McKercher. [10] This is absolutely replete with quotations about Britain being the "most powerful global empire", etc. Just one of dozens that could be brought forward. Almost not worth the effort though, given how obvious the trolling is here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am a new user to the English Wikipedia, what's the problem with that? Are you now trying to bully me out of this matter? What trolling are you talking about? I also do not see what this has to do with my argument. Your quote is talking about 1815-1914, so that is still not more than 100 years, is it? --IIIraute (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactely the reason why no serious publishing house would publish historical research that has been done by somebody without a proper education regarding the matter. What point are people not getting here? Global power, yes, but not for more than 100 years (1815-1914) even other users did agree to this. For more than 100 years, yes, also ok, but not as global- but as colonial power.--IIIraute (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just 1815-1914. It's also 1919-(c)1935 (and possibly - many historians think) 1941. Many books take the Fall of Singapore to be the end of the British Empire. I'm surprised a historian of your impressive credentials doesn't know this. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps regular editors should then consider rephrasing the lead and "End of empire" section to indicate that the handover of Hong Kong was a symbolic end of the empire, the real end coming with the end of rule in Singapore. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:13, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, don't think so. The key sources we've used for this article cite Hong Kong and it makes a nice round 500-year period for this article to cover. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with James that it does seem like trolling, although I can't quite see the point of it. I'll bite for now and hope it goes away: We're associating the period in question with the Pax Britannica on the talk page here, but the article is also saying a bit more since declarations of war and of surrendering are not useful measures of economic or military power. Waterloo was an important battle insofar as it removed a threat to the Empire, but naval supremacy (i.e. what guaranteed its existence) was established in 1806. Likewise, 1914 is a nice convenient date, but it didn't mean the Empire was suddenly and instantaneously diminished (by 1916, however, it clearly was). Some might go further back and say that the Seven Years War was the point at which Britain surpassed France as the foremost global power. Either way it's more than a century. However, I think the key point is that 'foremost' does not mean 'omnipotent'. I don't think User:IIIraute understands this. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I do give up; as it seems pointless to argue any further. Looking at previous arguments, suggestions, proposals and criticism made by others one can trace and follow a red line through this biased article, that seems protected and watched by a small clique of people (always the same 4-5, granting each other absolution) that must think of themselves of some kind of contemporary (over-) patriotic, almost nationalist, "defenders of the empire". Geographically, all of them come from the "British Empire", with some displaying their army medals, a union jack, the british anthem and "Long live the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland!" slogans. If that's the caliber one is arguing with, it just becomes pointless to go on. You must be so sad that your former Empire is reduced to rubble; with its debt only being surpassed by the USA, being reduced to number 6 by GDP, placed 6th on imports, 9th on exports, 147th by industrial production growth, to always have to go home early in Football, to bring home only one medal from Vancouver, as well as in the 2010 citymayors Quality of life study (http://www.citymayors.com/features/quality_survey.html) having the first british city ranked 39th, that it is maybe better to glorify the past. What has happened? I thought the world's foremost global power did win both wars. How come they now rate second in everything towards Germany? What can one say? That really is depressing. --IIIraute (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having revealed your true colours perhaps you should say no more... Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BITE WIki-Ed, new editor does not know the rules here. Illraute, you need to learn to address content issues and not the motivations of other editors. If you check back over the history you will find a fair amount of disputes over various issues and many of us are very firmly not in a British Nationalist or Defenders of Empire category. Less polemic, more focus on content please. --Snowded TALK 09:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:IIIraute might not know the subject and it might be a new account on the English Wikipedia, but I think he's been around long enough [11] to know not to troll. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having revealed my true colours? The same goes for all of you, but I guess they were never hidden. I am a new member to the English Wikipeda, and yes I have already written several new articles for the German Wikipedia that have been given a very good reception, as they still stand how I did write them. Discourse there is different; I'd say more academic and less stubborn bullying! .--IIIraute (talk) 14:07, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be very clear here. If you continue with these long tirades against other editors and make stupid accusations like "stubborn bullying" then its only a matter of time before you get blocked. Address content issues with specific proposals and I'm sure you can make a valuable contribution. --Snowded TALK 14:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hernia bigger than your hernia.

Having a colony is the manifestation of a disease. Fighting over who had the biggest colony is like squabbling over whose father had a bigger hernia. Another thing is that isn't the map original research, that is what it - the information given with the file says. Please take it off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't first notice it was a FA. H#@y s*&t! A FA with suspicious graphics. I am going to send a SOS from my discussion page. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not think that trivial phrases like "approximately a quarter of the Earth's total land area" belong into a serious Encyclopedia. It comes as close to 1/4, that "only 3,6 million sq.k. are missing". That's almost the size of the European Union. It actually comes as close to 1/5 of the land mass; so I guess it's a matter of interest. That is the reason why such "1/4" figures should not be given. To give the size in sq.k. is enough. The same goes for "for over a century, was the foremost global power." This phrase is too subjective and just not based on empirical data.

"At its height it was the largest empire in history and one of the foremost Great Powers." something like that would make more sense. Then, it could also be linked with the "Historical Powers" and "Great Power" section.--IIIraute (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the map, I'm not clear which map you (Yogesh) are talking about and what the problem is exactly with it? Can you say more? On the size of the land-mass, figures like 1/4 and 1/5th are intended to be - exactly what they are - generalisations. there's no reason why the Russian Empire (which by the way included lots of very big lakes - much bigger than any in the British Empire!) at 23.7m sq km in 1866 can't be said to have covered 1/6th of the world's land surface area at the time. Similarly there's no reason why an approximate, easy-to-read figure can't be given for the British Empire. 149/5 = 30 (roughly) and 149/4 = 37 (roughly), so yes, on that point I agree it should be 1/5th and have changed the text. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:23, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted this. The cited source uses the same wording we use and since it is a widely accepted approximation we could find lots of other sources if needed. NB the reason it's widely accepted is because the percentage is closer to a quarter than to a fifth (22.6%). Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it should probably say "almost a quarter" then. The actual percentage by the way is 22.61%, just to be picky. It is slightly misleading at the moment, although granted it is intended as a generalisation. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 22.61% is just closer to 1/4 than to 1/5, almost is probably applicable. It probably should stay at 1/4, as that is the only fraction I actually ever remember seeing anywhere. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem with approximately being changed to almost which is more accurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woops i see its already been done lol. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Antarctic Territory; Map displayed??

Is the Antarctic Territory included in the 33,7 million sq.m.; i.e the "biggest Empire of all time"? The Antarctic Treaty, signed by all relevant regional claimants, does not in itself either recognise or dispute any territorial claims, leaving this matter to individual signatories.[2] Most of the world's countries do not recognise any national claims to Antarctica.[3] Britain, France, Norway, New Zealand and Australia, all of whom have territorial claims on the continent, mutually recognise each other's claims.[4][5] Argentina and Chile dispute the British claim, and make their own counter-claims that overlap both Britain's and each other's (see Argentine Antarctica and Antártica Chilena Province).IIIraute (talk) 05:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Antarctic Treaty did not come into effect until 1959. By that time the Empire had already shrunk in size considerably. So the Treaty is basically irrelevant to the "largest empire" claim. If you want to discuss the effect on the claim, you really need to investigate Antarctica's legal status before 1947 when India became independent. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's an interesting (and accurate - I've checked quite a few bits of data in it) table here [12] showing the "entry" and "exit" dates for all British colonies - the table does not include Antarctica and I've never heard of Antarctica being discussed as a "British colony" or as part of the "empire". There are more scholarly tables than this one of course but I just present it as a quick guide. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 07:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...which would suggest that Antarctica doesn't affect the "largest empire" claim either way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The British Antarctic territory had been claimed (and disputed by others) by the British for long time before the Antarctic Treaty and was known for a long time as part of the Falkland Islands Dependencies. MilborneOne (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a look at some sources, the UK has had a claim on Antarctica since at least 1841, when the first claim was laid on the land that would become the Australian Antarctic Territory and Ross Dependency. The British claim to what was to become the British Antarctic Territory is normally dated to letters patent of 1908, when the area was organised as FI dependencies (for administrative convenience) - though those letters patent included territories that had first been claimed as far back as 1775. The BAT itself came into being in response to the Antarctic Treaty in 1962.
For balance, Chile's claims are based on the Treaty of Torsedillas, and Argentina first expressed a claim in 1925 based on continuous occupation since 1904.
You can read more in this source. Pfainuk talk 20:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but has it typically been cited as part of the calculations for the land surface area of the Empire, for example, in 1924? Which is the issue at odds here. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 33.7m is referenced (see List of largest empires) which is all that is required wikipedia rules dont demand that it is true! just reliably referenced.MilborneOne (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A minute ago you just wrote, and I quote you here: "Other wikipedias are not reliable sources...". Now you give the Wikipedia as a reference and you are writing that its "rules dont demand it to be true"? What can I add to this. That is so, so sad. Who cares about the truth as long one can try to build some jingoist virtual Empires!--IIIraute (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MilborneOne meant it is referenced at that article. Next? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Drake and England's "First Territorial Claims"

As important as Drake's voyage was, I reverted this edit [13] (and added a dubious tag to the same editor's edit at New Albion) on the grounds that this is not the "mainstream" view of how the BE began. Yes, Drake claimed a few places for Her Maj, but these were never followed up and were not the beginnings of the Empire in the way that Newfoundland or Virginia were. I cannot see what Sugden wrote, because I do not have a copy of his book, but in all the books I have read (see the References section of this article) I have never seen it stated that the BE began with Drake's voyage. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:25, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most authors put him in the context of Britain's defence against the then much more powerful Spanish Empire and as a self-enriching privateer. Most sources put the start of Britain's rise to World naval power under Cromwell's Commonwealth. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 10:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although no English settlements were established in the New World before Newfoundland, it should be noted that there were several early English territorial claims:

Goustien (talk) 07:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Pidwirny2006 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ The Antarctic Treaty, National Science Foundation, Office of Polar Programs
  3. ^ CIA World Factbook
  4. ^ http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Sg49AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA18
  5. ^ http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Br_Ant_Terr.html
  6. ^ McDermott, James (2001). Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 190. ISBN 0300083807.
  7. ^ McDermott, James (2001). Martin Frobisher: Elizabethan privateer. New Haven: Yale University Press. p. 219. ISBN 0300083807.
  8. ^ Drake, Francis (1854). The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. Hakluyt Society. p. 75. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  9. ^ Sugden, John (1990). Sir Francis Drake. Barrie & Jenkins. p. 118. ISBN 0712620389.
  10. ^ Drake, Francis (1854). The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake. Hakluyt Society. p. 225. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Categories created by User:Zuggernaut

If anyone is interested in contributing to the discussions on Zuggernaut's new categories relating to the British Empire:

Map original research

Isn't the map under the Union Jack original research? That is what information available with the file informs. Such graphics should not be there on a FA. Please take them off. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The map is useful. There are a huge number of maps on many wikipedia articles. Many are created by editors, it is not original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either the caption needs to be changed or different color coding needs to be used. All the claimed areas were never a part of the British Empire at the same time. There are OR or SYN violations in the map as it exists. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The caption says "The areas of the world that at one time were part of the British Empire."/. That means at some point in history they have been a British territory. It is not meant to mean they were all part of the empire at one time. I disagree that there is a problem with the map, however ive no problem supporting the caption being reworded to be more clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd sort of prefer using the 1919 map as the main one, and having a separate map for the British Empire in 1763 somewhere in the article. One big issue I have with the map is that it's basically just "the British Empire in 1919" + "the Eastern half of the United States." There's a couple of tiny exceptions (Heligoland, the Ionian Islands), but that's the gist, and I think it's kind of misleading. But I generally don't like anachronistic maps. john k (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well i do not think its misleading, provided the caption is clear and i accept that could be reworded to make it very clear this is a map of every territory of the BE at different points in time. I think an image covering everything is more helpful than the empire at a specific point in time, i also think its a better graphical map which provides more detail than that 1919 one. If others think the 1919 one is better, then ive no major problem with it being changed. But i dont believe it is original research, and it was the map used when the article got FA status i think. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the caption were modified, minor changes would still be required to indicate the parts of India that weren't under British control or perhaps that too can be pointed out in the caption? Zuggernaut (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the same on the 1919 map? If there are errors in the current one and the 1919 one is accurate, then i dont mind it being switched. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I vote to keep both maps where they are in their respective positions. The headline map gives an overview of all territories ever part of the Empire, while the 1919 map gives the state of affairs in the section relating to that time period. An anachronistic map like the one we have also lends itself to showing the current 14 BOTs. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As was already pointed out, Burma was a part of the Raj until 1936-7 [14] but Goodlad was cited as a source and the {{cn}} removed. [15] Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is a misleading use of the "fact" tag. If you add it to the end of that sentence, it appears that you are suggesting that specific claim (that the BE reached its greatest extent in 1919) requires a citation. So I duly added one, Goodlad. If you have a problem with the map, take it to the map's talk page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per the {{Editnotices/Namespace/File talk}} at File_talk:BritishEmpire1919.png and File talk:The British Empire.png, we need to discuss this here. Please see the section below for details. Zuggernaut (talk)

The map is was created carefully using sources cited on its main page. The caption and legend are quite clear. POV-warriors ought to remembed that this article reached FA status and if they have serious objections to the content they will need to provide serious, verifiable arguments to support their case for change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Furthermore, in case the confusion about "OR" is the fact that this map was created by a Wikipedian (me), per WP:OI, "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments." What argument or idea is this map introducing which constitutes OR or SYN? Please explain in full, rather than simply bandying around "OR" or "SYN". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the map is OR, I just don't think it's ideal to use anachronistic historical maps. Another option would be to use a different color to distinguish the areas lost in 1783. john k (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other way to do it. Previously we had a map showing a snap-shot at a single point in time; the downside of that is that missed out territories that were no longer part of the empire or were yet to become part of the empire. Since the article covers them all the map in the intro should do so too. Other snap-shot maps are deployed at appropriate chronological points in the body of the article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is to say that the downside of a snap-shot map is worse than the downside of an anachronistic map (misleading people into thinking that, say, the British ruled Kenya and Massachusetts at the same time)? john k (talk) 00:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, what is the deal with the European portion of the map? Why is it showing the present day borders of countries if it is a map of 1919? john k (talk) 00:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who's to say which snap-shot map we should use? Why the focus on 1919? (There are lots of counter-arguments for using this as a representative image.). The caption for the anochronistic map is clear. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entire map uses modern borders, not just Europe. The only change is, of course, in the areas the British controlled. The only weird border in this case I can find is that there is no border between now saudi arabia and yemen, although I think that is because half of it was a British protectorate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are the counterarguments? This is the British Empire at its greatest geographical extent. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, the term "British Empire" was much more commonly used for the so-called "Second British Empire" than for the first one, which was normally just referred to as "the colonies" or something similar. As Brendan Simms has pointed out, in 18th century England "the Empire" typically referred to Germany, not to Britain's North American colonies. john k (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not the greatest extent is it? I thought it was anachronistic, thus meaning throughout all time. Because of this borders could be taken from any number of years, none of which would in my opinion be better than the other. Personally, I like it with modern borders because you can see what parts of the modern world were once part of the Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with the maps

Several issues have been pointed out by several different editors for both the maps in question over the last few months. Many of these questions are repetitive (such as the the one about Goa I brought up) and many have been unanswered for several months. I am copy-pasting all of them below. The original questions can be found at the respective talk pages.[16] [17] Per the template {{Editnotices/Namespace/File talk}} found on those talk pages, the questions need to be discussed here. Since the issues are many and long standing, I'm taking off the maps from the article. I would request editors not to add them back until the issues have been resolved for this FA. Goa, Daman and Diu might be hard to mark on the map - my solution for this would be to include all exceptions in the caption but the caption might then get too long. There's a solution for this too - perhaps a quote box can be used right below the map and the two can be made a template. If you have solutions, please feel free to respond here. Thanks. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have added them back. A lot of those discussions just petered out, failed to produce evidence or just were unable to get to consensus. Also dumping that amount of material without a summary of some type is not helpful. If you want to pursue this then I suggest a brief summary of the changes you want with some justification (which could be a diff to the prior discussion). --Snowded TALK 04:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've pointed this out on multiple occasions: Burma is shown as a separate colony in 1919 - that' not true until 1936-37. Goa, Daman, Diu and Puducherry are shown or implied to be part of the British Empire. That's original research as pointed out by User:Yogesh Khandke. Oman falls in the same category. The factually incorrect maps should be removed until either the captions or the maps are updated. Zuggernaut (talk) 05:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you do us all a favour and create two separate subthreads, one for each map, and detail your separate concerns for each of them under those? Just to make everything easier! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And one liners please. Also please review your claims. As far as I can see there is no time stamp on Burma, the capture relates to entities which were at some stage a part of the Empire. In the meantime I see no reason why the maps should not stand, these seem minor issues --Snowded TALK 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Burma discussion is now moot since those discrepancies have been fixed by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick per this version of September 26, 2010. [18]. The discrepencies could have been 'mionr' for a start class article, not for a FA. It is not always possible to stick to one liners. I appreciate the feedback though. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<snip>(removed pasted in discussions from File_talk:The_British_Empire.png and File_talk:BritishEmpire1919.png)</snip>

Zuggernaut, a few points about the first map:

  • it is a map of the British Empire, it is not a map showing every territory captured by Britain during a time of war (the two are not synonymous)
  • showing places like Manila, the Philippines, or the Dutch East Indies which no historian claims were parts of the British Empire would be OR and SYN. These "problems" were not dealt with because they are not problems.
  • many of the things you have listed there which needed sorting out (e.g. Heligoland, Bahrain, Cameroon, Wei Hei Wei) have been fixed/resolved/added - so why are you listing them?
  • Florida: you pasted in two comments on this, one from someone who asked for it to be coloured in without realising it already was, and one from someone who wants the colouring removed (who is obviously unaware that Spain ceded Florida to Britain). So which is it, Zuggernaut, why are you pasting them both in as "problems"?
  • the fact that a small set of islands is not coloured in (also fixed, 1.5 years ago) - seriously, are you suggesting that this requires discussion on this talk page or that the map is invalid?
  • Ireland/India was a question, which I answered. Why are you listing it as a problem?

It seems to me that you are just being disruptive, pasting in huge amounts of crap you obviously haven't read. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly true that the 1919 map has problems. Burma and Aden were absolutely part of the Raj, not separate colonies; it's wrong to imply that informal protectorates like Oman and the other gulf sheikdoms are "colonies"; and Goa is, indeed, shown as part of the British Empire (I think the other Portuguese and French enclaves are too small to be worth noting on a map at this scale.) john k (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be constructive, not disruptive. Several different editors have highlighted problems with the maps. I have provided a possible long term solution to some of these problems by recommending the expansion of the caption to list exceptions if the map is hard to fix. On the other hand User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick has ignored several questions from unique editors over several months including one from a color-blind person who clearly has a genuine question about making the map accessible to him or her [19]. I hope we will able to fix the problems and improve the article further. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding me "ignoring" questions, Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, not employees of a customer service department. Noone is obligated to reply on a talk page, and sometimes a lack of a reply is indicative of the quality of the post. Furthermore, this is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit, so if you don't like the fact that noone replied, be WP:BOLD and fix what you think is wrong yourself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a couple of problems with the 1919 map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1919 map looks better now. However, Goa is still shown in red which is incorrect. For areas that are too small for the scale of the map, expanding the caption to list exceptions will improve the article further. One possible solution was presented in the 2nd diff section of this post [20]. Zuggernaut (talk) 21:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the deal with the European portion of the 1919 map? Why is it showing the present day borders of countries if it is a map of 1919? (Oh, and Labrador, which was under Newfoundland's control, should be separated from Canada, of which it was not yet part. john k (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the map Original research, unreliable source, synthesis?

The information for the map file says: Own work by uploader. Composed from maps found in:

Brown, Judith (1998). The Twentieth Century, The Oxford History of the British Empire Volume IV. Oxford University Press. Dalziel, Nigel (2006). The Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire. Penguin.

So it is Red Hat's work. Is Red hat wp:rs, don't we need a British Empire map that from a reliable source and not one that is drawn by editors. My argument is fundamental, this graphic is from an editor Red Hat, so his own work, which is not a reliable source unless Red Hat is an accepted authority on the subject and his map has been peer reviewed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, given that you think it's OK to make this edit [21] without providing any references, you need to read up on what original research means. Unlike your inserted text, there is nothing in the map which one cannot find in a reliable source. Put another way, all territories marked as once British Empire can be verified to have once been part of the British Empire (give or take a few anal quibbles over a couple of pixels) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Red Hat pointed to WP:OI earlier. It seems applicable here. Pfly (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is redhat's work which he based off WP:RS. The only way possible for us to really get a map is for an editor to make it himself, unless you feel the map does not actually represent the sources, it's fine. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is what wikipedia says on original images. Now the onus is on the the image provider to produce a faithful reproduction. There have been many editions to Red Hat's images here. This is a FA, and should be judged by the highest and most stringent Wikipedia standards. We need to find copyright free images which since the subject British Empire is ancient, should not be difficult to find. Till then I suggest that the images be taken off. In the interest of Wikipedia. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research. The Red hat of Patrick Ferris has even denied changing his map when someone suggests a change, due to their not providing a WP:RS. If you have a copyright free image of an accurate map of the British Empire, then feel free to put it here. Until then, the current map is more than adequate. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we remove/ignore any comments from User:Yogesh Khandke and/or Zuggernaut. They're getting a bit tiresome. Aside from their disruption and (what seems like) trolling it's a bit worrying when they actually quote WP policy to support their argument, but it says exactly the opposite of what they are suggesting. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Present map is fine yes and complies with WP policies. If there are issues backed up by reliable sources the map should be altered, but its perfectly acceptable. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki-Ed - I don't see the problems being pointed out by several different editors like myself, User:Yogesh Khandke, User:John K in the current burst of activity and by others in the archives of these pages as disruptive. I view them as constructive efforts to improve the article. Please explain what you mean by "User:Yogesh Khandke and/or Zuggernaut". Zuggernaut (talk) 23:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right Red Hat, my edit was not kosher. I was lazy, I slipped. I will bring good references up and then make further edits. But you cannot justify the map based on wrong practices employed by editors. My objection is fundamental Red Hat, we are all here to make Wikipedia a repository of knowledge. Wikipedia has a clear policy: Verifiablity and not truth. What has been done has been confessed as research, I will not contest whether your map is a true reproduction or not. But it is original research. British Empire is an ancient subject. There are sure to be maps circa early 20th century, which are copyright free. If contributors are too lazy (like I was) and draw their own maps, such maps should not be included in a FA. Please take the maps off.

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) 06:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Western or Christian?

Is the word western or Christian in the source? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source (a historical dictionary) refers to - in the entry on the rebellion - "the interaction between Western influences and Indian society" and the fact that "India was subjected to three important Western ideologies". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I located the precise statement being used as a source by using the keyword "evangelicalism". [22] There are multiple POVs on this topic, the one being pointed out being the major one. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There are multiple POVs on this topic, the one being pointed out being the major one" - please explain what you mean by that and what your objection is to the current wording. Evangelicalism is one of the three "important Western ideologies" listed by the source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll down further and then to page 568 of the referred book, you will find the statements "The bloody uprising of the East India Company's sepoys at Meerut...came as a complete surprise to the British. Most British officers were blind to the unrest that had been created, in part, by the rapid imposition of British control over two-thirds of India." This the closest the source will get to identifying the cause of the mutiny. Indian social reformers were actually trying to "Westernize" India, Ram Mohan Roy is one example. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

I added the POV tag to the 'Legacy' section because of the POV issues raised by User:Yogesh Khandke (Kashmir, Bangladesh, Western or Christian and imperial units). I'll let him add it back. I would like to add that the line describing the US as "a product of the British Empire" is syntactically correct but it is misleading and sort of ridicules the intent of the founding fathers. Zuggernaut (talk) 03:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'm not sure I understand the issue wrt "Kashmir, Bangladesh, Western or Christian and imperial units". In the section just above this one it looks like you're advocating changing "the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India" to "the tensions caused by British evangelicalism in India", or something like that? I don't see anything about Kashmir, Bangladesh, or imperial units on the talk page. I didn't mean to jump the gun though, removing the tag. I don't watch this page too closely and happened to see the tag and no talk page discussion associated with it. As for the US being a "product", I dunno. I'm American, and no lover the British Empire, but it sounds alright to me. Perhaps it could be put differently, but I'm not sure I'd call it "POV". What wording would you suggest instead? The sentence is, "The spread of English from the latter half of the 20th century has been helped in part by the cultural influence of the United States, itself a product of the British Empire." How about, "...the United States, formerly part of the British Empire"? Pfly (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC) No wait, that doesn't work, since most of what is now the US was not part of the empire. "Product" makes more sense. Pfly (talk) 04:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The imperial measurements issue is a matter for WP:NOR not WP:NPOV. I'm sure we can come up with a source for this (I googled it in Google Books and found a few, but am on a PDA so cant be bothered to add one to the article). Note, Zuggernaut, the imperial system of measurement can be a legacy of the British Empire without being the official one. See Imperial units. It is still used in daily life in Australia, Canada and other places. How did it get there? That was a legacy of being a former a British colony.
  • The Western/Christian thing, I just do not understand what the issue is here, please explain.
  • Kashmir/Bangladesh - this edit, which I reverted, took a sentence which was sourced and changed it to add other claims without providing any sources. If you still don't understand why that is unacceptable, read WP:NOR now please.
  • USA - I'm sure we can reword it.
Bottom line - none of these warrant the slapping of a POV tag to the whole section. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 09:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe change product to result? or a result of the British Empires colonisation of the new world etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Result wouldn't work. Maybe legacy...oh wait. Perhaps "itself with roots from the British Empire" or something along those lines. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about, "itself an offshoot of the British Empire." ðarkuncoll 11:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pfly - The Declaration of Independence allows the usage of the United States for the thirteen colonies. The US was a product of the American Revolution or the American War of Independence, not of the British Empire. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick - Kashmir, Bangladesh, Western/Christian issue were not brought up by me and they were dismissed without any substantial explanation. That is incorrect and thus warranted a POV tag based on edit summaries. I will leave it to Yogesh to pursue it further. The US was a product of a violent war of separation from the British Empire. If there is consensus, perhaps this reliable source can be used to summarize the legacy of the British Empire in India. "But I hope Mr Cameron knows that if he tries that rhetoric in India, he’ll bomb. Where would you start? With the philandering shag-hounds of the East India Company? And then onto the Jallianwallah Bagh massacre via the Great Bengal Famine of 1770?" The history of British India will serve David Cameron well – as long as he doesn't go on about itZuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Other editors - "Roots", offshoot are all misleading because the ideological differences expressed by the founding fathers and other thinkers, upon which the country is founded were significantly different from old world ideas. The roots were in the broader Western enlightenment ideals later shaped by American Pragmatism and several other factors. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Offspring then? Yes, there was a violent and somewhat ideological break with the British Empire. I saw "somewhat" because a great many British systems were retained without much if any change. Common law for example. Anyway, the sentence in question is about the use of the English language, which was obviously retained in full. Pfly (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, anyway, I just took the clause out complete, "itself a product of the British Empire." It's common knowledge anyway, isn't it? Pfly (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect solution! [23] Zuggernaut (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree with removing it entirely, although i also disagree with the new wording " itself once a British colony", the United States of America as a country was never a British colony (like Hong Kong or India), but formed from former British colonies so we need to make that clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's being a tad anal, I think. If you look in Google Books [24] you can see some authors referring to the US as "a" former British colony (I'm not saying all the results on the first page use that language, but at least two do). That said, I was only being bold when I made that edit. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the recent interest in this article its best to avoid anything that could be read certain ways. There can be no dispute about the wording if it said something like ",itself originally formed from British colonies". BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase should not have been removed, there is now no clear flow and reference to the British Empire there. It was much clearer before. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I switched it to BritishWatcher's suggestion, "itself originally formed from British colonies". It's a minor and pedantic point, but I think this phrasing is more accurate than the previous one. Ie, Utah was never part of the British Empire. Pfly (talk) 06:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The more accurate the better, sadly at present the article is under attack by a couple of editors whos agenda is very clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought User:Pfly's solution was the best possible solution given that everyone knows about the connection between the British Empire and the 13 colonies. We should revert back to Pfly's removal of the phrase - it gets the point across in a neutral way. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't just assume people know stuff, and without this clause the sentence seems out of place in a legacy section about the British Empires. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial units

The United States is the only major country (apart from UK/ and Canada/Aus/NZ??), using Imperial Units. For example in India : Britan's largest colony, it is illegal to use Imperial Units since 1956, as per The Standards of W&M Act 1956 . So does the article inform that Imperial Units in the US is a Colonial legacy?[[25]] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncommon to use imperial units for some things in Canada. I'm not sure whether it is illegal to do so, but I highly doubt it. Perhaps the federal government is required to use metric, but that does not make it illegal for regular people. As for India, is it actually illegal for regular people to speak of miles and yards? Would they be arrested? Seriously? Pfly (talk) 07:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. It is illegal to use these units for commercial transactions. (As I understand it?). You cannot sell one pound of rice you have to mark the package 454 g. Hope I am clear. Yogesh Khandke (talk)
Or a drawing submitted for approval has to use Metiric Units (now SI units). Inches and feet would be rejected. Do I get the point across? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't always the case though, imperial was used in India before. The very fact they have 454g packets shows this. Imperial units still exist in colloquial usage in many former British areas that have since switched to metric, all of which is a legacy of the Empire. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the Imperial system was in use during the colonial period, but was discontinued after 1956, the Rupee too was decimilised. We do not have 454 g packages, that was just an example that I have given. But the legacy of Imperial units: for example the inch is very much there, but that is like every where in the world, for example we have 6 mm steel bars (equivalent to about a quarter inch,) and like that for other materials too, we have timber sections 50 mm x 40 mm (2" x 1.5") But the statement about the legacy needs to be narrowed down to where it is used, such as the US, some body may think oh so the Imperial system is used in India too, which is not correct. (On the other hand we have traditional volumetric units for grain used in rural areas for exchange of commodities, in the communities where I live, pre-British units - perhaps[[26]], but that is another subject. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied above (why do you repeatedly open up the same discussion without reading responses to your previous posts?) just because a measuring system is not used officially does not mean it is not used unofficially. Its colloquial usage in former British colonies is a legacy of being a former British colony. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your response. India has grown out of the colonial legacy that imperial units is, officially - completely, and unofficially partially and is gradually advancing towards complete metricfication as the older technicians are dying. The statement in the article should be qualified. Imperial units in the US are a British Empire legacy, and not the present general statement. Please do not assume what others have done. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than mention the USA there, if that sentence is to be changed id rather it be altered to point out that nations later changed over to metrics, Britain because of our membership of the European Union has also switched over in many ways. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mention the USA, pointless. Just say "the use and former use" or some short simple qualification like that. Plenty of places use these unofficially, Australians (especially older ones) still occasionally use them, and the former usage has left a legacy in terms of sayings, whereas people often say "It's miles away" or "just an inch more", which are said not in reference to actual distance but out of habit. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out that anyone using 'miles' in India will be looked at like he or she just arrived from Mars. Plus where are the sources for saying that it's a legacy in India?Zuggernaut (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the article say its a legacy in India? It talks of former colonies, it does not name India. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Imperial units are legal in the US which started as a nation which won independence from Britain, (remember the Indigenous Americans are not there in this independence business), so the use of Imperial units in the US is a colonial legacy, why not be specific and accurate as against vague and inaccurate? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, despite the fact that we did not reach consensus for this edit, you've gone ahead and made it anyway? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir: Could we have an excerpt please

Could we have the excerpt on which the following statement is based.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly controversial. Which bit are you objecting to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by his edit comment from before [27] he's objecting to the fact that we are not laying the blame for the attack on the Twin Towers on the British Empire (how about blaming the people that made the decision to fly planes into buildings?). Anyway, the source (a historical atlas) has a map entitled "Imperial Legacies", with a marker for "areas of conflict" - it was from this map that I drew some examples for the text. Where these conflicts were in the past (e.g. the Malayan Insurgency), dates are given, where they are ongoing (e.g. Northern Ireland, Sudan), no date is given. Obviously I cannot paste a copy in for copyright reasons, but you can Look Inside at Amazon.com [28] - search for "imperial legacies", pp 134-5. Over India/Pakistan there are two markers. One for "INDIA (1946-8)" and another for "Kashmir" (no date). Note the Bangladesh Liberation War, which Yogesh Khandke added without providing any sources, is not listed in this source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Come on please don't beat around the bush, please provide the excerpt. I have confessed that my edit was a slip, I did not provide sources for what I wrote. Please can we have a source for the text that I have quoted above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave a full and frank account and pointed you to Amazon.com where you can see the source in all its glory. For the second time, it is from a MAP ... do you understand the word "map"? ... entitled Imperial Legacies which shows conflicts around the world that are imperial legacies. How do you expect me to provide an "excerpt" of a map? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could not access the map. Link did-not work or my inadequacy. Is a map a reliable source. Also if India - Pakistan is also a conflict, then Bangladesh was not a very wrong as Pakistan (1947) = Pakistan - today + Bangladesh - today. Why isn't India - Pakistan conflict mentioned as a colonial legacy. I will give a reliable source for British appeasement and abetment of Muslim fundamentalism in order to weaken Indian opposition.(Hyndman) Same as US appeasement and abetment of Muslim fundamentalism in Pakistan - Afghanistan to weaken its Marxist government. Remember chicken have come home to roost. (Rev. Wright), that led to 9-11 Please desist from using the word rant. What is its antonym, is it what you (plural) are writing here? Civil unrest for the events of 1857 is that an euphemism?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emporer of Delhi rant

I reverted this edit [29].

  • Placing in a quotation like that is not very enclyclopaedic and not good style.
  • Westernize is a blanket term which includes Christianize, per the source. There is no disagreement on whether religion was a cause in the sources, but this edit made it appear that nationalists viewed it differently
  • This is a summary article on the BE. We do not need to get into detail on the causes of the rebellion - that is what the link to the article is for - readers can click in it to find out more

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like placing a quote, you can use third person. I have not removed the Westernise comment. That is an apologist view. The Indian perspective is that it was a war of Independence. What I have written is well sourced. Additionally the source is available for reference online. Should not be removed. So the revert. Please discuss before removal. Don't start an edit war. I have used a quote so that the exact statements would be visible. The Company was one of the belligerents, the Emperor was another, why would his proclamation be a rant?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Bold, revert, discuss. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhap User:Yogesh Khandke could start by explaining why he wants to include POV detail in a neutral summary? Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
POV is a biased allegation. The new edit has no quotations, All well sourced. Addressed Red Hat's reservations about Westernisation and that nationalists viewed it differently. Looks a little awkward to me too. But the events of 1857 were a war between BEIC and Indians, and not just a Sepoy Mutiny, this is not POV. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly neutral now. No need for the jargonic word Sepoy when we have the fine word soldier. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Well sourced"? (by 'Published underground') and "Neutral"!? There are lots reliable academic publications supporting the current text. You'll need to provide a significant number of equally respectable sources stating a different view. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point that the rebellion was not just sepoys is a fair one, I modified the text accordingly [30] (any suggestions for a better wording?). That we can't use the term "sepoy" though, is just Yogesh Khandke being hyper-sensitive again, in spite of the fact that academics are perfectly happy to use the term [31]. When academics stop using it, we can too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed pov word suppress

Was the conflict of 1857, some kind of epidemic, to suppress: sounds like the swine flu epidemic was suppressed. Removed that word, and rewrote the sentence in a neutral way. Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Rebellions can be suppressed. It's a common English phrase. You and your pal Zuggernaut read far too much into things. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 11:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol, there is certainly nothing wrong with the word suppress. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a serious allegation that Red Hat has made, that Zuggernaut and myself are some kind of co-conspirators this allegation of association. I am not comfortable with that word, and had edited it. Now you have reverted my edits. This article is up for FA review. This "not able to understand the other sides view attitude" is not going to help. How would you feel if I assume that all the reverts that have been made one after the other are by a group acting in unison. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A serious allegation? he never said you were conspiring at all. He simply said you read too much into things, as in seeing a problem or "POV" where there is not one. All the reverts are different editors restoring the stable version because they think your wording need more discussion or does not belong in the article at all. Suppress is not a POV word. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word may have a negative connotation for the potentially 1.2 billion readers like Yogesh in India. In order to keep all kinds of readers interested to the end, even those who are not in love with the BE, we need to consider Yogesh's objection seriously. Perhaps we can use something like 'defeat' or 'overpower' or 'quell' or something similar. Zuggernaut (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, we are all pals here. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont get the problem with "suppress", Defeat, overpower and quell have the same sort of meaning and are just as forceful, i dont get how its POV and if any of those words are acceptable i do not get how suppress is problematic at all. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, perhaps we should change it to a "tactical withdrawal" of the soldiers (definitely not sepoys) of the well-known British Empire Resistance to significant areas (like Goa) that were not under evil Western/Christian rule? Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search:

Like I said, a common English phrase. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BOT map

As long as this page is being scrutinized (scrutinised?), I've just noticed that the map File:Location of the BOTs.svg shows the British Indian Ocean Territory located about 1,000 miles too far west, more or less where the Seychelles are. Pfly (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Westernisation of India"

I am still stumped as to what the problem is with attributing part of the cause of the Indian Mutiny to the tensions caused by "British attempts to Westernise India".

  • The cited source (Olson's Historical Dictionary of the B.E.) says: "The (rebellion) reflected cumulative tensions that had built up during nearly a century of interaction between western influences and Indian society...India was subjected to three important Western ideologies that had been carried to India"
  • India condensed: 5000 years of history & culture By Anjana Motihar Chandra [32] says "The mutiny was triggered by pent up resentment against the governance of the British East India Company. The common man was tired of....the growing westernisation that threatened Indian culture."
  • The pursuit of reason: the Economist, 1843-1993 [33] "There had been mounting discontent among conservative Indians over the inroads of westernisation"
  • The new realities By Peter Ferdinand Drucker [34] "The Indian Mutiny was a desperate attempt to stop westernization"
  • Students' Britannica India: Volumes 1-5 - Page 30 [35] "There were many underlying causes that led to the mutiny but it was the increasing pace of westernization in India that finally sparked it off"

...and the list goes on, and on, and on. Just search for it in Google books - I'm not going to waste my time pasting in any more reliable sources here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here's one more to use the term "Westernize" in relation to Britain actions in India:
  • Encyclopaedia Britannica, no less: [36] "To regard the rebellion merely as a sepoy mutiny is to underestimate the increasing pace of Westernization after the establishment of British paramountcy in India in 1818. Hindu society was being affected by the introduction of Western ideas."
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are dated. Check out the latest research in this area:

  • 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."

Zuggernaut (talk) 01:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mutiny or war of independence and the word suppress

For those scholars and other writers quoted here, who call the hostilities of 1857 a mutiny or a rebellion the word suppress comes as a corollary, but that the events were a mutiny is in itself a POV. Please remember that the Company was wielding various powers including revenue collection on behalf of the Emperor of Delhi. So the sovereign of India at that time was the Emperor. The Emperor declared a war against the company which was in his employ. Was not the Company army rebelling against its own master the Emperor of Delhi? If you must call it a mutiny or a rebellion then the rebellion was not suppressed but it succeeded, as the Company prevailed. Even though a part of the events was the uprising of the Company's Indian soldiers, the Sipahi's (anglicised to Sepoy) against the officers this uprising soon conflagrated into a much wider war. So to avoid any point of view, I am editing the article further with a complete neutral language. Please see the source referenced in the article as my statements are based on the above source. (Savarkar’s Indian War of Independence) Scholarship should be neutral. Even though I do not have the qualification to claim that title; there is no reason that we as editors should not follow the best of Wikipedia conventions. Please editors consider other views based on reliable sources to arrive at a consensus. Savarkar’s book is available online, I request editors to read it to understand an Indian perspective of the events of 1857: Savarkar wrote (1909) that the events of 1857 were merely battles in India’s quest for independence, and that the war would cease only on India gaining independence. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

More POV ranting added to the article

Deceipt and treachery? [37] if that is not a POV rant totally inappropriate for any Wikipedia article, let alone a FA, I don't know what is. Even if it was worded neutrally, why are we picking out India out of all the former colonies? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can change those two words to something else - the source calls is something like "philandering shag-hounds" (I don't know how to translate that). Feel free to suggest a change. India - because it was the main/major colony. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I picked out those two words as the worst offenders. The whole edit is inappropriate and I can't see others here letting it stand. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What were the other offenders in your opinion? We can rephrase those as well and then include the content. The article looks very biased otherwise. Zuggernaut (talk) 02:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Twice now it has been reviewed for an FA and both times the community has decided it is balanced. Anyway, it's late for me, we'll see what the others have to say when their morning revolves around. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Published underground

Savarkar's book was published underground because the BE government shat (if anal is allowed so be it), about its impact and proscribed it before publication in 1909, so it was published underground, and later published in many languages, see wikipedia article on it. Please do not jump to conclusions, the first edition was published underground, his book is some kind of legend. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very reliable source. Its proscription makes it more so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced?

Is this unsourced? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This specific text does not occur in the article. Pfly (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good sign for a FA. Unsourced matter. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dickens on the events of 1857

This article smells of the same attitude as Dickens, certainly not FA quality. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, nobody feed the WP:TROLL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am merely trying to illustrate how this article comes accross, sharing my feelings on this article. Hyper-sensitive? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia. Trolling is a violation of the implicit rules of Internet social spaces and is often done to inflame or invite conflict. It necessarily involves a value judgment made by one user about the value of another's contribution. (Because of this it is considered not to be any more useful than the judgment 'I don't agree with you' by many users, who prefer to focus on behaviors instead of on presumed intent). Not to be confused with large warty monsters thought to dwell under bridges, in caves etc.

Trolling is not necessarily the same as vandalism (although vandalism may be used to troll). A vandal may just enjoy defacing a webpage, insulting random users, or spreading some personal views in an inappropriate way. A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people.

There are many types of disruptive users that are not trolls. Reversion warriors, POV warriors, cranks, impolite users, and vocal critics of Wikipedia structures and processes are not necessarily trolls.

The basic mindset of a troll is that they are far more interested in how others react to their edits than in the usual concerns of Wikipedians: accuracy, veracity, comprehensiveness, and overall quality. If a troll gets no response to their spurious edits, then they can hardly be considered a troll at all.


Wikipedia Founder Jimbo Wales giving a lecture on dealing with trolls.The basic policy regarding trolling is simple: please refrain.

Please I am subjected to troll, all I have reacted is with refrain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica Encyclopaedia

Red Hat's comment no less is encouraging for Brit. Encl. but misplaced. It does not know where Mahabaleshwar is look it up. Placed it all wrong. As is said you know whether rice is cooked by checking one grain. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_Empire&oldid=387852743

Leave a Reply