Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:46, 18 November 2010

	British Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 13, 2009.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 24, 2005 Peer review Reviewed April 2, 2007 Good article nominee Listed December 3, 2007 Good article reassessment Delisted November 2, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed December 12, 2008 Peer review Reviewed December 27, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted November 6, 2010 Featured article review Kept Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. British Empire Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Commonwealth This article is within the scope of WikiProject Commonwealth, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Commonwealth of Nations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CommonwealthWikipedia:WikiProject CommonwealthTemplate:WikiProject CommonwealthCommonwealth Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Former countries This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country This article has been marked as needing an infobox. Military history: British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. International relations Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics of the United Kingdom Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Tip: #section links are case-sensitive on most browsers Links from this article with broken #section links : (3x) ], (2x) ] You can remove this template after fixing the problems | FAQ | Report a problem

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Shouldn't electorate of Hanover be considered part of the British empire?

if the Kingdom of Ireland(pre 1800 act of union) is considered a part of the British empire, should also Hanover, as it was ruled by three British monarchs during the 18th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.63.238 (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Ireland didn't make Ireland part of the British Empire, as England/Great Britain just shared a monarchy with it, it was the Irish Free State - which wasn't part of the United Kingdom (like it's predecessor) but was a Dominion of the United Kingdom. Similar with Hanover, it wasn't actually a territory of the United Kingdom, just united under a common-king. Both are much like the Kingdom of Iceland and Denmark between 1918 and 1944. --George2001 16:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

im not talking about the irish free state. Im talking about Ireland before it joined the United Kingdom. It was still part of the British Empire during the 18th century, under the same circumstances at which the electorate of Hanover existed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.63.238 (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It was not the same circumstances at all. Ireland was a crown permanently united with that of England; its parliament was subject to that of Westminster; its chief officials, including its governor were usually Englishmen and were chosen by the British government. The Kingdom of Ireland was, effectively, an English colony. Hanover was a separate state of which the British monarch happened to also be the ruler. Its chief officials were Germans chosen by the elector-king alone, with no input from the elector-king's British advisors. To the extent that it was subject to any higher authority than that of its own elector, it was that of the Emperor, the Diet, and the Reichskammergericht, not the British crown, parliament, or government. The situations are not analogous. john k (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Negative economic impact - new proposition

Based on the feedback, here's a much shortened alternative version of the proposed addition:

Same sources apply. Feedback is welcome. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The trouble is the paragraph is very misleading. Indias wealth increased, it did not decrease. The difference is the rest of the worlds wealth increased more. So in 1700 before the USA was a country to 1940s when the USA had become an economic superpower clearly that has an impact on Indias global wealth in proportion to the rest of the world, yet the whole paragraph is aimed at blaming it on the Empire. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, to be fair to Zuggernaut's point, it's a pretty big fall to be entirely attributable to global growth. Actually, a great many economic historians hold similar views, including right-wing British ones like Niall Ferguson. There could be plenty of sourcing to support such a statement, although we could argue over the precise wording, context, etc. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There may be sources talking about its decline in proportion to global wealth, but it can not be attributed in such a way as though it was completely down to Empire. There is also a problem of why just India? We can not talk in detail about the impact of empire on each nation, there are specific articles covering these things. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

By the way, i do not know how "share of global income" is calculated especially from 300 years ago, do we have figures for what it is today since empire? For example Indias GDP today is just 2.1% of global GDP. If that was higher prior to independence (i dont know if it was because im unsure of how the calculation was done), should we say since independence Indias share of global GDP has declined to 2.1%? BritishWatcher (talk) 19:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have a source per WP:RS and I don't think we'll have a problem with other WP policies for this statement. The environment of this article is more evolved and mature as compared to some of the other articles so stability/edit warring won't be issues if we are able to form a consensus. The question is whether criticism can be handled in this FA. Zuggernaut (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The sources have to be credible and the figures well worked out. Calculations of national and global income, especially variations "caused" by events, are notoriously controversial. Still, if well-sourced, it might be worth a mention. A number of economic historians have made this particular speculation trendy in recent years. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is quoting Angus Maddison. Do we really need to get in to doing the math ourselves when we have a reliable source? Zuggernaut (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The right place for in depth discussion of what happened in India is British Raj. Picking out one country out of the 50? 60? countries of the world that were once in whole or part British territories and then picking out one specific topic (economic impact and relations between the two countries) is just a very odd tangent for the Legacy section to suddenly embark on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Timeline of the economy of India

"1952 - India's economy had a 3.8% share of world income."

"1973 - India's economy was $494.8 billion, which accounted for a 3.1% share of world income."

So for 20 years following independence, India's share of world income declined. It also says..

"India's economy is $3,815.6 billion (purchasing power parity) which accounts for a 6.3% share of world income, the fourth largest in the world in terms of real GDP."

However, i notice purchasing power parity is used rather than nominal GDP. The two things are different and i dont know what calculation Maddison based his original research. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

This is becoming very tiresome. There are three core policies on Misplaced Pages. Zuggernaut appears to have tenuous understanding of one of them - verifiability, but that's not enough. We also have no original research which guards against editors, for example, coming in and synthesising revisionist history. We also have, most importantly, WP:NPOV which governs what sort of verifiable information appears in an article (i.e. in proportion to its relative weighting in the sources). To balance (i.e. NPOV) what he wants to include we would need far more information for India and all the other colonies/dominions, much of which would be speculative counterfactual OR. Such an analysis would take up a vast amount of space in a historical article just to satisfy his desire to communicate a controversial and sensationalist concept. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, Wiki-Ed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick 20:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Zuggernaut may not have the correct sentence, but it isn't OR if there are good, verifiable sources that say it is so. It isn't irrelevant because India was the most important part of the BE. For that reason there wouldn't be a need to "counter-balance" it by reference to other specific parts of the empire. By all means argue about the notability of the sentence, but don't say something is "tiresome" just because you don't happen to agree with it's inclusion. In fact, the only OR above is coming from BW. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not asking for anything ive posted here to be included in the article. His proposal however does seem a bit like WP:Synthesis though. A source saying Indias proportion of global income declined is one thing, but then to follow that statement by "Despite the negative economic impact of the Empire" is clearly a problem. It is suggesting that without the Empire Indias proportion of global income would not have "declined" which is highly questionable. Its obvious as Europe rose up from the ashes of the dark ages and its colonies expanded all over the globe, Indias proportion of income would have fallen. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

For people's interest, Niall Ferguson on the subject : "I did a simple calculation to show the ratio of British per capita income to Indian per capita income over the very long run. It reached its maximum extent in 1979. And in the case of more or less all of Britain’s African colonies, income and equality between Britain and the African countries has vastly increased since independence. You could conclude that if the British had really wanted to impoverish people in developing countries, they would have given them their independence long before, because nothing has impoverished people in sub-Saharan Africa quite like political independence." Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah but India was a rich, old country in the first place, though in bits. However, simple comparison is probably facile as between 1700 and 1900 Britain had firstly an agricultural revolution and secondly, the worlds first Industrial Revolution. Then the USA and other European countris caught up and overtook. Fainites scribs 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

There was no "India" per se, but that aside, I don't understand why Jamesinderbyshire has cited that particular paragraph. It undermines his previous comment - if reliable sources are analysing this in depth (generally they're not - it's counterfactual and most historians avoid that - but let's assume they are) then we would have to represent views such as Ferguson's on sub-Saharan Africa to give it proper weighting. I see no reason why India should be singled out. Some may say it was the most important part of the Empire, but others would identify the US as being the most important - and certainly to-date it has had the most significant effect. And yes it is tiresome - he's effectively trolling - successively setting us up to argue on pointless debates about tweaks to the article. This article was stable for a long time - the talk page was quiet. Now look at it. There's so much more to be done on WP than tinker with FA to appease those who don't understand neutrality. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't citing it to support a POV. You may or may not believe me Wiki-Ed, but I don't have a strong POV on this issue - just trying to get an interesting article. Ferguson is interesting because he is a "right-wing" view on this topic, which has a lot of "left-wing" authors abounding, saying that it was all ghastly and Britain undermined poor old India. I thought other editors here might be interested in a wider scope. Some of this discussion makes me think that there are simplistic POVs around that think we can "prove" something about how bad the BE was. None of which means that India wasn't central. The US really isn't a valid comparison, although it's interesting, because it never had the population, scale or economy to compare with India during British rule. India was a quarter of the imperial population. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 15:23, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes I appreciate you often bring a neutral view to these discussions.

As for Ferguson I had not perceived him to be particularly right wing, but I don't read the Guardian (found reviews via Google) so no surprise there. His perspective is neither David Irving nor Eric Hobsbawn... and I don't believe we should seek to balance the article by including contrasting views (for example of those two authors) when there are plenty of reliable sources - like Ferguson - sitting in the relative centre of the political spectrum and providing consistent and comparatively neutral analysis.

As for the importance of India or the US - the latter was at least as important to the "First British Empire" as the former was to the second. However, the latter has had a more significant and lasting effect on world affairs. The effect of the Empire's legacy on the US is much more important (i.e. notable) for an encyclopedia with a global audience. However, it doesn't get proportionately more coverage than India. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

RHPF - British Raj is the right place for a detailed discussion of this but a summary statement should be alright in BE. Jamesinderbyshire - I don't know what right-wing Fergusonian politics is about but his numbers do make sense given that it takes time to change or even overturn policies for a large country like India. Also, the virtual elimination of large scale famines in post-independent India, the improved health-care and reduced mortality caused the population to boom in that period. Population of Britain was more or less stable by then so I'm not sure what to make of the per-capita comparison. Zuggernaut (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm typing this, but I agree with Zuggernaut. It is fairly well established that the economic effects of the empire were negative and that the economies of the colonial nations were organized to serve British economic interests rather than local ones. All this has a long term legacy that needs to be included in the article and it is surprising that the article makes no mention of any economic effects. And, focusing on India is not out of kilter because India was Britain's main colony (it wasn't referred to as the jewel in the crown for nothing). However, that said, I agree that a comparison between India in 1700 and India in 1947 is misleading because of several reasons. For one, by the early 1700s, the Mughal Empire was beginning its long decline (for independent reasons) and one doesn't have to be a student of history to see what the decline of an empire does to the economy. Secondly, British economic policy is mostly confined to the 1800s when it consolidated its rule over India so attributing the entire decline of India's global income share to its past as a colony is not correct. And, finally, as many comments above assert, the rest of the world changed, at the least it became much larger. Bottom line, the article should include something about the economic effects of the empire but perhaps not in a manner as definitive as zuggernaut's proposed text implies. --RegentsPark (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But surely then it should be a more even-handed view. Whilst it may be true that the economics of empire were organised at a macro level to serve Britain; there is also the view that economic organisation on a micro level improved the standard of living for colonial subjects. I mean, it is extremely complicated. To be simplistic, the vast rail network erected in India directly contributed to an increase in internal market effects on "colonial" Indians, even though the railway network was established not with that motive in mind. So, does one therefore just represent the view of what was intended, or what actually happened. It is also very tricky in "legacy" subject matter to disentangle facts from the post-colonial environment. Personally, by going down this route I think people will be opening up a huge can of worms. The only alternative may be to create a specific article on the economics of empire and then be able to note viewpoints whilst referring to that for greater clarification. ✽ Juniper§ Liege 10:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about this further.... the alternative may be to include an "imperial/empire" caveat. AS in, "Like other economic networks established by empires in history, the colonial territories of Britain were economically subservient, as in India where....." I mean, the way things get phrased is very interesting. In histories of Rome there is very rarely any element of criticism in the economic setup of the empire - at least, in terms of Rome "using" its empire. I think that is what people object too... not the reality of what happened with India (or anywhere else) but the direct criticism that is often implied or even directly stated. As far as I'm concerned, anything about the legacy of the British empire should be written in the same tone as if one were writing about the Roman or Persian or Chinese. ✽ Juniper§ Liege 10:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well beware of that because absence makes the heart grow fonder where empires are concerned. An empire within living memory is an Evil Empire, responsible for all ills. An ancient empire is a wonderful exmple of human endeavour and a lost Golden Age (Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Mughals).Fainites scribs 10:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is generally accepted that the net economic effect of colonization on the colonies is negative. Obviously, this comes with some uncertainty because no one can ever know what would have happened if these countries had not been colonized. (That works both ways though. Would there have been railways in India without the British? Probably, yes. Because railways everywhere were built in those centuries.) However, as I say above, definitive statements of the sort that zuggernaut is proposing are not a good idea. And, any statement should be rooted in a reliable, generally accepted view of empire. The comparison with Rome and Greece is not germane because they don't have the same recency as the colonial empires and are not viewed in a manner similar to the Eurpoean empires of the 18th - 20th centuries by historians. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's precisely my point regarding the empires of Rome or Persia.... the past isn't periodised, humans do that in their conceptions. There is an increasing move among historians to move away from the "period" thinking. Of course, this may be besides the point, but the legacy of Rome directly continues today in language, civics, and roadworking. A number of histories are increasingly looking at this integrated view of the past. If this article is supposed to represent historical viewpoints - what historical viewpoints is it representing? I see no reason why one view of history (which privileges highly critical assessments of colonial empires) should prevail over others. IMO the best historians to source for this type of "legacy" content would be those that write world histories. Anyway, I'm getting off the point here. Recency should really have no bearing upon objectivity and the way the past is approached - and if it does, then obviously it is for subjective reasons. I know of many histories that treat the British Empire in the same way as other empires throughout history. So not "all" historians have a postcolonial viewpoint. And whilst it is true that railways were built during this period all over the world - guess who built them. The construction of railways in Europe and the US during the early to mid 1800s was funded by British money and British investment. In America, Russia, and Northern Europe in particular the British were the ones who funded the construction of railways, just as they did in the empire. Is that a positive economic reflection of empire then? I am also unsure as to what a "generally accepted" viewpoint is in the contemporary world. I dare say there are sufficient histories written that would require a qualification to any statement about the negative economic affects of empire. Remember, we are also talking about a long period of time. The American colonies were generally regarded as immensely successful economically. They come from an earlier period, and India a later - but why should one be previleged over the other? The British Empire is a very different case to something like the French or Spanish - it lasted longer, was larger, and incorporated a far greater variety of economic units, economic management styles, and economic histories. I don't want to sound like an apologist - just that the economic history of the British Empire is a subject in itself - anything about its legacy should really try and avoid any type of value statement imo. ✽ Juniper§ Liege 13:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that anything about legacy should avoid value statements. If it is generally accepted that a empire had a net negative affect on the economies of the colonized, we should state that. What we need to avoid is implicit value statements, because they are usually a means of pushing a POV. Saying that India had a higher share of global income in 1700 than it had in 1947 is an example of an implicit value statement that should be avoided because the only reason to include it is to tar the empire with a broad brush of badness. However, and I don't know if this is supported by reliable sources or not, if it is generally accepted that the empire exploited its colonies to extract resources and used those resources to fuel its own industrial development leaving the economies of the colonies handicapped when they became independent, we should say that as well. Similarly, if it is generally accepted that the railways and other infrastructure legacies of the British Empire are a positive legacy, we should say that as well. Value statements that are generally accepted are fine. Value statements that come out of OR or a desire to push a POV are not. (I really don't think we should be discussing Rome here. Whatever their logic, historians don't treat Roman colonies and British or French colonies the same way. And that should be all that matters.) --RegentsPark (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the issue is that we could find value statements that reflect both sides of the discussion you (two) have just had. Broadly speaking you would (probably) find Marxist historians concentrating on the negative economic effects of imperialism (for those who were conquered) while most of the others would (probably) focus on the positive (and negative) social or political consequences. To some extent we can reflect both views, but for an article with such a broad scope any sort of analysis will cause problems as there simply isn't the space to cover the perspectives in sufficient detail. People have written whole books on the subject you are discussing, but we only have a few hundred words to play with so we have to be careful not to open cans which might contain worms. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a fair and realistic assessment. Thanks. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Sigh

Sigh. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a pity it came to this. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Came to what???hamiltonstone (talk) 05:01, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick retired from wiki, in part because of all the stuff that has happened recently relating to this article and a couple of editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

For everybody's information

This editor was blocked while editing this page. This editor has brought the issue up with the blocking administrator. User_talk:YellowMonkey#Blocked_editor_humbly_requests_explanations. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:48, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you were blocked, you utterly deserved it. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

What a featured article should not have imo

A featured article is the best that wikipedia can offer. Like an article in a very prestigious journal. Would such an article contain a statement like that? Please dont get me wrong. I am not contesting the fact at the moment. The statement is trivial, frivolous and puerile. Please take it off. Or perhaps create a section like British Empire#Myths generated by the British Empire and take it there. Should not be in the lead of a FA. IMO. Bad style.

The line about imperial units is incorrect and misleading, the US is the only major country that uses imperial units that was once a British colony. Please qualify the statement with that.

This article (no hard feelings) deserves an immediate recall from FA status. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The Sun never setting is a famous statement, deserving of the lead.

All British colonies at one point used the imperial system of measurement, whether use it currently of not. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh, it is a famous statement and calling it "trivial, frivolous and puerile" is well, trivial, frivolous and puerile. Instead of game playing on the FA status and lodging the odd rant, how about proposing some properly researched changes or additions? --Snowded 05:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh points out correctly that other than the US, the imperial system of units is not a legacy in most of the other former colonies. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

A lot of them changed in the same period as Britain, but they all used it --Snowded 19:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Given that they don't use it anymore, can it be called a legacy today? Zuggernaut (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1. A legacy should be about things in practice today,
   1. for example you could write that the status of English as one of India's official languages(pl check the exact status) is a British legacy,
   2. or the broad gauge railway tracks at 1676 mm is a British legacy,
   3. but imperial units are obsolete in India and elsewhere. In India since 1956. Ther are used only in the US, so the vague statement is misleading and not factual.
2. The statement "sun doesn't set..." comes across as trivial more tabloid than broadsheet, should not be in the lead but as I said in a section say myths, if it must be there.
3. Please see my comparison of this article with the Mongol Empire article at FARC and please check the number of negative adjectives used about the Mongol Empire which are missing here. Why? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
4. Please editors be to the point and do not use allegations like "game playing" or pass remarks like "rant", please consider this as a informal indication of this editor's dis-comfort. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Imperial units were used throughout the empire and were a legacy. The wording might be tidying up a bit but its not irrelevant. The "Sun doesn't set" statement is one of the famous ones and is pretty accurate. You may not like it, but its far from trivial. Otherwise I'm sorry but I do think you and Zug have been game playing by using different forums rather than the talk page, and if there is a odd rant then I will feel free to point it out. --Snowded 19:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

So broad gauge railways are a legacy, but the measurements (which rounds to a much more sensible 5ft 6in on the Imperial scale) are not? Also, note that the sentence on scales is written in the past tense: "were retained", not "are" retained. As for the Mongol article, did it occur to the naysayers that perhaps that article is not written correctly rather than this one? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

1. I have expressed my dis-comfort for the record.
2. Independence 1947, republic 1950, metrification 1956, do you mean that this article intends to inform that in the few years after independence before metrification was implemented, the Indian republic persisted with the imperial system? Please edit the vague statement. The Imperial system in use in the US is a British colonial legacy would be OK.
3. I disagree with Wikied, the Mongol article is balanced, I did not check whether the negative words used belong to the sources quoted, if they are not then the exact words should be used.
4. Colonial systems continued to be used in the early days of freedom, those that were found useful were maintained others rejected, the broad gauge was not changed the units of measurements were. It is as simple as that. As I mentioned earlier, steel continues to be sold in fractions of the inch converted to mm and rounded up. Tiles measure 300 x 300 or 600 x 600 which are metric approximations of 1' x 1' or 2' x 2', I know because I am old enough to know inches and feet, the new boys won't be able to convert to save their lives.
5. On second thought perhaps the statement could be written thus: The colonial legacy of the imperial system of measurements has been maintained in the USA and also manifests itself in ways like the width of the broad gauge 1676 mm or (5½') used by Indian railways with an appropriate source stating the same.
6. Indians write the date in the form dd-mm-yy, that is a colonial legacy.
7. "Sun doesn't " gives this article the feel of a school essay written by an English school boy in the 19th century, Misplaced Pages is a 21st century encyclopaedia, if you think this statement is decisive, create a myth or lore sub-section and put this statement there.
8. Were a legacy, what kind of construction is that, does this article intend to convey that imperial units were used in the past by British colonies after independence for some years? Isn't that a little contrived?
9. Intransience is bound to lead to acrimony. Being reasonable never hurts. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh, while we are on the subject of being reasonable, would you please read WP:INDENT and apply it. Nearly all your contributions are left margin with multiple bullet points and it makes the page very difficult to follow. Otherwise I am with WIki-Ed on this one --Snowded 07:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have given a list so that replies could be specific. It is a pity that I don't get them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

1) Don't. This is not a forum for your opinion.

2) This article is not about India.

3) The article on the Mongol Empire is not featured. The community disagrees with your opinion.

4) Yes, that's the point.

5) Too specific. Latest edit is sufficient.

6) This article is not about India.

7) This is not a forum for your opinion.

8) No. Everything changes with time; an important point for a historical article.

9) Given the above, we're being far too reasonable.

Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

All the new cites needed

I see more cite tags have been added, so id like to check if some of the sources i find are ok over the next few days as ive no idea if they are considered reliable sources or not.

England annexed the island of Jamaica from the Spanish, and in 1666 succeeded in colonising the Bahamas. ( New Providence being the most populated island of Bahamas) or . The Bahamas later fell to the Spanish/French before being returned to GB rule, i dont know if that needs to be mentioned at the end of that sentence? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

They look good to me, the peoples of the Americas one is edited by a professor of the university of wisconsin, so that might be the best. The other two however are historical documents (as far as I can tell), so also good. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Trumbull's Declaration of Independence

I think its rather eerie that the section about the Thirteen colonies doesn't include the famous painting by John Trumbull: "Declaration if Independence". It is the pure embodiment of the loss of the thirteen colonies and very much a defining moment in British history. Because it marked the loss of the most important parts of the Empire at the time. It much more important than the the surrender of Cornwallis painting.

I agree. If only one picture has to be chosen, it should be the one by John Trumbull. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The Trumbull image represents a defining moment in American history, but the Cornwallis image reflects the moment at which the British truly lost the American colonies. The Cornwallis image also includes both "sides", which the Trumbull image does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)::

I completely disagree. The reason being that the painting reflects Englishmen seeking their right(s) as Englishmen from the British Crown. The painting also depicts the Union Jack and the St. Georges Cross in the background!!! Meaning that we are dealing with British History all the way. True that its "American", but the painting depicts the very moment that the British colonies are about to declare their independence. They were not de facto independent thus still formally British colonies. Therefore its unreasonable to make it "American" when they weren't even Americans at the time. Peace

Two quick points: first, could you please sign your posts on talk pages? In case you don't know , you do this by adding four tildes - ~~~~ - after your comment. It makes it much easier to figure out who's speaking. Second, before we even discuss the relative merits of one image versus the other - the Trumbull image that you are suggesting is lacking source information, which is required for images in FA-level articles. Obviously our opinions differ on which image is more appropriate here - I'll let others weigh in on that - but we can't consider a non-FA-appropriate image for addition, regardless of its "importance". Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected! :D To the point about the source: The painting happens to be a featured picture, which means that it has been approved. I would argue that source information is relevant since it is well known where it is from. Or are you suggesting something else? Musse-kloge (talk) 01:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume you are arguing that the source information is irrelevant? It may seem obvious where it is from, but the source information - where this specific copy of the image is from - is still required. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand correct yet again. My apologies for not making myself clear. Yes I do believe that when one is dealing with such a high profile painting it is almost common knowledge. Thereby making the source information a minor - perhaps insignificant - detail. However I do understand the formality surrounding an FA-article. Musse-kloge (talk) 01:40, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

The Cornwallis painting is more appropriate for an article on the British Empire. The declaration is is key in US history but not British --Snowded 05:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed it because (a) the assertion was not sourced (b) because the assertion is wrong and (c) because we have a more appropriate image already. I didn't even check the image sourcing, but that's a fourth reason not to change. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

No change is needed. present image is far more suitable. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:48, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Arindam Chaudhuri on the British Empire with reference to the CWG

Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri writes the following in his blog. This is a contemporary conception of the BE from the view of natives of former colonies. This article is incomplete without such a flavour (emphasis added)

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Please do post spam or nonsense on the talk page. Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri's blog has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 10:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think that's exactly NPOV. Check out the comments on this indian newspaper article where the British get some nice compliments from random online bloggers if you want.

On topic, no article should have flavour, that leads to a POV. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Prof. Arimdam Chaudhuri has been a member of the Planning Commission of India, and is a notable person. He is not a random online blogger. Please check the internal link which has been provided for the very purpose. This is a well sourced remark. A blog of a notable person is a self-published source, which can be used except to verify claims, for which a third party verification is needed. Please be careful editors before using words like nonsense, please check the facts. Words are here to convey a meaning please do not twist them or use analogies literally. To Arindam imperialist is a derogatory term, the mention of the British Empire brings the same visions as the mention of Nazis bring. This article for obvious historical reasons cannot have a neutral point of view, like an article on a conflict, so each side needs to be represented fairly, so this article's pro-Empire point of view needs to be balanced with what the former/contemporary natives of the (former) colonies perceived it as, just as it quotes imperial sources. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It can have a neutral point of view, and it does. Nowhere does it extoll the greatness and brilliance of the British Empire, so I don't see where this basis of imbalance is coming from. As for analogies, I don't see how the Nazi's relate to the British, Nazi Germany wasn't imperialist or colonialist, and it was way more racially based then the British Empire. I guess you could say they both had a tendency to favour whites over others, but that's as far as it gets. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Imperialist, racist and colonialist that is what a good source calls it, this article should contain such terminology.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is getting silly and a waste of time. personally I think the British Empire, like the English one that preceded it was (like all other Empires including those in India) were an unmitigated disaster. However that is my opinion and it has no place in this article, neither despite his "notability" do the views of Chaudhuri (is the same author whose views are being advocated as objective on Famine in India by the way? If so by bringing attention to the blog above you may have helped sort that article out). This article describes the Empire, it is not a resting place for polemical blogs about a current sporting event. To be honest if this (the pursuit of a narrow Indian Nationalist POV) goes on it will have to go to ANI. I'm also personally disturbed at being put into a position of being on the same side in an argument as British Watcher! --Snowded 12:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

An unmitigated disaster? But what about the broad gauge 5ft 6in railways? Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The professor is talking about the 'Commonwealth of Nations', not the 'British Empire'. GoodDay (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No the professor is referring to the British Empire whose legacy the CWG are. Editors do not threaten with ANI etc., bring specific issues, one problem is that Arindam's article first appeared in a blog, not wp:rs. Today the article has been carried by been carried in a news paper The Pioneer, and The Sunday Indian so it now belongs to a reliable source. Are the above comments relevant now? Please be specific. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read further, his isn't a neutral opinon. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI is the place to go if dealing with tendentious editing. You (Yogesh) seem to think that just because material is sourced it should be put in the article. The material is not relevant per above comments. --Snowded 06:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That stuff would be better placed at 2010 Commonwealth Games & Commonwealth of Nations articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)It is not a blog now. So that matter rests. It is now a reliable source. (2)Arindam refers to the legacy of the BE, as he perceives it. (3) Arindam’s comments are not about a sporting event, but on the Commonwealth one legacy of the British Empire, very pertinent in the legacy section. (4)Please ask editors to explain the content that they wish to bring into this article. Please do not issue threats, or make accusations. If anyone have specific issues please come up with them and if they are reasonable they will be complied with right away, just like the indent issue was. One should be on the side of truth and not worry who is standing by ones side. (5)This article has a legacy section; can Arindam’s comments be included there? (6)If it cannot can we have a better one? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read his opinons further. Heck, I don't think it'll end the world, if its added to the article. However, make sure you get a consensus first, before adding. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any insertion based on this issue. This guys view is not notable for the section or this article. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I really fail to see what material about current indian nationalism has top do wiiht an empire that ceased to exsit 50 years ago. It may have a place in the page about contoversies associated wiht the commonwealth games (by the way I agree with him the whole thing is a pointless anachorism that should be closed down). Aslo how is it not a blog now?Slatersteven (talk) 17:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lol i have just looked at this new reliable source. I couldnt help but notice that in his second sentence it says "and the Sun has long set on the Empire,". Rather interesting those words were used and maybe something to do with the "sun never sets on the British Empire" phrase that Yogesh wants removed from the introduction and placed in some myth section because it isnt notable. The irony :\ BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant that the said lines are not serious, they impart a frivolous character to the article. I have never alleged that the phrase is not used. I wonder why the sarcasm in Arindam's comment does not get across. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Pointy citation needed's

...should stop. But fine, driving on the left side of the road , "Britain's imperial expansion spread the keep left rule over every continent, so that the sun never set on the left hand side of the road. The Indian Empire, Australiasia, and the African colonies all adopted the keep left rule..."

Rather coincidentally, there's that sunset thing. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't contest the statement, my point is that such a statement cheapens this article, perhaps this statement could belong to the myth or lore section. There can be many such lores and legends included in it then. Lead is not the place for it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That statement may well be the definitive statement associated with the British Empire. Sometimes it is still used today! (thank you pitcairn) Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lede is the perfect place for it, its not a myth it was fact and it is one of the common ways in which the Empire is described. --Snowded 12:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have used myth/lore/legend. Let it be in the lead if you want the article to look silly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Half the disputes here would not happen if we read each others edits. This editor had suggested the following text for units: The colonial legacy of the imperial system of measurements has been maintained in the USA and also manifests itself in ways like the width of the broad gauge 1676 mm or (5½') used by Indian railways, but a source that says so has to be found.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've read all edits multiple times, believe me. I object to that, 1) it is unnecessarily specific, 2) no reason to specify Indian broad gauge, broad gauge is present in many countries, 3) the current sentence that imperial units are a legacy is in effect saying exactly the same thing, though with less detail (see 1) ). This is a summary of the entire British Empire, the current text in that section reads almost as a list, and that is about the right weight it deserves. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)The best solution is to quote a reliable contemporary source. (2)Even traces of imperial units are taking their last gasps in such places as the gauge of broad guage, Delhi metro is partly using 1435 mm standard gauge, and don't forget the gauge is measured as 1676 mm and not 5.5'(3)The present statement is ambiguous, unsourced and misleading. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ive no problem with the sentence on imperial measurements being deleted, i dont think its as notable as some of the things that could be put in that section. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to note the proposed bit about broad gauge, it is a really a local Indian legacy most railways in the Empire were Standard Gauge so probable not worth mentioning either. Just as an aside some Imperial units are still used in the United Kingdom so they have not dissapeared completely outside of the US. MilborneOne (talk) 18:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It is a colonial legacy, just as bunglows are, or hill-stations, or the summer vacations that courts take, or the shifting of capitals around, colonial legacy is not something that was practiced in old Blighty but what was practiced in the colonies. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Rather than being in this overview of the British Empire it looks like all this stuff is better in articles on India and Pakistan. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't America sticking to Imperial units an imperial legacy? Just as English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh - the issue of units has been settled per this change Zuggernaut (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not, Imperial units is a colonial legacy in the US like English is. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Conflicts

The article has the statement Political boundaries drawn by the British did not always reflect homogeneous ethnicities or religions, contributing to conflicts in Kashmir, Palestine, Sudan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. I dont have a problem with the British straight line approach causing problems but why are these five singled out for mention. As far as I can see the British didnt set the borders of Kashmir or Sri Lanka. Not sure about Palestine either the entry links to Israeli–Palestinian conflict which is more to do with the UN partition then any British efforts. Most of the current problems with Iraq were caused by British demarcation and that is not mentioned. Suggest that the contributing to conflicts bit be look at again, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 18:47, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about Sudan and Nigeria, but yes, those are not very good examples. I would have raised India/Pakistan as a classic (given that the British mistakenly adopted highly arbitrary borders) and many African examples, as well as Iraq as possibly the best example of a place where line-drawing caused umpteen future conflicts. Israel/Palestine is somewhat fraught as of course the British mandate was an issue but it isn't a good example of the genre. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Redhat informed that the text has been interpreted from a map belonging to an atlas. Shouldn't a more reliable method be followed for a FA? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

At this summary level just saying Africa and Asia would be enough --Snowded 05:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

That statement is the interpretation of a map by an editor, isnt that leaning to wp:or Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and editor has changed the words and the statement as corrected is OK but as I think Yogesh is trying to say it needs a reference although I dont know what a map has to do with it. MilborneOne (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a reference for the statements, editor Redhat informed that the statements are based on a map, which belongs to the Atlas cited. isn't that wp:orYogesh Khandke (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

"Westernize"

Regarding the discussion about the causes of the 1857 rebellion taking place at FAR and here, I would propose replacing "westernize" with "a desire for autonomy and attempts to Anglicize India across civil, military and religious domains" as a better summary of the sources. Fainites scribs 21:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I have not been watching the FAR debate can you give us a quick summary and context as your suggested wording sounds like it was invented by a committee and really doesnt make much sense in English. MilborneOne (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

So here's what the change will look like (Fainites, correct me if I'm wrong on this) -

• Current version: "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to the tensions caused by British attempts to Westernise India."
• Proposed revised version: "The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into widespread civil unrest, due in part to a desire for autonomy and tensions arising from attempts to Anglicize India across civil, military and religious domains." (note: I added the italicized part to improve flow). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah thanks. That's about it. Sorry about the "committee effect". A number of editors felt that "westernize" didn't capture the complexity of the causes. Here is part of one of my posts on the source from the FAR. The source says, at various points, "Western legal reform" and "full scale Anglicisation" and "free trade, evangelism, western law and english education". It also mentions modern theories labelling it as "a rural revolt, a Muslim holy war, a Mughal restoration, a Hindu Maratha revival and an Indian national war". . Fainites scribs 22:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hang on, when you say "a number" you mean two editors who have been desperately trying to insert their POV all over the place. Their opinion is not grounds for changing this article. 'Anglicise' sounds similar to 'Anglican' and in this context could misleadingly simplify the sentence when there so many other factors involved. 'Westernise' is well sourced and expansive - it can be used to cover all the points. This is the appropriate sort of language for an overview article. If they want to discuss the causes in detail then they can go and annoy editors on the relevant article instead. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Savarkar has given the cause as "Swadharma (ones own religion) and Swarajay (independence)", would the following be appropriate?

The company did not honour the treaties made with the Indian rulers Jhansi, Satara, Nagpur, Avadh, the rulers of those Indian kingdoms which remained allied to the British would not deal with a double dealing Company and so the British government had to step in. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope that doesn't cover it all. Some of them were fighting to protect privilege and some were fighting to restore the Mughals as well. I was trying to propose a neutral wording which covered all the domains of causes of unrest without labelling it with any one pet theory. I'm not that fussed between "Anglicize" or "westernise", except that I think in the context of the times, Angilcize is more accurate.Fainites scribs 12:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Lets have a reliable source shall we for any phrasing before we change it. I am afraid that I for one have little trust in two editors whose POV has been showing here and elsewhere in multiple edits. --Snowded 13:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrases in quotation marks above are from the source already used. I was simply attempting a slightly more comprehensive summary. (I can see the POV issues by the way). The original discussion is towards the bottom of the FAR review page. Fainites scribs 13:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification and although I suspect that westernisation does not really cover the causes. This is a really a summary article as the individual subjects already have in-depth articles so we should reflect the conclusion from those articles rather then re-invent the wheel. I know Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source but the contents would have to have been reliably sourced. I think we are trying to add to much into what is a summary can I suggest The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into civil unrest against the Company. the detail can then be found in the related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not a bad summary! How about The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which spilled over into civil and religious revolt against the Company. Fainites scribs 19:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dont have a problem with that. MilborneOne (talk) 19:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Fine. Good solution - avoids the analytical bit altogether. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've stuck it in. Fainites scribs 21:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with this. Excellent effort! Zuggernaut (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why religious revolt? The rebellion was notable for the lack of religious fervor (except for some cases in Delhi, one would hardly call religion a defining motif of the Indian rebellion). Also, civil unrest is patently incorrect. The rebellion was military in characteristic. Finally, 'spilled over' is weak. The mutiny of sepoys grew into a revolt against company rule. Perhaps, The end of the Company was precipitated by a mutiny of sepoys against their British commanders, which then grew into a large scale rebellion across north and central India against Company rule--RegentsPark (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Grew into is more accurate than 'spilled over' and 'north and central India' is also more precise. We are avoiding explaining the causes entirely which seems alright since another article can handle that. Both of the last two version work IMO. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by civil conflict. Does it mean civilians were involved in the conflict? Was it a civil war. Not at all. Savarkar's explanation is concise and accurate. Swadharma and swarajya. Could also transliterate into honour and country.

How does it look like?

There is no original research, synthesis, etc. in this quote. An entire chapter in Savarkar' book on the events is deals with the causes which he titles Swadharma and Swarajya. Which as I have stated above transliterates into honour and country. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not very NPOV. After all this, I find myself wondering if we even need reasons. Surely "The mutiny of the native soldiers of the Company conflagrated into a wider conflict which caused the company to be dissolved and the British government to assume direct control" is enough.

I like this last one. Succinct and clear. Though I'd suggest tweaking the wording to: The mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government (conflagrated is not a valid form of conflagration, sepoy is better than native soldier). --RegentsPark (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)Sepoy is a jargon should be avoided, native soldier is exact. (2)Conflagrated is a valid word, past tense and past participle of conflagrate. please see one example of it in use in the title of an article the abstract is also given for understanding the context.

ANALYSIS: Religious Assertion in Malaysia: Constrained or Conflagrated?, Pankaj K Jha, Volume: 33, Issue: 6, Articles, November 2009

For several decades, religion has been a visible and potent force in the domestic politics of Muslim countries. Within Asia, the issue has attracted considerable debate and a good case study of this is Malaysia. Issues of religious conversion, demolition of temples, apostasy, and Islamic state discourse have widened fault lines among different religious communities in Malaysia. While on the one hand the role of the state is seen as being a constraining factor to these divisive tendencies, on the other hand politico-social compulsions have coerced it into acceding to the majoritarian demands. The opposition Islamic political parties and the contradicting interpretations of the constitution and religious texts have aggravated the problem. The global financial crisis has further accentuated the fissures and minority protagonists of majority religious groups have become more assertive. The level of religious sensitivity is not the same as it was before. If it was, we would have no problem. But some people consider certain matters as too sensitive. (Former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi)Fifty years after independence, race and religion remain divisive issues in Malaysia, with the nation at times coming 'close to the brink of disaster'. (Former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh Khandke, did you post the above in error? --RegentsPark (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I like RegentsPark's version. Less emotive wording. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Keep it simple - Regents idea is not that far from what was proposed earlier and Sepoy is the correct term as per the related article so we have The mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. This is a general article about the British Empire if you want to know the detail use the links to the related articles. MilborneOne (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with Regents as well. The actual causes, motivations and participants are too complex and controversial to be successfully summarised in this article. I'm happy with something that mentions military/civil/religious components, or something that mentions none at all. Fainites scribs 19:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RegentsPark with the exception that there are sources clearly stating that the trigger for the mutiny was fueled by religious sentiments. The latest version looks good since the focus here is to explain the demise of EIC. I've updated the article with the latest version. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Regents is the best offerd. After all Indians also faught to preserve company rule.Slatersteven (talk) 17:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have all agreed to leave the hornets nest to dedicated pages.Fainites scribs 20:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

No RegentsPark my comment above is not a mistake. It is an abstract of whose title uses the word conflagrated. One editor had remarked that conflagrated was not a valid word. Therefore I presented an example.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

On the consensus why use jargon? Why not the very easily understood word soldier and with the adjective native to indicate that they were Indian. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No opposition to this suggestion it seems.? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

What suggestion? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Changing sepoy to soldier. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd object on the grounds that the common name of the rebellion is the sepoy mutiny. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sepoy is jargon, it means soldier and has no special or specific meanings. No need to use jargon when a simple easily understood English word conveys the meaning exactly. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's a relevant historical, if not modern, term. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary jargon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I remain quite unconvinced, sorry. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure keep repeating the question will change the consensus on Sepoy. The Sepoy article makes no mention of the term "jargon" and it a contemporary term that is still in use in the Indian Army today. They appears to be no reason not to use it, perhaps we can close this. MilborneOne (talk) 14:46, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Please submit proof that sepoy is a contemporary term in English for soldier, and not an archaic, historical word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. The OED defines Sepoy as a particular kind of soldier: "A native of India employed as a soldier under European, esp. British, discipline," without noting it as archaic or obsolete. There are no sepoys anymore: the Republic of India does very well with soldiers under Indian discipline; but, like hauberk or janissary, it remanins the current word for a bygone military institution.

It is probably worth considering whether we need to specify sepoy on every occasion we use it, or whether soldier will do. But the same applies to, say. cavalry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Abolition of slavery

Under increasing pressure from the British abolitionist movement, the British government enacted the Slave Trade Act in 1807 which abolished the slave trade in the Empire. In 1808, Sierra Leone was designated an official British colony for freed slaves. The Slavery Abolition Act passed in 1833 abolished slavery in the British Empire on 1 August 1834 (with the exception of St. Helena, Ceylon and the territories administered by the East India Company, though these exclusions were later repealed). Under the Act, slaves were granted full emancipation after a period of 4 to 6 years of "apprenticeship". Not mentioned: A quasi-slavery indentured labour, was invented resorted to by the British in place of slavery. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No it wasn't. Land owners may have (re)turned to it after 1833, but as a practice it had existed for centuries. If this belongs anywhere it belongs at the end of the second paragraph on 'America, Africa and the slave trade'. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that accurate? This has not been mentioned. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Early colonies like in the Caribbean and America were built on white indentured labour. As the empire grew, the practice extended. It was a way of emigrating in hope of a new life when you had nothing and no prospects at home and no means of paying your passage. Of course it was open to all sorts of abuses, not the least arising from the fact that the "importer" of indentured labour could then sell them on, and from trickery or force being used to obntain labourers. The indenture had to be signed and legally ratified before you left. The other form was redemptioners who took passage and then had to negotiate their terms on arrival. The great majority of white settlers in the US before the "Revolution" were indentured or redemptioners. Fainites scribs 19:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Scottish Colonies

didn't Scotland have their own independent colonies for a little while in what is today Panama (around that area) before they united with England and her colonies? --24.126.188.244 (talk) 03:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

They tried and failed, which is actually the reason they united with England. It could be included as a sentence in origins if other editors deem it notable. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The Darien Scheme is already mentioned. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:27, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Nova Scotia was originally a Scottish colony but the last time I suggested any merit in mentioning the Scottish foundation of parts of the British Empire it was shot down in flames. Oh and for information the Scots imposed union on the English, something the anglocentric word likes to forget. Justin talk 12:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The scots did what now? Point me to a relevant wikipedia article or something, or I will badger you with my curiosity for all time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

King James VI of Scotland inherited the throne and unified the two monarchies in 1603. Justin talk 13:23, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

He was next in line. Anyway, that's monarchy, what about the individual parliaments (or whatever they were called)? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

A moot point anyway seeing as the comment concerned the fact that the Scottish colonies weren't covered per WP:DUE. The IP made a good point but then its been raised and ignored before. Justin talk 16:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OT: James unified the two monarchies not the two countries. England and Scotland still had separate parliaments and governments. It wasn't until Queen Anne, when the Darien Scheme failed bankrupting Scotland, that the English parliament agreed to bail the Scotts out in return for their uniting with England. Scotland lost their parliament and their government was absorbed into Westminster.

Sepoy

One editor above, has noted that the word sepoy is in contemporary use in the Indian army, admittedly it is but only as a designation of a rank. The sepoy is the junior most rank in the army. Does this article mean to convey that only the junior-most rank in the army rebelled and the others simply twiddled their thumbs? Sepoy is not used as a generic word to denote soldier, not even in Hindi, in Hindi the word Jawan is used. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The article states it as an Indian in European service, which is much more specific then just soldier. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean the Bharat-rakshak.com article quoted by this editor? Where? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Sepoy Chipmunkdavis (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The point made that the word Sepoy is still used in the Indian Army was made in response to your inaccurate suggestion that the word "sepoy" was just jargon. It is twisting things to suggest the responding editor was making some hidden point about rank. Fainites scribs 09:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh the word Sepoy is a historical word, an Anglo-Indian word which means soldier, a wikipedia article is not a wp:rs, the argument is not that sepoy is wrong, the argument is that it is unnecessary jargon, which has a very different meaning from its current usage say as in the Indian Army. A reader who does not have time and is not aware of jargon would be simply confused. It serves no purpose but to confuse. Native soldier or native troops would be a simple and easily understood alternative. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Disagree it is unnecessary jargon (source for that anyway?), and a person who is unaware of meaning can simply click the wikilink. The alternative would have to be "native troops serving under the British" or some other such long phrase. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 06:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The 1857 mutiny of sepoys grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Could be written as The 1857 mutiny of its native soldiers grew into a wider conflict which ended with the dissolution of the company and the assumption of direct control by the British government. Does that make it too verbose? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sepoy (from sipahi) is the accepted term for the rebels and is the term used by most sources. I see no reason to change it to 'native soldiers'. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see above arguments as evidence for change. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have seen them. 'Unnecessary jargon' has been adequately shown to be an invalid argument. Repeating that is borderline tendentious. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It has not been shown so. wp:te is about editing on article pages and not on talk pages. If you refer to ancient sources, the word sepoy would be common, give evidence of modern sources to prove your point that sepoy is a commonly used contemporary English word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) From WP:TE on how to recognize tendentious editing in yourself: You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

All right. Please give evidence of modern sources to prove that sepoy is a modern English word in common use and not jargon.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's an odd argument. A word is not either in common modern use or jargon. Fainites scribs 20:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Take your pick: Google Books, Google Scholar, Google itself. With over 600,000 results from only sources published in the last 10 years (and even assuming that some are reprints or invalid sources), I think it's safe to say that "sepoy" is a commonly-used term in English. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Quite to the contrary, please see the links, they are (1)Dictionaries (2)Refer to sepoy a rank in the Indian army quite different to the generic sense in which the word is used (3)Refer to the events of 1857. No demonstration of contemperory use of the word in English. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the term so really keep repeating the same questions is disruptive and we should consider the discussion closed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes questions are repeated because they are not answered correctly. The point is that when you use terms which are jargon and write sepoy mutiny you give too much weight to one perspecitve of the events of 1857, which is against wikipedia policy of wp:npov. It is not this editor's fault that editors here are reluctant to use a neutral easily understood and accurate pair of English words, and prefer jargon, other editors are indulging in disruption. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If sources refer to the events of 1857 using Sepoy, then the word passes WP:V. Furthermore, I don't see how the one word gives a perspective either way, and that is because it doesn't. It's just a word, a completely WP:NPOV one. There's no reason for it being jargon than your own opinion. That's all I have to say, thank you. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The use of the word sepoy gives weight to one perspective on the events of 1857, that it was a sepoy mutiny, to make it neutral this reference should be avoided and a neutral non jargon term used. See a reader going through would read, "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great" that is what makes it anti wp:npov, with the statement "1857 started with a mutiny in the camps, and then conflagrated" that would make it neutral, plus another benefit would be avoiding of use of jargon and trouble for a reader to check the link to know what sepoy meant. There is a limit to the power of words to convey thoughts, especially at the hands of a novice like me, if you editors (many of whom are administrators) cannot understand and appreciate, I think I have to give up for the time being at least, some other time, there is lot of it. Remember the largest circulating English paper is Indian, English is going to be more and more non-native. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I request those baring fangs here to give their attention to edits here that prefer unsourced material and remove material that is wp:V and wp:rs, seriously compromising Misplaced Pages standards. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This See a reader going through would read, "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great" makes a lot of assumptions about the readers. It assumes they will have a certain kind of emotive reaction based on certain words. Totally unwarranted in my view. It's almost like some sort of Monty Python parody. Fainites scribs 20:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't know anything about the so-called sepoy mutiny, but reading the sentence I tend to think "rah-rah, sepoys! ..suppressed? damn EIC!" Pfly (talk) 02:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not arguing sepoy vs soldier any more. Just a clarification What I wrote on second thoughts is not what I meant. What I meant to write is that the text reads as "Sepoy mutiny (damn them), supressed oh great", am I hallucinating? Tilting at wind-mills? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The article at many places come across as that. Written like an obituary, even witha a sub-section "The end". It does not have a scholarly treatment such as "...Europe’s expansion into territorial imperialism had much to do with the great economic benefit from collecting resources from colonies, in combination with assuming political control often by military means. Most notably, the “British exploited the political weakness of the Mughal state, and, while military activity was important at various times, the economic and administrative incorporation of local elites was also of crucial significance".." (quoted from wikipedia article Imperialism) I hope editors here understand. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Or like this "This form of imperialism can also be seen in British Columbia, Canada. In the 1840s, the territory of British Columbia was divided into two regions, one space for the native population, and the other for non-natives. The indigenous peoples were often forcibly removed from their homes onto reserves. These actions were “justified by a dominant belief among British colonial officials that land occupied by Native people was not being used efficiently and productively.”..." ibid Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

If editors still feel that I am halucinating and paranoid, then I am being tendentious and I need to stay away from this place.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class British Empire articles
• Top-importance British Empire articles
• All WikiProject British Empire pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Commonwealth of Nations articles
• FA-Class former country articles
• Former country articles without infoboxes
• WikiProject Former countries articles
• FA-Class military history articles
• FA-Class British military history articles
• British military history task force articles
• FA-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• FA-Class International relations articles
• Mid-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles
• FA-Class Politics of the United Kingdom articles
• Mid-importance Politics of the United Kingdom articles