Talk:British Empire
The bibliography was prepared by RJensen for Wikipedia Richard Jensen 22:15, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Maps
I switched it the section to a gallery format to help the visibility some - it does make them smaller, but there is less whitespace. These could always go on a gallery subpage too. Feel free to revert. --Todd Coles 08:58, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
- I'll put the maps in proper place when the main text gets written--I hope this week. Richard Jensen 12:43, 4 September 2007 (CDT)
Rewrite needed?
The article as it stands is misleading and opinionated as well as being inadequate. A total rewrite would seem to be the only possible remedy. Nick Gardner 12:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- yes. Sandy Harris 03:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Definition
"independence was granted to the dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa in the 1920s"?
In what sense, if any, is this true? Politically, it seems to have been understood that dominion status was in fact independence, subject to a few anomalies. Thus the dominions made separate declarations of war in 1914. Legally, there was no difference between a colony and a dominion until the Statute of Westminster 1931. Peter Jackson 09:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- What I was taught in a Canadian high school history class was that the Statute of Westminster marked the end of our colonial status. In WW I, there were Canadian regiments under British generals, but no Canadian generals or divisions; we were a colony contributing to the defense of the Empire. In WW II, there was at least one Canadian general (McNaughton) and separate Canadian divisions. We were an ally. Sandy Harris 03:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
- Isn't unified command common enough? Haven't our forces been serving in Afghanistan and Iraq under American generals? Some people call us an American colony but that's just political rhetoric.
- My great-uncle's war memorial entry refers to a Canadian brigade in WWI. Did they still have the rank of Brigadier-General in those days?
- Think about the Irish Free State. Don't you think after the war of independence they thought they'd achieved it? Peter Jackson 08:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Damage limitation
I did not follow up on my 2009 comment because I did not consider the subject important compared with the many that had not been covered at all. I now think I should have given more weight to the damaging effect of an article of this quality upon CZ's reputation. Some items in the forbiddingly long bibliography may be worth retaining, however.Nick Gardner 21:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at it further I see lots of factual errors. Peter Jackson 10:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are there any objections to the deletion and replacement of the entire article? Nick Gardner 15:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
A possible framework
Having consigned the recital of facts to subpages, the main page could be laid out something like this
- 1. Introduction - Unintended Consequences (how did the Brits acquire the biggest-ever empire without setting out to do so?)
- 2. Influences (what made it possible?)
- 3. Outcomes (what happened?)
- 4. Consequences (how has it affected those involved and others?)
Is this a sensible idea?
- Nick Gardner 21:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)