Talk:British Empire

Cyprus deserves inclusion

Cyprus, which the British had ruled on lease from the Ottomans since 1878, became a Crown Colony in 1925 after Turkey had signed away any and all interests in the island in the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne. This is an interesting contrast to the Balkan countries, which gained independence after their respective liberations. This deserves to be edited into the article, not merely the late 1950's war against the colonial rule.

Minor Edit : Decolonisation and decline (1945–1997)

from 'Britain was left virtually bankrupt' to 'Britain was left virtually bankrupt having carried the flag for democracy alone between 1939 and '41', as pertains to the facts.Twobells (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds fairly extraneous. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Also original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

All the countries in the Empire apart from the Irish Free State had declared war on Germany in 1939. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

Suez and its aftermath section

I am correcting a few details. Firstly the British and French did not capture the Canal because the US pressure forced Eden to call a ceasefire before troops could reach the Canal. Also it was Nikoli Bulganin, not Kruschev, who sent the letters to London, Paris and Tel Aviv threatening Soviet intervention on the Egyptian side. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

Very open to factual corrections - can we have the references to support those statements please. And in the mean time stop edit warring. I've reverted you per WP:BRD, apologies for the vandal statement that was an accident --Snowded ^TALK 16:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I have added a reference to show it was Bulganin who threatened intervention. Also Sudan gained independence in 1956. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 17:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

Please take note of [WP:INDENT|how to format comments] here. You have been reverted by three editors. That means you present the evidence here and gain agreement to changes. You should self-revert now and do that. --Snowded ^TALK 17:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Since my information is factual and referenced there is no need to revert. A quick look at the article on Sudan will show you it gained independence on 1st January 1956. Kruschev did not say anything publicly during the Suez Crisis, it was all left to the prime minister Nikolai Bulganin. (92.7.6.62 (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

You may well be right, but you still make the case here. You are edit warring and heading for a block. Self revert and make you case here. I formatted your comment for you (again) by the way. --Snowded ^TALK 17:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re Sudan, read the text: "it was it was agreed that Sudan would become independent by 1955", not Sudan did become independent in 1955. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Apologies to anon: I reread the cited source [1]. The agreement was self-determination by the end of 1955, with a "target date for independence shortly thereafter". I updated the text accordingly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:44, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Re the canal, it's not true that the troops did not reach the canal. At the point Eden ordered the withdrawal, they were in possession of 23 miles of it, plus Port Said. I modified the text though as it said the troops captured "the" canal. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a minor point the text reads like am agreement on the withdrawl of British forces and the self-determination of sudan was made at the same time but the Anglo-Egyptian agreement on Sudan was in February 1953 the removal of British forces was made in a different agreement in October 1954. MilborneOne (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right ... needs fixing. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

genocides etc.

it seems that some editors remove all references to genocides, ethnic cleansing etc,(a fact of life to those who lived under this empire). note, most of the text in the article is not cited, so why remove only these references? people who remove these in good faith because of any deficiency in citing should remove all other uncited text from article as well if they are not working for an agenda to whitewash the history of this empire.

Claims of genocide will be contentious in any country. This one has been challenged and thus sources are required. If the claim is solid, then sourcing it should be straightforward. Bielle (talk) 01:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1/ so are you claiming no genocides, ethnic cleanings, and forced relocations took place? 2/ most of the article is contentious and uncited but you only edit out this section displaying a pro british double standard and bias. if you are in good faith kindly remove all unsourced text in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.89.15 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

as requested i have added several sources for some of the british genocides,ethnic cleanings,and forced relocations etc. in fact because Britsh committed many such acts, in so many places, at various times, they are too many to number in sentence or even a para ( as such their source references are also numerous). i am new here and am not an editor, but given the importance, in addition to the sentence in intro, an editor should create section in article for these british empire genocides so they can be detailed and a separate article that can be linked as well. (doing this by those editors who were so quick to selectively remove original sentence claiming spurious lack of sources before, would take some of their shame away ) 123.231.89.15 (talk) 04:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

seems that editors with pro britsh agenda want to keep any reference to britsh genocides , etc. covered up here. the sentence in intro was removed again. before they said it was bc of no sources , i provided sources ( and more avail;able as i pointed out above). no they removed without giving a reason . shame! 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

now ( after latest genocide denial attempt by removal of well sourced sentence) they claim (btw somehow they fail to make their arguments here after they told me to make my argument here ) that no consensus was achieved. but no consensus was achieved for many other sections of the text. so why remove only this? pro britsh agenda? that is the only logical conclusion for such double standard. saying that is not a personal attack. that is logic and use of words according to dictionary definition.

at this rate of moving the target for inclusion resorted to by these pro british editors i will be banned for trying to include a well substantiated facts in to the article . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The page as it stands is at its consensus version. If you want to add something new, and no-one objects, fine; by nobody reverting your changes, you can assume that everyone that's seen it thinks it's a worthwhile inclusion. However, if a number of editors do object to a radical new inclusion, they'll revert and it's down to you to work with the objectees to achieve a compromise. So far (with your constant, petulant personal attacks) you're not doing a great job. The ball's in your court. JonChapple^Talk 23:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia, and by extension its editors, is under no obligation to stick to your version of the history of the British Empire. The whole point of a collaborative encyclopaedia is that consensus on controversial additions must be achieved and Wikipedia policy, within reasonable limits, must also be observed. For most new and/or anonymous editors, I recommend following the bold-revert-discuss cycle and observing the three revert rule. You'll tread on less toes that way. Oh, and accusing editors of being biased wont get you very far.--Topperfalkon (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

i have so far provided sources requested and replied to all objections here is talk (again as requested) . so far nobody ( including you have given any reason why the genocide reference is not valid or why they do not agree. they just removed it without reason. as such i have to come to the logical conclusion that this is done due to a pro british agenda and prejudices they cannot rationally defend. if you have any reason (other than 'we don't agree bc of our bias') why well sourced references to British genocide should not be included please state them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read over your comments again. Perhaps then you'll see why other editors have little interest in dealing with you.--Topperfalkon (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

i suggest that you give concrete reasons for excluding a well sourced sentence in intro about British atrocities instead of making snide remarks to cover up your lack of substantive reasons for excluding it. 123.231.87.123 (talk) 09:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you stop IP-hopping to evade a block and/or page protection. Create an account, for heaven's sake. JonChapple^Talk 09:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

123.231.87.123, this an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. There have been many British atrocities (and even more English ones, before there was a British state or a British Empire). Where there are reliable sources for them they belong in the appropriate articles. The consensus here is that British atrocities were not so prevalant that they should figure largely in the parent article. Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

whose consensus? who and when did you arrive at that? to the point that even even well sourced statements are excluded merely in the name of that consensus? do clarify. did those who achieved this consensus say that atrocities committed in the process of occupation. maintenance and exploitation of empire don't deserve inclusion in a article about empire? maybe non westerners (like me) don't count when arriving at this consensus? maybe 10s of millions non westerners who died as result of british atrocities don't count as 'prevalent' enough? do clarify 123.231.87.123 (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

... 10s of millions non westerners who died as result of british atrocities - hmm, actually I think you'll find that with the probably exception of India, the entire populations of every British colony combined didn't add up to ten million people. In about 1920 the population of London was around that, and even today the population of London is still greater than the combined current populations of Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Australia, and New Zealand, put together. So your 10s of millions is a ludicrous figure. For one thing, the predominately agricultural economies of most of the colonies couldn't have supported anywhere near that number of people. Perhaps that's what you meant, however, I don't see how it could have been the fault of the British if the population outgrew the economy. This had been happening throughout history in a number of these countries, and AFAIK, still does. It's called Famine, and IIRC, the last one of note was in around 1985 when Live Aid was held - I'm pretty sure that countries like Ethiopia and the Sudan were no longer British colonies by then. And I'm pretty sure that these countries had had famines for centuries before. In other words, I don't think Britain can be blamed for them, no matter how much Anglophobes would have liked them to be. Luckily, these countries are no longer burdened by being run by 'foreigners' so they are free to organise their countries and governments however they see fit.

... and if Britain had such a bad reputation then one would be forced to wonder why so many from the former colonies chose to move over here and live here. London is probably the most multi-cultural place on Earth - and has been so for at least a century. Presumably no-one in their right mind would want to go and live in a country guilty of the 'atrocities' and 'genocides' you mention - even Hitler and Stalin had to force 'foreigners' from their empires to work in the home country. You may have heard of Adolph Hitler - the British Empire was what saved the World from him, when everyone else was either surrendering or trying to make as much money as they could out of the situation or use it to their own advantage. And, people of all colours from the 'colonies' were queuing up to fight for Britain and the Empire/Commonwealth.

... oh and another thing. You need to be really organised to commit genocide, such as when the term was used in the former-Yugoslavia and in the Rwandan Genocide back in the 1990s. Britain ran the whole of British India for two hundred years with only around 20,000 people. You can't commit genocide on a population of perhaps approaching a billion with that few people, even if you wanted to - and the British most certainly wouldn't have wanted to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

sources

i propose that all secondary sources ( history books, etc ) based and funded by Britain be excluded as not credible if the facts they cite are not backed up by at least one other other non british source. primary sources if they are available and authenticated are not to be excluded whatever the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.89.15 (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Half measures like that show you up for the pusillanimous Anglophile that you are. If you really meant to exclude British bias you would call for the exclusion of ALL books written in English or written in other languages by an English-speaker. No one writing in English can be trusted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

A "pusillanimous Anglophile" is, as far as I know, a timid person who loves the English. That can't be what you meant. Bielle (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think Mr Ross is being sarcastic. The IP is a pointy single-use account determined to whack in unsourced, unencyclopaedic drivel in the opening paragraph. Deaths under the Empire are discussed elsewhere, and claims of "genocide" are extremely contentious, especially within a historical period before the term was even recognised. JonChapple^Talk 06:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What me? Sarcastic?? How could you say such a thing! Perish the thought!! Now I'm going off to bed all hurt and stuff!!! I'll probably cry myself to sleep!!!! And it'll be all your fault!!!!! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

PS. I was actually trying to be facetious and thus point out the absurdity of the anon proposal. Top Marks to Bielle for realising what "Pusillanimous Anglophile" means. Slightly less than Top Marks for missing the point. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

1/ genocide has been used in wikipedia repeatedly (ref armenia) to events that occurred before 'the term was recognized' 2/ most of british genocides and ethnic cleansings occurred in mid 20th century. last of them in 1970s. and all well substantiated as i said there are plenty of sources. 3/ there is no reference in intro to the brutal way the british controlled the empire or the killings they did. and hardly any in the rest of text. the article gives the impression that it was all sun shiny to to all those who were under bestial britsh boot. is that what wikipedia editors want? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.113.16 (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The "bestial British boot". I like that. The sources you've added include Late Victorian Holocausts, hardly a balanaced or indeed arguably very factual account of British rule (in India, specifically); The Zulu Kingdom as a Genocidal and Post-genocidal Society, which refers to alleged genocide committed by the Zulus, not the British; and two about the Kenya emergency, which is dealt with on the Decolonization of Africa and Mau-Mau Uprising pages. If, however, you can provide some quotes from the texts you added which do refer to British actions in Kenya as a genocide, perhaps we could include something in the "Wind of change" section. It still doesn't belong in the lead unless you can find a large number of independent, reliable sources that do back up your claims, which so far you haven't done. JonChapple^Talk 06:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Derek Ross: I did realize that the balance of your remark was facetious or, rather (given the difficulties of ensuring the proper reception of even the broadest type of humour on the Internet) I hoped that it was. I wasn't so sure about the words "translated" because so very many people do get "-phile" and "-phobe" backwards. I will take less than top marks; I have done fine in life with just that. :>) Bielle (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jonchapple yes i am biased, but unlike you i am open about it. 2/text i included in article was backed with several sources. it is not based on my word. so claiming my comments here are biased wont advance your argument. 3/your lack of substantive arguments ( and bias ) shows when you claim "Late Victorian Holocausts" is not balanced. on what grounds? explain yourself. or are we to obey merely on your word? 3/ you say "The Zulu Kingdom as a Genocidal and Post-genocidal Society'" is all about "genocide committed by the Zulus, not the British" in fact it is about genocide committed by both. on what ground are you saying it isn't? explain yourself. 4/ your choice of words from British narrative of history ("Kenya emergency") again display your one sided prejudices. 5/ both "Late Victorian Holocausts" and "The Zulu Kingdom as a Genocidal and Post-genocidal Society" refer to genocides including in their titles. so your request for more text is redundant. if you want to exclude them as sources show reasons. books on kenya refer to variety of brutal repressions carried out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.87.123 (talk) 09:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Which particular genocide by the British against the Zulus is documented in The Zulu Kingdom...? I only ask because I've never heard of any. Could you perhaps provide some quotes from the text to support this view? I'm sure you've read it, so it shouldn't be too much trouble. As for Late Victorian Holocausts, even if it was a reliable source, it doesn't actually mention genocide, but, to my knowledge, claims that laissez-faire free-market economics and political ideology led to a lot of unnecessary famines. That's not genocide. Genocide is the attempted deliberate destruction of a particular ethnic group.

The fact that you've just admitted your own bias also isn't going to stand up too well here, I'm afraid. And my choice of words is irrelevant; I'm British and I've always known the conflict as the Kenyan Emergency (notice I linked to it as Mau Mau Uprising earlier, anyway). I've said that if something's properly sourced I wouldn't object to including something in the "Wind of change" section dealing with the decolonisation of Africa, but you've yet to provide me with any quotes that refer to the Emergency as a genocide. JonChapple^Talk 10:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and please sign your posts using four tildes (these: ~). JonChapple^Talk 10:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

yes i admit my bias, you are free to not admit your very obvious and already demonstrated bias. but if you want to exclude the externally sourced text i included, you have to give reasons. instead you and few others 1/ chose to abuse your editor privileges by repeatedly excluding text without giving reasons. 2/ now you make mere assertions when asked to give reasons "book A is not balanced". "words are irrelevant" "not belong in lead" "does not refer to britsh genocide but to zulu only" " "never heard". your assertions are not rational arguments. 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

here is an example of you confused logic : first you said "'Late Victorian Holocausts', hardly a balanaced or indeed arguably very factual account of British rule ". now after i asked you to explain your assertion you say "even if it was a reliable source, it doesn't actually mention genocide". no mention? maybe you want me to refer to British 'holocausts" then? lol @ type of ppl who want to whitewash british empire 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

@Jonchapple article lead should give overall picture of the subject. as of now it does not indicate that this empire was forced upon millions of ppl by (at the start) a oligarchy of British elite and then later by ppl who participated in what is called democracy in Britain, regardless of wishes of ppl in occupied territories. no indication that British exploited the resources and peoples in other countries to their benefit. no indication that there was continuous resistance to occupation and exploitation, both violent and peaceful, throughout the whole time in almost all occupied countries. no indication that all resistance both violent and peaceful,was crushed with violent repression by the British including mass and individual killings ( and by use of genocide , ethnic cleansing and forced relocation etc ) . all this is excluded. instead we have a sunshiny and inaccurate picture of empire in this article and lead. i merely inserted a well sourced sentence to at least rectify one of those exclusions. but it seems that you and others want to keep the picture of how it was all sunshiny to all under the empire and will not tolerate well sourced facts. shame! 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Article leads should maintain a neutral point of view on the subject and not include weasel words. Controversy surrounding a subject should be dealt with in the main article, not the lead.--Topperfalkon (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

You still haven't provided any quotations from your texts of reference to support accusing the Empire of genocide (and you're going to need a lot of them to support including it in the lead). It shouldn't be hard; just open and up and quote away. I'll be waiting! JonChapple^Talk 10:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

why are you waiting for me to quote words that are even in titles? you suffering from denial? lol 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

so according to you neutral point of view here must result in exclusion of any reference to - 1/British forcing their empire on others, 2/ british exploiting others, 3/violent and peaceful resistance offered by subjected ppls, 4/ resulting violent repression including mass and individual killings (and use of genocide , ethnic cleansing and forced relocation etc ). all of these exclusions integral parts of empire throughout its existence. such exclusions neutral? lol. since you have taken the task of defending the article as it is current, explain why all these are excluded. i am waiting! 123.231.87.123 (talk) 10:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because a book's called something Holocausts, it doesn't mean you don't have to provide specific references. Which pages in that book refer to British policy as genocide? I could write a book today called The 123.231.87.123 Ripper and fill it with pictures of puppies. It wouldn't make you a mass-murderer. As for 1), 2) (to a certain extent; "exploitation" is subjective", 3) and some of 4), it's all in there already if you bothered to read the thing. The only thing that's missing is your favourite word, "genocide". I'll say it again; quote me references. And as per the established consensus, I haven't got any such task, you're the one trying to change it; the onus is on you. JonChapple^Talk 11:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

i have provided as much references and sources as required by wikipedia to support the statement i introduced. they are no less than all other sources and references in this article. why the double standard? don't run from arguments made. as all can see above, you have failed time and again to address my arguments, instead every time you make irrational assertions. as when you said ""'Late Victorian Holocausts', hardly a balanaced or indeed arguably very factual account of British rule " etc. when asked to explain your assertion you change the subject and move the target. i am not going to follow you into tangents about "ripper'. you said book is not balanced. why? either you should prove your point that book is unbalanced , or give up the point and explicitly admit that the book is not unbalanced. when you thus prove yourself seriously interested in truth instead of biased denier of all reason and facts that go against your pro british agenda, i will take your requests for further quotes from book seriously. otherwise every time i prove a point rationally you will keep on changing the subject and moving the target without admitting the point.

on argument on neutrality of article and its exclusions - 1/you assert (irrationally) that claiming british empire was forced on the occupied is 'subjective'. why ? was it freely chosen by the people in occupied territories? how and when did they do that? was there no resistance? lol. far from being subjective, occupation by force is the conclusion that tally with facts. exclusion of references to this hardly make this article neutral as you claim. 2/ same with exploitation of empire. why did british maintain such an empire? explain. far from excluding it, the article to make sense should explain why the British maintained the empire. if it is not for exploitation for their own uses, give other reasons if you can. where is subjectivity here? explain. 3/ contrary to your irrational and contradictory (see 1)denial, references to violent and peaceful resistance offered by subjected ppls throughout the whole time in almost all occupied countries, are mostly excluded from article, especially in the introduction. 4/ similarly references to violent repression of resistance including mass and individual killings (and use of genocide , ethnic cleansing and forced relocation etc ) are also excluded . you claim otherwise, saying only word 'genocide' is excluded. not only i but all can read, references to atrocities are not there. since you love quotations, as a start, quote and point the statement about british atrocities in intro? after all as you said "lead should give overall picture of the subject" . --- on an article about a political entity these 4 points should be focused on, not excluded as they are now. all who claim there is consensus about content of article please explain why they are excluded upto now and how and when a consensus for their exclusion was reached. or was there no consensus contrary to what some editors keep on claiming? 123.231.80.247 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest people stop feeding the WP:TROLL. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, this one's been hashed out here so many times. Next. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if this was serious, the other anon's point about bias is ridiculous. It's no different than claiming the article on the USA must have 0 non-American sources unless backed up by sources from another country. Absolutely ridiculous. 92.7.23.80 (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Simple Chart?

Is anyone willing to create a simple chart of names and dates of British colonies joining and unjoining the empire? 'Cause, y'know...that'd be good. Can't make heads nor tails of this long article when all I want want are some simple data.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? -- TheEditrix2 18:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

See Evolution of the British Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Forget Libya?

Why isnt Libya on the map? It was a under a United Nations Trusteeship by the United Kingdom untill 1951.--77.166.165.137 (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)