Jump to content

Talk:British Empire

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleBritish Empire is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
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
November 6, 2010Featured article reviewKept
October 7, 2021Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

New article: British Empire from subjects' POV

[edit]

Does anyone want to write an article on the history of the British Empire, from the perspective of its subjects? This is really lacking in Wikipedia's coverage imo. I can create a new page with that premise and page link to relevant pages, however there's going to be a lot of empty sections, and I have too much on my to do list as of now. I'd really appreciate if people could write about it Alexanderkowal (talk) 10:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources that discuss this as a topic? TFD (talk) 12:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True, there needs to be supra sources to justify the page creation.
  • [1] from the Canadian perspective
  • [2] is from a world history perspective, with perspectives from local and world history
  • [3] discusses problems in British historiography to do with the imperial perspective
  • [4] "both the British perspective and that of the colonies is considered"
I think it's right that this article focuses on the imperial perspective, and I think it's very well written and fair, however it's very difficult to insert subject's perspectives when that'll mostly take the form of social history in an article about political history. In summary, I don't really want to mess with this article as it's quite the masterpiece, and I don't have any issues with it. Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See for example Gold Coast (British colony), it would be an accumulation of these articles Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very serious danger of doing lots of orientalism and the like though Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the page created will try to be fair and not have its sole purpose to villianise with the superficiality of some post-colonial literature Alexanderkowal (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sort of article is lacking because it's explicitly against policy to create WP:POVFORKs. CMD (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay that makes sense, I just thought this article could focus on the internal composites of the British Empire whilst ignoring the wider context Alexanderkowal (talk) 15:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During the FAR of this article it was noted there are actually many missing subarticles. There could be a good article such as Governance of the British Empire for example, and articles such as Economy of the British Empire and Demographics of the British Empire are basically stubs. This current article was effectively demoted for essentially being History of the British Empire, and thus missing out on everything else. CMD (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Governance of the British Empire could be really good, could cover the governance of the different parts of the empire (with sections probably regional and in order of when they became part of the empire) and also include perspectives from the governed.
I think this article should have a former country infobox like the other colonial empires, and have all of this under the history section? Then have a section on governance, economy, demographics, and legacy (with summaries of their main articles) Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
historiography also Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, GoldRingChip, Jr8825, BrownHairedGirl, Wiki-Ed, and Nikkimaria: pinging main contributors to hear their thoughts Alexanderkowal (talk) 17:47, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason there aren't articles on those things is not because they're "missing", it's because they're not viable subjects or the content exists already under different headings which more accurately reflects the weighting in reliable sources. E.g. there was no 'governance of the British Empire' article because that's covered by existing articles on the Government of the United Kingdom or the government of (insert country). Asserting or suggesting - through article naming - that there were separate centralised structures and processes is misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Government of the United Kingdom is a separate topic from governance of the British Empire, there's not even a history section. Governance of the British Empire would focus on the administration of the colonial empire and the relation between the colonies and the UK/British/English government, as well as governance. Alexanderkowal (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I said you need a source that discusses the topic, I meant a book or article with a title like "British Empire from subjects' POV". You can't get one source about the Empire from a Canadian's perspective and similar sources from the perspectives of people living in the empire in different places and different times and create an article. TFD (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've ditched that idea, think having a page on the Governance of the British Empire would be better, per above.
  • [5]: The Power of Commerce: Economy and Governance in the First British Empire
  • [6]: The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century: C5 The Anointed, the Appointed, and the Elected: Governance of the British Empire, 1689–1784
  • [7]: The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume III: The Nineteenth Century: C9 Imperial Institutions and the Government of Empire
  • [8]: Administering the Empire, 1801-1968
There's more on each region, idk whether this is enough to warrant a page? I think it's substantive detail per WP:Notability Alexanderkowal (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The subject is certainly notable, but a looong discussion on this some time back (I've looked in the archives but can't find it) argued pursuasively that since (perhaps compared to say the French), the British arrangements were somewhat ad hoc, differing very widely by place, and then by time, the article would be very bitty, and the wood hard to find for the trees. One might do a shortish summary, but getting into too much detail for individual areas would be fatal, I think. Whether the subject is adequately covered in all the individual by-territory articles, I rather doubt. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The wood would be covering the history behind it, the impacts, and the historiography. There are decades of people asking "Was there a British Empire?" so its a topic with direct sourcing, and it would help answer the questions we have sometimes had here as to why the opening sentence of this article is structured the way it is. The risk is as you mention that it degrades into a list, as articles are wont to do. It is definitely not covered in the individual articles well, Gold Coast (British colony) mentioned above has a similar situation of being a summary of history rather than covering anything else, so there's easy room for improvements. CMD (talk) 04:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skitash is it worth having another RfC on which infobox to have? The previous consensus is 7 years old and had very limited participation Kowal2701 (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't Edward I included in this article?

[edit]

Wales was England's first colony, so I don't understand why this isn't included. Hogyncymru (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was not a colony, any more than Burgundy is a colony of France. Slatersteven (talk) 13:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article misrepresents the reason for the puritan fleeing a known misrepresentation in science

[edit]

under "Americas, Africa and the slave trade" the article states ", Plymouth was founded as a haven by Puritan religious separatists, later known as the Pilgrims. Fleeing from religious persecution..." the puritan's were not "fleeing from religious persecution" [9]https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel01.html under heading Crossing the Ocean to Keep the Faith: The Puritan, they left to try and recreate the church of England. and very much wanted to persecute none believers in there way. Also Wikipedia actually coveres this in the article about the Puritans 62.31.61.202 (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Try quoting the whole text next time. Slatersteven (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

[edit]

Shouldn't the map include the Emirate of Afghanistan? From 1879 to 1919 as per the Treaty of Gandamak, the emirate was a protected state of the British Empire, a similar relationship and agreement to the one between Sultanate of Zanzibar and the British Empire. Anvib (talk) 23:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. You've partly answered your own question: this article does not include protected states - as per the first line of the article. More importantly, reliable sources don't treat Afghanistan as part of the British Empire. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as I stated in my original message; the Sultanate of Zanzibar and the Emirate of Afghanistan had a similar arrangement and status when it came to their relationship to the United Kingdom: Zanzibar is included in the map, hence the contradiction here. Anvib (talk) 00:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Protecates were not apart of the British Empire, they only acted as influence. 2607:FEA8:4D60:590:C49E:A72C:3146:7972 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Other protectorates are shown on the map though, as shaded areas. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:24, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
THe issue maybe that Afghanistan was a protectorate in name only. Slatersteven (talk) 10:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would agree there. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a protected state not a protectorate. Different kind of animal. Sort of. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. The people were considered British protected subjects rather than British subjects, which is still a distinction in British nationality law. TFD (talk) 06:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]