Talk:British Empire

A very unWikipedian aura of mystery

I'm told that something was discussed at some point or points in 2006, 2007 and 2008, that pertains to an edit I made recently. For some reason, I'm not being told what was discussed, nor exactly when, nor am I given any idea exactly what part of my relatively wide-ranging edit is pertinent to this eight-, nine-, and/or ten-year-old discussion. I don't believe editing Wikipedia is supposed to be this frustrating, and I'm disgusted that apparently experienced editors gesture vaguely at three years worth of archives and then snigger up their sleeves. I'd like the editors involved in reverting my edits to stop playing silly buggers and explain themselves. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

You see the little star symbol at the top right of the article that says it's a featured article? There are about 5000 of them. The structure, content, and language have been assessed as among the best on this site. That doesn't mean they're perfect, but they certainly don't need major editing. So, instead of wading in and making "wide-ranging" edits you could perhaps try improving one of the ~5,219,000 other articles.

In this case you've tried to do four things

1. Added a wiki link. Fine, but unnecessary.
2. You've asserted that all the people who helped establish the plantations in Ireland were wealthy and justified that by stating that the stub on the West Country Men says they were wealthy. That might be true, but the sentence in this article doesn't say they were the only people involved (hence use of "particularly"). We can't say that about other people because they are not specified. Also, by inserting "wealthy" as a distinction it looks like you are saying more should be said about this, but it's not clear what.
3. You've asserted that settlement of Ireland was "mostly" by Protestants from England and Scotland. By extension you are, therefore, suggesting that some did not meet those criteria. Logically that's probably true, although it would need a citation since it could be challenged. Again, it looks like you're trying to make a point about something, but with no explanation of what or why.
4. And finally the contentious bit: the use of "overseas" was discussed at length in the archives. European countries had been colonising "outside Europe" for a very long time so this tell the reader nothing. We are using "overseas" to indicate distance from the mother country, which was a feature of the Age of Discovery. It was in this that England lagged.

If an "experienced editor" points you to specific talk page archives it might tell you that they've done you the favour of taking time to identify exactly where the issue has been discussed previously. You can return the favour by looking for discussions that relate to the edits you've made. Say, for example, discussions that involve "Ireland". On articles like this the discussions can be quite long and heated, and it may take time to get to a point. If you don't have the patience to read through then don't make changes. And finally, if you do want to make "wide ranging" edits to featured articles you may get an easier ride if test your proposals on the talk page before you make them.Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the FAreaks have claimed another victim. We can't have the unwashed masses sullying this inviolate article, now can we? 107.77.205.154 (talk) 07:11, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

You missed the part where I added content, and referenced it. But the important lesson here is that both you and WCM have caused all this fuck-aboutery because you're neither able to conceive of a place beyond a sea as being overseas, nor to write non-cryptic edit summaries. You didn't point anywhere specific, Wiki-Ed; you mentioned archives that had scores of different discussions in them without feeling the need to let me know which one you were talking about. Alfie Gandon (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can find a reference for anything. That's irrelevant. I'm not going to reopen the discussion on the meaning of 'overseas'. It has been used specifically to emphasise a particular point.

As for finding the relevant section of talk page: it takes all of 5 seconds to click on a hyperlink, scan down an index and identify discussions which are relevant. There are three discussions on Ireland in the fourth archive and one of them even includes some of the wording you decided to change. Not difficult. Stop whining. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. So you make a detailed list of almost everything I did in the edit, except the largest change , which for some reason is 'irrelevant', but you don't say why. Right. I actually did read the first discussion to do with Ireland, and found absolutely no relevance to any part of my edit. Despairing at your vagueness, I gave up. It wouldn't have been difficult to just tell me what the discussion had been about, but that's obviously not your way. I'll paraphrase the weird English. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

So you didn't look hard enough. I've done enough hand-holding as it is. As for the colonial lab addition - I don't have strong feelings about that actually - but I know that might others do and one source might not be enough. They haven't chipped in as I expected so let's see if it sticks. I've reinstated your text, but can you fix the reference (my other objection) to conform with the citation style being used in this article. I'd do it myself but your link doesn't actually open the book so there's no way to check its veracity. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

I removed the colonial lab addition, i don't see it adding any value to the article. It's one author's opinion not a fact of any value. WCM_email 10:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

What a shock. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I see it adding value, as obviously did the other authors I've referenced. Alfie Gandon (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

If you could discuss content rather than making thinly disguised jibes at other editors it would be a refreshing change. Opinion dressed up as fact is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. Regards, WCM_email 12:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

"I see it adding value" - I'm discussing the content. If the value jibes you, that's on you. If you don't believe that some techniques subsequently used in colonies further overseas were first tried in Ireland, can you explain why? I'm going to more closely paraphrase a source to quell your fretting about facts. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

How does it add value? How does it make our readers better informed? And no I don't believe that Ireland was part of an experiment as to how the British would plan for world domination. It's a ridiculous piece of hyperbole. WCM_email 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

How does it not? If you were planning colonies across the Atlantic, why do you believe it wouldn't make sense to experiment closer to home first? I don't believe your proposal that Ireland was part of an experiment on the road to world domination, and certainly none of the cited sources you removed say that. If you'd said a stepping-stone on the road to quarter-world domination, that'd be more like wording I could accept. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope you are good in whatever you do, you'll never make money as a comedian. Again, seeing as you keep ignoring it, Ireland was not some experimental laboratory in which the UK worked out how it would dominate the world. Its a fatuous, vacuous analogy, one academics opinion and does not add value to the article. WCM_email 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Outdent. Though arriving late to Talk, after needing to look following reversion of an associated but uncontroversial edit, I am pleased with the current result which generally should stand. Well done in the end Alfie, basically you nailed it; it's a learning and educational experience. Often, as you see here, the problem is not what is written, but how that content is stated; but in no case should content differences move to editors who make them. That treads upon the golden AGF rule, although I do commiserate with your frustration in learning how to get there in this case. Ed did a good job in time spent to point toward both problems and solutions in the overly spiced environment that developed. I was heading similarly and you beat me to it, but also spent sufficient time to realize that other relevant context appears improperly weighted or missing, despite the FA. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, CasualObserver. WCM, you might find it more profitable to try answering my questions rather than scanning them for your amusement. I fully intend to keep ignoring the straw man argument you keep asserting, in the hope that you will stop propounding it. Also, please stop making edits you know are contentious until you've achieved consensus, which so far you've signally failed to do. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

WCM, you've reverted in the face of a consensus. Please stop this behaviour and make your case here on the talk page instead. Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point Alfie, I would call that a stretch, based on the fact that things have not yet changed; when you are able to better develop your reference's thoughts, and how you state them, it should become consensus and should change naturally, hopefully. Your most recent edit assumes a better-stated but after-the-fact assertion of what one source says, but most others indicate that much the same people based their later, early NorthAmer thinking on their previous positive Irish experiences, not on everything. They did not use Ireland as a lab, they used it as experience gained, and took their best shot at what might work again, though under very different circumstances, e.g. far from home vs close, one religious thought vs an unknown or misunderstood religious other (in any case as a religious 'other' and barbaric to boot). What they tried specifically were those productive/defensive things that produced longevity, generally success, but in the proprietor's view, a profitable export commodity, hence a personal profit shared with the Crown. Also out of necessity and an unhappy Irish experience generally, they used timber-cribbed defenses for outside protection, a private army to enforce proprietary control inside, and ended up with the (similar) use of native labor, vs imported labor for production; though they had planned on the latter, they were short on those willing 'adventurers' with a work ethic. Initially, they were really looking for gold, but weren't that Spanish-lucky. Also and important, is that those Irish-experience considerations of the time are mostly relevant for Va and Md on either side of the Chesapeake particularly. Wholly different people and considerations were involved in founding New England settlements and most other plantings, though a proprietary profit (variously measured) remained in most. It would take early iterations of the BoT to assist the colonies toward success, but then, that entity is not even mentioned as part of the Empire's article. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

There clearly isn't a concensus for this edit you're obsessing with Mr Alfie Gandon. Nor will I continue to repeatedly answer the same question, whilst you claim I didn't. Surely you can find something better to do and I certainly have better things to do than deal with an editor behaving like a petulant child because someone disagrees with him. I don't disagree with CasualObserver's analysis but wonder whether its too in depth for what is supposed to be an overview article on the British Empire. It at least has the merit of sticking to facts rather than obsessing with shoving one man's opinion into the article even though it makes no sense whatsoever. WCM_email 18:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a bit difficult to follow your reasoning, CasualObserver. You now seem to be contradicting your previous post. No need to be petulant, WCM. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal of population figures from lede

I've noticed that TompaDompa has removed population figures from the lede. This has been done on the basis that it failed verification. However, I note that the source available on line does give population figures, albeit slightly lower than stated. See page 97 and others [1]. I'm wondering why he didn't just correct the figures/dates? WCM_email 13:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I only looked at the pages specified in the footnote – 98 and 242 (instead of 97 and 241 – presumably a pdf page numbering error). I added the correct figures back. Thanks! TompaDompa (talk) 21:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries, it just struck me as strange so I thought I might be an error. WCM_email 21:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

How many people were killed?

I've read that nearly 2 billion people were killed by the British worldwide. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 13:09, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

OK, but where did you read it? MPS1992 (talk) 13:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Here are some sources you could look into, taken from Historiography of the British Empire:

• David Richardson, "The British Empire and the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1660-1807," in P.J. Marshall, ed. The Oxford History of the British Empire: Volume II: The Eighteenth Century (1998) pp 440-64.
• Mark Harrison, Public Health in British India: Anglo-Indian Preventive Medicine 1859-1914 (1994)

MPS1992 (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

An article in "The Guardian" said the British Empire was responsible for the deaths of 1.8 billion people worldwide. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

If you mean this article, it's an opinion piece, and marked as such. Also it doesn't contain the word "billion".

The same google search that found that, also found this piece, by Johann Hari of all people, but that's an opinion piece too. And no mention of billions there either.

Ideally you should provide some more details of the Guardian article that you are talking about -- publication date, author, title, page number perhaps -- and also, please explain how it relates to improving this British Empire article that we are talking about. MPS1992 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I read in "The Guardian" today that Clive killed at least 60 million people in India. Therefore the 1.8 billion figure is highly plausible. (86.180.135.164 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

Right, but this is not a forum to discuss what you think is plausible. Anything without a source can't go into the article. MPS1992 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Do any records survive from the 18th and 19th centuries on the number of people who were killed, or did they only count the soldiers? (86.180.135.164 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

Why don't you go and look it up. Preferably in reliable sources (i.e. not the Guardian). And while you're at it, consider other factors like the total world population, which only reached ~2bn in the mid 1920s. If the British had killed 1.8bn over the preceding century there wouldn't have been many people left. Similarly, if Clive had killed half the population of India one would think someone might have noticed. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

While the Guardian's reliability may be questioned, the first Guardian link I gave above does link to the author's website, which in turn has a properly referenced version of the article which lists a number of reliable sources. Such reliable sources -- detailed modern studies of the topic -- will draw heavily upon analyses of original 18th and 19th century records, many of which do survive, and do not only enumerate losses of soldiers. Imperial bureaucracies, like other bureaucracies, love to keep records of things. MPS1992 (talk) 15:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, if you mean circular links back to the Guardian and to other pieces by the same author then yes. it's referenced. But I'd argue that's not quite the standard we should be looking for. Drawing on the Elkins book he refers to "many tens of thousands" rather than billions. That doesn't excuse the behaviour of the individuals involved, but it's a significant difference and calls into question his comparison with the Holocaust. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The British killed far more people than the Third Reich or the Soviet Union. Perhaps the world population did not reach 2 billion until the early 20th century because so many hundreds of millions had been killed by the European and Russian colonial empires? (86.180.135.164 (talk) 16:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC))

So it slaughtered billions of people, covered it up so no one remembered and hid all the evidence so no one would ever find out? Or maybe it was (partially) responsible for global population increase through, for example, the introduction of smallpox vaccine to India (by Robert Clive no less)? Which of these alternatives is supported by reliable sources? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

I too do believe that the British Empire was responsible for millions of deaths. Doubtless, millions of so called excess deaths. However, I think it is impossible to quantify the number of deaths. Simply because they were the result of countless different events (military campaigns, repression of revolts and resistance, etc.) happening every year all over the British Empire (as opposed to a single genocide, such as the Holocaust, which also happened during a period of only four years). For me, it is extremely annoying that many of these events, are probably too "small" to be properly remembered, or too "small" to get any attention (I bet that some British historians would rather describe them as isolated "incidents"). But they are all part of the same system, the British Empire (which in the end, relied on violence and repression). And the number of dead as a result of this system deserves attention. However, sadly, I think it is practically impossible to calculate a number of total dead. I would like to suggest a book on this subject: "Britain's Empire: Resistance, Repression and Revolt" by Richard Gott. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2011/dec/07/britains-empire-richard-gott-review /EriFr (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, not really a balanced source. I don't think the problem is so much the recording of history as how it is put in context. The simplistic narrative put forward by sources at extreme ends of the spectrum (like the Guardian or Gott) are trying to push a particular point of view. They don't attempt to balance their explanation (WP is actually pretty good at this - all credit to Wales for his three pillars) and they don't explore counter-factual history (and indeed most historians shy away from it). However, one has to consider what would have happened if the British Empire hadn't existed. Would there have been no violence or repression by local governments (e.g the Mughals)? Would millions of people have survived famines in India and Ireland? We could reasonably conclude that millions of people would have died anyway - as they do today from all sorts of causes - so the question is really whether it would have been more or less - your "excess deaths" point. That's a really difficult question that requires consideration of (among other things): global environmental factors, contemporary types of government (both local and regional) and their internal social/economic policies, population increases from introduced medical advances and the suppression of intra-regional wars, improved agricultural science, the known intentions of other empires (c.f. the Third Reich's Generalplan Ost). Maybe someone has tried to do this, but ultimately there is no right answer because it is counter factual, so inevitably we get polarised views. And since those views are not neutral, we don't represent them in this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just so. In case the person who asked the original question is still interested and is perhaps perplexed at the argument they have provoked, I will mention this. They have been presented in this thread with a wide number of sources that they could further investigate. If they would like to request an "answer", they will find Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities far more accommodating than this article talk page. Although, they should be careful of phrasing the question as "I read this in the Guardian but I refuse to cite that source properly, is it true?" The Humanities reference desk exists to answer reasonable questions about facts or about recommendations of sources that might provide facts. This talk page exists only to facilitate discussions that might help improve the article about the British Empire. MPS1992 (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

This thread was started by the banned editor HarveyCarter as part of his usual trolling. As a quick reminder, please remember Wikipedia is not a forum, and don't engage with this kind of trolling. Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately trolls don't come with labels attached, and calling them out leads to accusations that one is not AGF. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:05, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

With the exception of India for most of the Empire's history the two British cities of London and Manchester together had a greater population than all the other empire territories combined.

The larger population figures of today were only achievable due to the Industrial Revolution and the arrival of the railways. Before these it was not possible to feed larger populations, as the fresh food had to be brought into the conurbations from the surrounding countryside, and unless this could be done relatively quickly, the food went off and spoiled.

Presumably if the British rulers were that callous towards their colonial subjects they would not have introduced railways, along with schools and hospitals, in all of their colonies at the earliest opportunity, conducive with the logistics and great distances involved.

The British Empire may have had some faults but if anyone could have suggested an easier and less painful way of dragging many of the Empire constituent territories out of at best, the Medieval Period, or at worst, the Stone Age, into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, I'm sure the Empire's leaders would have been delighted to have heard it.

BTW, during WW II over two million (2,000,000) Indians joined the Indian Army, every one of them a volunteer. There were also considerable number of other races who joined their relative Empire military forces, again all voluntary. There was no conscription for 'natives', only for the white colonists. One could reasonably assume that if their 'British' rulers were that unpopular such would not have occurred. I put 'British' in quotes simply because all Empire citizens, with a few exceptions such as Protectorates, etc., of any race, creed, or colour, were all in fact British Subjects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.77 (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

And a curious fact for all those people with an axe-to-grind to ponder is that why was it that whenever the two phrases 'fleeing refugees' and 'British Empire' were ever mentioned in the same sentence it was always in the context of the 'refugees' trying to get into parts of the British Empire, and not out of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.151.135.170 (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

While the railways probably did help in the dramatic increase of human population, there was already an increase in the world population before they became a major factor. It is estimated that the world population first reached the 1 billion mark c. 1804. There were 791 million people c. 1750, and 682 million people c. 1700.

Meanwhile "the first full-scale working railway steam locomotive" was only created in 1804, by Richard Trevithick. Technological changes were a bit more gradual during the Early modern period. According to the History of rail transport, wagonways were already in use since the 16th century and iron rails were in use since the 1760s. But it is not clear this had much to do with the increase in population. Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

You may be right. Perhaps I should have written steam railways. It was steam that allowed the rapid and regular movement of large quantities of food and heavy goods and fuel such as coal, etc., into cities. I should also perhaps have clarified that 'the larger population figures of today' I was referring-to applied to the former 'Empire' territories, excepting what-was India.

FWIW, from around 1700 London was the biggest city on earth and it was only exceeded by IIRC Mexico City as late as the 1960s.

The Empire had its bad points but if the 'faults' of the empire are to be pointed out then at least it would be a good idea for the said 'faults' to be actually true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

While London had a significant population for quite a while, I am not certain of its status as the most populous city on Earth. The list of largest cities throughout history contains estimates of historic city populations since 8,000 BC. The listing for London includes:

• London, 1825. Population estimated to 1,335,000 people. Slightly smaller than Beijing, which had a population of 1,350,000 people.
• London, 1841. Population estimated to 1,948,000-2,235,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
• London, 1850. Population estimated to 2,320,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
• London, 1851. Population estimated to 2,362,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
• London, 1861. Population estimated to 2,803,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
• London, 1875. Population estimated to 4,241,000 people. Slightly larger than Saint Petersburg, which had a population of 4,000,000 people.
• London, 1900. Population estimated to 6,480,000-6,600,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
• London, 1914. Population estimated to 7,419,000 people. Most populous city on the planet at the time.
• Surpassed by the New York metropolitan area in 1925, with a population of 7,774,000 people.

According to the World's largest cities list, London is still growing. The city proper has a population of 8,673,713 people. The metropolitan area has a population of 9,787,426 people. The urban area has a population of 13,879,757 people. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Famine in India goes into (referenced) detail about how economic policy combined with natural causes to cause famine, but Wiki-Ed and WCM are removing any reference to man-made causes. What gives? Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here we go again. You've made three edits, not one.

1. The first one in relation to the role of the East India Company in evicting/expelling/defeating the French forces in Egypt was simply wrong. It is now sourced in line as well as at the end of the line.
2. The second asserts military strength comes from wealth, an oversimplification which is contentious at best.
3. The third cherry picks POV elements from the article on Famine in India, ignoring the balanced views of other scholars which said article represents. In any case, the "man made causes" are explained - in context - in the subsequent sentence. And you forgot to bring the sources in your hurry to introduce some sensational 'new' content.

This is really quite tiresome. What about those other 5m articles that need your attention? Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sigh, Wikipedia is not the place to right WP:GREATWRONGS, if you see this as "whitewashing" then by all means feel free to start an RFC and get outside opinion. Try WP:3O, try WP:DR if you feel so strongly about it. But please stop the melodrama, the finger pointing and yelling about other editors and stop revert warring.

Now lets look at my edit summary:

"rv it was written in NPOV before - rs some relevant text removed for no good reason"

Part of the reason I reverted this edit was there was some relevant text removed for no good reason. So it is not simply as claimed "whitewashing" but down to the fact, as noted above, the edit removed information and replaced it with incorrect information.

The second part of the reason for the revert. I didn't see your edit as neutral, placing great emphasis and assigning blame on one factor. The text you removed included the fact it was climate related but also due to economic mismanagement by the East India company. The charge that any reference to man made causes was removed is fallacious. A neutral balanced text was replaced with an unbalanced statement.

If we're going to continue with accusations of misconduct can we please cut the crap and go straight to WP:ANI as I'm getting bored with it. Discuss content not editors. WCM_email 19:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. Famine in India explicitly states that the famines had both natural and administrative causes. You've emphasised the former and reduced the latter to political failings in dealing with the famines, rather than political decisions that helped create them. You're both entitled to your view of the Empire, but there's no point trying to right history's great wrongs here just because you feel it's been unfairly maligned. WCM, you're describing the exact opposite of my edit. I didn't assign "great emphasis and assigning blame on one factor"; that was what was done to me. I included a factor given equal emphasis by the main article. Aren't there other empires you social justice warriors must defend? Alfie Gandon (talk) 22:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The text doesn't attempt to assert a cause for the famines - it is contentious and explaining it fully and neutrally would take up a full article. Fortunately we have one - linked for convenience of the interested reader - but your selective reading of said article - as outlined above - and your desire to inflict your interpretation on others is not appropriate for this encyclopedia. If you don't understand and/or are unwilling to follow the core pillars then don't act surprised when other editors revert your contributions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

What text, exactly? What's contentious? Why do you describe the explanation of the Indian famines given at Famine in India as my interpretation? Why do you inflict this lack of clarity on me? I want to challenge you on your ridiculous 'core pillars' ramble but I shudder to think of the result, so let's park that. Alfie Gandon (talk) 14:18, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

No, let's not "park that"; it's pretty fundamental. If you don't understand what you're doing either make an effort to learn or go away. "What text exactly?" The bit of text you keep trying to change. "What's contentious?" (a) the subject as a whole; (b) your selective editing which places weight on a particular interpretation of said subject. The text you have been inserting does not reflect the (relatively) balanced view taken by the other article and it does not reflect the view of the source we are using to support this paragraph in this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I knew I'd shudder, because I knew you'd follow with a screed totally lacking in self-awareness. I'm not placing weight on any of the reasons for the Indian famines; I've simply put an end to the whitewashing of one reason, which seems to drive you wild. In doing this, I was guided by the main article. The text (and references) I added reflect the main article; your whitewashing does the opposite. It would surely strike any neutral observer that what you're doing is nakedly political and is not supported by the sources I added but which you then removed. Stop this. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Lack of self awareness? That's rich. Either you're lacking self awareness yourself or you're deliberately being disruptive. The pattern of your previous edits and your statement above (that you are attempting to drive editors "wild") suggests the latter. This is supported by your failure to realise that you didn't actually insert any sources, just references to sources which are not listed or used in this article. You don't seem to know what you are doing, and you don't seem to be familiar with the subject. I'd say "try harder", but please don't bother. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that you like the thought of me shuddering. I didn't say that I was "attempting to drive editors wild", I noted that slightly altering this article to more accurately reflect the content of the main article seems to drive you wild. I assure you, that wasn't why I did it. You haven't addressed my point that I'm not placing weight on any of the reasons for the famines, but ending the undue weight currently placed on one reason. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments and questions

This is a great article. It's full of good information, very educational and pleasing to the eye in terms of structure and layout. I enjoyed reading it because it has a great flow. I also made a few minor improvements to the text and the layout. I have a few comments.

1. "Tensions between Britain and the United States escalated again during the Napoleonic Wars, as Britain tried to cut off American trade with France and boarded American ships to impress men into the Royal Navy."

Would it be possible to add information on reasons why it happened? It's not very clear. I assume it was in retaliation to the American Revolution.

2. "Overseas colonies were attacked and occupied, including those of the Netherlands, which was annexed by Napoleon in 1810. France was finally defeated by a coalition of European armies in 1815."

Which oversea colonies? Please clarify.

3. "British gains in southern and East Africa".

It would be more consistent to say Southern and East Africa or southern and east Africa.

4. "Over 2.5 million men served in the armies of the Dominions, as well as many thousands of volunteers from the Crown colonies."

What Dominions? If we are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion, please update with link. It's unclear.

ICE77 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

1. I added a note.
2. I added a note.
3. I capitalized both and added links.
4. It's linked in the WP:LEAD already, but sure. I added a link. TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not of featured article quality.

Here are some of the featured article criteria this article doesn't fulfill:

1b. comprehensive

it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

The article leaves out huge amounts of detail. Despite its 11,000 words, it doesn't even discuss the Famines of India. It mentions that they happened in a single paragraph. But no discussion takes place about their cause and the natural vs man-made factors involved. The Belgian Congo deaths of 10 million or so people are well documented in that article. Similar mass killings by the British Empire are not mentioned at all. There should be an entire section discussing timeline of major famines in India during British rule (killing 29 million by one estimate) and other similar events throughout the Empire. Whether this particular estimate is accurate is moot. There should be a discussion of the estimates in the literature and what the consensus is for the cause and total deaths.

The ideology of the empire is not discussed. Racism is not mentioned once. The idea of the White Man's burden is not mentioned once. There is no mention of converting the heathens to Christianity. All of these were fashionable opinions at various points in time. It would be interesting to have a section explaining when and why these views were popular. The colonies where white British settlers totally exterminated and replaced the natives were given political power long before colonies where the people were non-white. This part of history should also be discussed.

Expansionist and racial policy was a major part of the British Empire throughout its entire history. An article about the British Empire that doesn't discuss who was privileged and who was persecuted, when, and why is not complete. There is a lot of literature debating this subject. The Empire also participated in ethnic cleansing throughout its existence, and has been accused of several genocides. Why isn't it summarized? We don't have to take a one sided view, but we do have to mention it.

Finally, it would also be worthwhile having a section to discuss how the article got into its current state. Some historians are extremely critical of the Empire, such as Henry Reynolds's critique of the peaceful settlement myth. Meanwhile "historians" like David Armitage have somehow convinced themselves that invading foreign countries was a selfless and benevolent exercise done for the sake of the "freedom" of those foreigners. Both of these views need to be discussed, and the latter view needs to be soundly rejected as nonsense as it already is by the majority of historians.===

1c. well-researched

it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

This article does not discuss most of the literature about the British Empire. It surveys only a small window the literature and favors the view of a minority of scholars. It fails to discuss entire events that are considered the most important aspects of British Empire history by academics.

1d. neutral

it presents views fairly and without bias

The gaps in the articles coverage are not random. They are one-sided. The gaps are all things that could be considered negatives of the Empire.

The article needs to be completely rewritten in order to be of featured article quality. Most of the historical narrative can be moved to another article. Then several more sections like I've outlined need to be added.--Quality posts here (talk) 18:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This article does not cover every single event in every corner of the world during the period it relates to; it is not an article on famine in India; it is not an article on racism; and it is not an article on historiography. Wikipedia has articles on all of those things (although the quality of some leaves a lot to be desired). You say it does not discuss most of the literature about the British Empire. How many books have been written about this subject over the years? How many journal articles? Of course it doesn't cover them all but it does represent a fair selection of balanced sources (i.e. not those presenting polarised opinions). And finally you say you want to take out the historical narrative and add in particular opinions on particular episodes that you feel are important. Have you considered that you might be on the wrong website? You are proposing replacing verifiable, neutral information with opinion pieces. Not how Wikipedia works. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Articles can't be too long or they become unreadable. The article should be a high-level summary of the British Empire, going into detail only about major points. That's not how the article is now. It fails to discuss the most major actions of the British Empire. The Indian famines were the most notable thing the British Empire did in its entire existence, yet they don't even get their own section. Meanwhile "rivalry with the Netherlands in Asia" somehow gets its own section. It's totally false to claim this article presents a fair selection of balanced sources. The great thing about Wikipedia is we can work together to make sure the information added isn't an opinion piece. Wikipedia doesn't present opinions. Articles don't say anything about good or bad morality. They simply presents the facts of what happened (perhaps including the fact that some people consider them morally good or bad), and where the facts are unclear it summarizes the academic debate. That's what this article should do. Instead, it fails to present any facts or debate about controversial events in order to portray a falsely positive version of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

"The most major actions of the British Empire" - says who? That is your opinion. It is not a view reflected by the majority of reliable sources. Famine in India is (rightly) treated as footnote - something that happened during the same period/space as the British Empire, but not a defining characteristic nor something which made a significant differences to its evolution as a political entity. Presenting facts out of context is the same as expressing a non-neutral opinion in a neutral space - it lends weight to something that ought not to have it. Rivalry with the Netherlands in Asia, on the other hand, directly affected how the BE took shape and rightly deserves a (small) section outlining the consequences.Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

More people fell victim to the British India famines during Ghandi's lifetime than to the Nazis. Here are two broadsheet British newspapers backing me up on that: The Independent and The Guardian. These articles compare people who don't believe it to holocaust and the Armenian genocide denial. If you look at the Ottoman Empire article, you'll see its atrocities are mentioned right in the introduction. Shouldn't the British Empire's also be there, considering it managed crimes of a greater magnitude? I particularly like this article, which ends "As evidence from the manufactured Indian famines of the 1870s and from the treatment of other colonies accumulates, British imperialism emerges as no better and in some cases even worse than the imperialism practised by other nations. Yet the myth of the civilising mission remains untroubled by the evidence". Wikipedia's British Empire article is shamelessly spreading that myth despite being a "featured article" and must be changed at once.

Nobel-prize winner Amartya Sen has done quite a bit of work around the economics of the Indian famines. He blames the 18th century Bengal famine on the British in this article, "in a century that had seen no famine in the region before the rule of the East India Company began".--Quality posts here (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is not a collection of factoids that you would "like" to see. Sources which use language like "manufactured famines" are not neutral, so if they are mentioned they have to be balanced; the article would then go off on a tangent about a niche issue. If it was so important that it defined the subject then it would feature more prominently in published sources that cover the whole subject. The fact that it doesn't should tell you something. What do the sources/articlese which you want to place undue weight on say about exploration, colonisation in America, conquest in Africa, or rivalry/war with other countries/empires? Nothing perhaps? They're too narrow for this subject. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:13, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

But it does seem to be a collection of factoids that you would like to see. Manufactured famines are real things. The Russians inflicted one on Ukraine, and the Germans created another in the Netherlands. The British Empire committed several of those. Amartya Sen, who covers British Empire famines, argues that every famine since 1000 AD has been manufactured. By his reasoning every famine in the British Empire was manufactured. The Great Bengal famine of 1770 is perhaps the most obvious example of such a manufactured famine. The article fails to discuss this despite it being considered the most notable thing about the Empire by several authors.

This isn't an an article about Sen's views, and from what you've said, I can't imagine that those views would sit well in any historical article. You should also note that this article doesn't cover a number of events that "several authors" might consider to be notable. It is an overview and takes its steer from historians who write overviews, not from single-issue campaigners with a narrow focus on particular events/themes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You "can't imagine", and yet it's true. Sen is a Nobel prize winning economist and his work on Indian famines is highly respected. He is literally the most highly regarded author this article will cover if I cite him.--Quality posts here (talk) 15:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If a writer sets out a particular view that places him or her at one end of a spectrum s/he will not be treated as neutral, regardless of how highly they are thought of within a like-minded peer group. The most important principle here is neutrality and weighting. The question is 'do historians (not economists) treat famine in India as a (or the) major theme of the British Empire?' The answer is no, so we don't go into detail on that issue. We give it equal weighting with lots of other important things that happened across the world over a period of 500 years. If this was an article on agriculture in India, government in India, the history of India (etc.) then it might be a different answer. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Inspired by the Norman conquest of England article, which is also featured, I am going to add two new sections to this article: "Historiography" and "Consequences". I will also try my hand at a section on Indian famines. I am sure they will improve the article.--Quality posts here (talk) 04:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

This article doesn't need any of those things. As we have pointed out already, there is an article on the Historiography of the British Empire. (It's currently in poor shape because one editor has taken it upon himself to use it - as you seem to be proposing - as a soap box to push his personal interpretation of the British Empire - all the bits that wouldn't make the cut here - rather than a balanced overview of historiograpical issues.) There is already an article on Famine in India. And there is already a section on the Legacy of the British Empire in this article. So, I would discourage you from bothering, but if you want to propose new text to this Featured Article then please test it on the talk page first. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section has 706 words, only 21 of which are about the negative legacy of the Empire and 685 on the things that make elderly British people happy. That isn't neutral. This is because this page is heavily impacted by Wikipedia's systemic bias in favour of the worldview of middle class English speakers at the cost of everyone else. The introduce bias where they edit by what they chose to include and what they chose to omit. The British Empire article is ripe for this because a large section of the British population loves the idea that their ancestors went out and lovingly and selflessly conquered and killed foreigners in order to help those foreigners. In an effort to attract uninvolved editors to this debate and see what they think, I am adding an NPOV tag to the page. After I draft those sections I will be bold and add them. Don't worry, there may have been quality problems when others previously tried to make such changes, but I intend them to be of a very high standard.--Quality posts here (talk) 15:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of bias might be the above statement that "The Belgian Congo deaths of 10 million or so people are well documented", given that demographic studies on the estimated population of Central Africa at the time would give a population of 4 million at the most for the Belgian Congo. Expect the same "lack" of bias regarding any coverage of alleged British mass murders when the article will be "completely rewritten".--Lubiesque (talk) 02:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I got that figure from the Wikipedia article about it, which seems to be well sourced. It's obvious why the British Empire article is in such bad shape when an editor watching it presents such denialism.--Quality posts here (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Quality posts here. This is an overview article, written in summary style. A mention of the Famines of India is appropriate; an in-depth discussion of "their cause and the natural vs man-made factors involved" is better suited to a more specific daughter article. You're welcome to suggest edits, sources, topics that should be mentioned, but please keep that in mind as you do so. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

It isn't an overview article because it fails to give an overview of the British Empire. It's a biased propaganda piece because it simply omits the unpopular events in the British Empire's history. If you go to the Nazi Germany article you'll see an entire section devoted to its politics, and another section devoted to its racial policy. That could be a good way to introduce the British Empire's crimes into this article, because they are currently not present. It's laughable the article can have such a gaping hole and be considered featured. We hear that at its height it controlled "412 million people, 23% of the world population at the time,[2] and by 1920 it covered 35,500,000 km2 (13,700,000 sq mi),[3] 24% of the Earth's total land area". Yet there is no mention of how many aggressive wars it started or in what year its highest death rate was achieved. That isn't an overview.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Certainly is an overview that a lot of editors have spent a long time here presenting a balanced overview of the British Empire so I dont think adding unblanced tabloid "year in which its highest death rate was achieved" is not something a good neutral encyclopedia does, we dont list all the lifes saved in India by the flood defences or most of the other things empire did to improve stuff over the few hundred years it existed. We have loads of sub-articles that deal with some of the detail you expect here, so as User:Nikkimaria has just said you are welcome to make suggestions and provide sources for discussion here but to condem the whole article is probably a bit unfair to previous editors who have worked hard to get it to featured article status. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's understand why we disagree about the article's neutrality

As far as I can tell, we are not in dispute over the facts of the British Empire. Everything either side proposes should be in the article is a historical fact supported by the majority of scholars. Wiki-Ed has called several sources I mentioned not-neutral. Non-neutral sources are acceptable for use on Wikipedia.

The main dispute seems to be around what proportion of the article should be devoted to each aspect of the British Empire. I believe that a Historiography section is certainly necessary to describe how coverage of the British Empire has changed in the literature. Since the late 20th century it has become much more critical, and there are a few notable historiographer articles on this subject. The "Legacy" section is totally biased, as I mentioned above, with only 21 words for the negative aspects of the Empire and 685 for what make elderly British people happy. I intend to rewrite it soon

Finally, I intend to make some changes to the narrative of the article, giving some more weight to things like the Indian famines. I am sure you will dispute these edits when I make them, but I am convinced that it will be a more balanced presentation of work about the British Empire. I am convinced of this because an entire section of the literature about racism, the white man's burden and how it impacted the former colonies has been completely excluded when it should be given its fair proportion of the article's words. There has been previous discussions about this: Talk:British_Empire/Archive_14#Racism.3F.--Quality posts here (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I certainly think that with comments like what make elderly British people happy suggests a non-neutral point of view and perhaps not the best way to get other editors to respond kindly. Re-writing large sections without some agreement here is not the way to build an encyclopedia. As already suggested you are welcome to make suggestions and improvements rather than I dont like any of this so we need to replace it all. Also we have no requirement to achieve a 50/50 balance between good and bad but a balance as shown across reliable sources across the four hundred-odd years covered. So I would suggest take small steps and get the agreement or otherwise of others, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 16:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality posts here, all your statements indicate that you want to take a particular perspective on this. The questions you raise have been extensively discussed before. If you make a case for changes and you don't get agreement then you can call an RfC. But tagging an article when you are the only one advocating change, on a well reviewed and discussed article is disruptive. ----Snowded ^TALK 17:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove it right away but let's see if he can produce quality posts. In the discussion he references the consensus was against making changes of the sort he described, for the very same reasons we have discussed above. However, the previous discussion allowed that there might be scope for a few single-sentence additions. Some of these appear to have been made at that time, but there might still be more that could be said (e.g. about famines to the effect that this was still a problem well into the 20th century). User Quality Posts Here should, I hope, be aware that s/he is going against consensus, but at least he is consulting before changing, so I'll assume good faith for now. (I wish other editors with a penchant for tinkering would take a similar approach.) However, I think it is worth drawing his attention to the purpose of this article - it one of only a thousand Level 3 overview articles. It is written in a narrative style: it does not go into detail on any one event, nor does it analyse - using anachronistic values (e.g. modern views of racism) - what happened. That is the purpose of wikilinking out to other articles. A single sentence here or there should be sufficient (if there is actually a problem). By all means test it, but don't expect to gain consensus for masses of new text. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've waited to see what User:QPH comes up with. The draft on his user page currently consists of a few paragraphs of poorly written commentary, mis-attributed quotations, statistical factoids (casualty counts etc.) and some he said/she said material. It is either irrelevant, inappropriate or unbalanced (or all of the above). This appears to be another case of someone just not liking the neutral balance of the article and looking for a soap box. That is not sufficient justification for a POV tag so I've removed it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

QPH isn't alone in believing there are serious problems with the tone of this article. Alfie Gandon (talk) 17:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I doubt they are "serious problems" looking at all the work and discussion that has been done before but you need to detail what you dont like in small chunks so it can be discussed, nobody is against discussion but to rubbish the whole article makes it difficult to work out what you actually dont like. Please bear in mind that this is an overview and as others have said more detailed information is present in other articles for readers that want to know more. MilborneOne (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. I remind you I already have detailed much of what I don't like into small chunks, all over this talk page. You're wrong in saying "nobody is against discussion", on the contrary, I find some proprietorial editors here are very much against it. I'm not rubbishing the whole article, again on the contrary most of it is of good quality and the changes I've made and tried to make are relatively minor. Whitewashing is no more tolerable in overviews than anywhere else, so that's no excuse. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If we were against discussion then we wouldn't be talking to you at all. Most of the changes you've tried (and failed) to make are factually wrong, poorly thought through, inappropriate and/or do not reflect the views expressed in the cited sources. But it is your attempts to 'correct' supposed 'whitewashing' that introduces POV into the article. That is the main reason you are continually reverted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

As I've repeatedly pointed out, you're wrong on all counts. While there is much that is good, there's far too much content on this page that is factually wrong, poorly thought through, inappropriate and/or does not reflect the views expressed in the cited sources. Also, I find it more than a little suspicious when you refer to your tag-team as "we", almost as if you co-ordinate your reverts. I've suspected this for a while. Have you let the mask slip? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts? If that were so then other editors would be correcting me, not you. I should also point out that said editors (including me) don't always see eye to eye. If, despite that, we're all reverting your edits (without any co-ordination) that should tell you something about the standard of your contributions. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You're making a lot of leaps there. Far from "all" editors reverting my edits, your tag-team system seems to have stalled recently. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they coordinate anything. Just like you, Bertdrunk and I happen to be on the same side in the NPOV dispute, but we have never discussed anything with each other.--Quality posts here (talk) 02:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say they coordinated, and unlike these two, we three have had a short relationship. Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

In the last few days three different editors (Alfie Gandon, Bertdrunk and I) have added an NPOV warning template to the top of this article. Each time it was removed by the watchers of this page claiming that there is no neutrality dispute. If that's the case, then why are almost all the sections on this talk page about the NPOV dispute?

I've already promised I will take action regarding this dispute by inserting my proposed changes. You can see I've already started work on new sections for this article on my userpage (I encourage all watchers of this page to take a look). If you revert them, which I assume you will, we can discuss the changes further here. If we can't agree on anything during that discussion, we will have a featured article review. That's how the dispute will be solved. Right now it's still ongoing though, which is why the NPOV tag must remain. I will re-add the tag as soon as the page protection ends on 7 January.--Quality posts here (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

You haven't argued a case for the NPOV template and flyby tagging is not encouraged. I can see some dissatisfaction that edits to a stable article have been reverted but I don't see any attempt by those inserting the tag to argue their case. As another editor said in their edit summary you don't take an article every time there is a disagreement. You need to develop an argument on the talk page and if necessary call an RfC to engage other editors ----Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I took at look at your user page and suggest (i) you use a sandbox for drafts (ii) you read WP:RS, most the text you are creating is based on primary sources and would be considered synthesis and/or original research. I think there is a case to expand or modify the article's treatment of indigenous issues - but it needs third party sourcing and it has to be proportional to a summary article. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Yup. One bit that is crying out for indigenous attention is the paragraph that ends "The American colonies were less financially successful than those of the Caribbean, but had large areas of good agricultural land and attracted far larger numbers of English emigrants who preferred their temperate climates." A sentence or two with suitable links (no more. because as Snowded says, it's a summary article) that discusses the fact that the land in question was already inhabited by native American tribes. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

ME

See Middle_East#Criticism_and_usage and the subsequent sections. I know where Southwestern Asia is, because I know where Asia is and I understand cardinal points. It's unclear whether you're using 'Middle East' in its (quite vague) modern meaning, or its contemporary one, which is quite different (if not quite as vague). Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

And South-West Asia is rarely used - per its definition. Middle East is the term used in the press, in most books and articles so the easiest for people to understand. You can always add a footnote if you think there is a serious issue ----Snowded ^TALK 21:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, on some Islands in North Western Europe... Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Not for me, because I don't know where you're talking about. You still haven't addressed the lack of clarity I brought up. Wiki-Ed, just go away. Alfie Gandon (talk) 13:57, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Snowded? Modern or contemporary? Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Try and make a case for a change if you want to engage other editors to engage ----Snowded ^TALK 07:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Tinkering

Hi, WCM. I made changes to reflect that some white colonies had already become independent by the 19th century, I linked articles that hadn't been previously linked, and I removed a reference to an event that occurred after 1914 and is thus out of the chronology for that section. You've also reverted another editor who linked the Canadian rebellions. What part of these edits do you oppose, and why do you describe them as tinkering? Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Please take note, I'm only replying once. Your edits are mainly small changes tinkering with words here and there. When I reverted you it was because they didn't improve the article, you can add grammar Nazi to your list of epithets if you like. I just reverted you again for a similar reason, your "fixes" weren't fixes.

Secondly as I said earlier, your edits have a distinct POV slant and its obvious you have strong views on the legacy of the British Empire, seeking to emphasise what you view as WP:GREATWRONGS. That's good we need people of disparate opinion, however, we shouldn't be imposing our personal views on articles and one of the strengths of a good editor is that their personal opinions aren't discernible from their edits. To be blunt you're failing in that respect.

Finally, your attitude toward other editors sucks. To be brutally frank I feel very disinclined to engage with editors who make every response a personal comment about other editors instead of content. WCM_email 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hard to blame you for only wanting to reply once, seeing as you've signally failed to defend any part of your revert. To top that, you defend your strong views and terrible attitude by ascribing these things to me. Your talk about "personal comments" is really the last straw; my comments above are rancour-free and to the point, in stark contrast to yours. Stop it. Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh please, save the protests of innocence, every response from you accuses other editors of acting with dark motives. Just pack it in. All people care about is maintaining this article at its current high standard. Whilst you continue to scrawl all over it you'll be reverted. Try reading WP:OVERLINK for a start. WCM_email 17:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

"Hi, WCM. I made changes to reflect that some white colonies had already become independent by the 19th century, I linked articles that hadn't been previously linked, and I removed a reference to an event that occurred after 1914 and is thus out of the chronology for that section. You've also reverted another editor who linked the Canadian rebellions. What part of these edits do you oppose, and why do you describe them as tinkering?" - where are the accusations of "dark motives"? Don't you see the irony of your saying I do this with "every response", after coming out with a response like your first above? Alfie Gandon (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

When I started this section, I explained my edit in detail and gave my reasons for making it. I then asked you what part of the edits you opposed. You completely ignored that question, and now you're attempting to debate it (not here obviously, because that's what talk pages are for, and how can you right your great wrongs that way?) in the edit summaries. Please stop. Alfie Gandon (talk) 19:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

That lack of awareness again: The chronology/geography of each section is not strictly applied, so your argument for tinkering with that element is void. Although... if it did then your attempt to make a reference to the US would be out of place. As it is, the subject of this section is the colonies that formed the British Empire at the time and the process by which they evolved into something else. Suggesting that the American War of Independence was part of this process is misleading. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with Alfie Gandon, but WP:GREATWRONGS says "we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources". You seem to be suggesting that the abolition of slavery, the Canadian rebellions of 1837, and the Irish Easter Rising are not covered by any such sources.--Quality posts here (talk) 04:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

That lack of self-awareness again. Your text implies that no white colonies had become independent before this time; mine corrects this. I'm not suggesting any war was part of any process, merely correcting bad history/English. If you want to alter the text to a clearer version, I'm sure I could smile on that. I don't see the logic in referring to the '16 Rising and not the more definitive violence that followed, but I should have known better than to look for that rarity in this discourse. Can you see that you're contradicting yourself with the chronology argument? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

No, you were just making it more complicated - implying a link to something that didn't exist.

I said in my edit summary that the article doesn't come back to Ireland - of course it does - post war - and makes brief reference to the 'definitive violence' you are talking about. So that is covered. If this were an article on Irish history then it would make sense to run events in 1916 through to 1921/2, 1937 etc. But it's not and there's a fairly important event which happened in the middle that is relevant to the subject of this article. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Unconstructive

WCM. I've linked the first mention of Dominion in that section rather than the second, changed the description of Australian and NZ involvement in WWI from an "occasion", and avoided linking Ottoman Empire a second time in one section. What part of this edit do you oppose, and why do you describe it as unconstructive? Alfie Gandon (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

WCM, what part of this edit do you oppose, and why do you describe it as unconstructive? Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I refer you to my previous answer. Have a nice day. WCM_email 02:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

That's not constructive. Alfie Gandon (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Page protection

It's clear there are some major edit wars going on here.....don't see how blocking those involved would help resolve this so have asked for the page to be locked. Best no more reverts as the log is indicating blocks are due.--Moxy (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't have any right to threat any user who wishes to express his opinion, this is just pure nonsense. Bertdrunk (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

First, please take the time to review Wikipedia's core policies. This is not a place for anyone to express their opinions. If you can't grasp that very simple principle you shouldn't be editing at all. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please take the time to review WP:BRD. --Moxy (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The second part of that is very popular here. The third, I've found, not so much. See above. Alfie Gandon (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

If you guys are having problems solving this pls see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.--Moxy (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good step for them to work through - they might learn something about how WP works. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

"Them"? Alfie Gandon (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

"them" is those that don't seem to have a working understanding of the well defined policies, in addition to WP:BRD, check WP:CONPOL WayeMason (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Does that include you? Because I'm fairly bemused at a party to the dispute suddenly standing back and talking about "them". Alfie Gandon (talk) 02:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)